| Title |
Cost–benefit analysis of the polypill in the primary prevention of myocardial infarction and stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Epidemiology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10654-016-0122-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas J. Wald, Johannes Michiel Luteijn, Joan K. Morris, David Taylor, Peter Oppenheimer |
| Abstract |
The primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is a public health priority. To assess the costs and benefits of a Polypill Prevention Programme using a daily 4-component polypill from age 50 in the UK, we determined the life years gained without a first myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, together with the total service cost (or saving) and the net cost (or saving) per year of life gained without a first MI or stroke. This was estimated on the basis of a 50 % uptake and a previously published 83 % treatment adherence. The total years of life gained without a first MI or stroke in a mature programme is 990,000 each year in the UK. If the cost of the Polypill Prevention Programme were £1 per person per day, the total cost would be £4.76 bn and, given the savings (at 2014 prices) of £2.65 bn arising from the disease prevented, there would be a net cost of £2.11 bn representing a net cost per year of life gained without a first MI or stroke of £2120. The results are robust to sensitivity analyses. A national Polypill Prevention Programme would have a substantial effect in preventing MIs and strokes and be cost-effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,762,294
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#370
of 1,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,429
of 298,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.