Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The antiplatelet agent, cilostazol, is known to reduce the risk of subsequent cerebral infarction. However, the cost effectiveness of such treatment in comparison to aspirin has not been studied.
Methods And Results: A Markov model was developed to calculate the health outcomes and associated costs for 65-year-old patients with cerebral infarction who were treated with 200 mg/day cilostazol or 81 mg/day aspirin. Cilostazol was more effective, but also more expensive than aspirin. Cilostazol would extend quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.64, while increasing life-time costs by approximately Yen 1.1 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cilostazol in comparison with aspirin was estimated to be Yen 1.8 million per QALY.
Conclusions: The use of cilostazol to prevent recurrence of cerebral infarction appears to be cost effective.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circj.70.453 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!