Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Acute Myocardial Infarction in India: A Modeling Study

Global Heart ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itamar Megiddo ◽  
Susmita Chatterjee ◽  
Arindam Nandi ◽  
Ramanan Laxminarayan
2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Tea ◽  
Marc Bonaca ◽  
Chekrallah Chamandi ◽  
Marie-Christine Iliou ◽  
Thibaut Lhermusier ◽  
...  

Background Full secondary prevention medication regimen is often under-prescribed after acute myocardial infarction. Design The purpose of this study was to analyse the relationship between prescription of appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge and long-term clinical outcomes according to risk level defined by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS-2P) after acute myocardial infarction. Methods We used data from the 2010 French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) registry, including 4169 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units in France. Level of risk was stratified in three groups using the TRS-2P score: group 1 (low-risk; TRS-2P=0/1); group 2 (intermediate-risk; TRS-2P=2); and group 3 (high-risk; TRS-2P≥3). Appropriate secondary prevention treatment was defined according to the latest guidelines (dual antiplatelet therapy and moderate/high dose statins for all; new-P2Y12 inhibitors, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor-blockers and beta-blockers as indicated). Results Prevalence of groups 1, 2 and 3 was 46%, 25% and 29% respectively. Appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge was used in 39.5%, 37% and 28% of each group, respectively. After multivariate adjustment, evidence-based treatments at discharge were associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (death, re-myocardial infarction or stroke) at five years especially in high-risk patients: hazard ratio = 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.59–1.12, p = 0.21) in group 1, 0.74 (0.54–1.01; p = 0.06) in group 2, and 0.64 (0.52–0.79, p < 0.001) in group 3. Conclusions Use of appropriate secondary prevention treatment at discharge was inversely correlated with patient risk. The increased hazard related to lack of prescription of recommended medications was much larger in high-risk patients. Specific efforts should be directed at better prescription of recommended treatment, particularly in high-risk patients.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-416
Author(s):  
Christian Juhl Terkelsen ◽  
Jens Flensted Lassen ◽  
Bjarne Linde Nørgaard ◽  
Torsten Toftegaard Nielsen ◽  
Henning Rud Andersen

In a recent publication in the “International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care” (7), Kildemoes and Kristiansen claim to address “Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce the thrombolytic delay for acute myocardial infarction.” Their study is based on a “Master of Public Health Assessment” thesis published by Kildemoes in the year 2001 (6). Three years ago, the author was informed that several of her assumptions were incorrect. In this letter, we will address six of the erroneous assumptions made by Kildemoes and Kristiansen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document