DLM: Vitamin E (2001)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

Cost-effective analysis of vitamin E supplementation in patients with coronary artery disease, using data for non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), based on findings of CHAOS study.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Non-fatal AMI
  • Death from CV
  • Non-fatal MI.
Exclusion Criteria:
Description of Study Protocol:
  • Cost estimation: Hypothetical treatment with vitamin E for three years, based on a survey of six cardiologists working in six different public hospitals in Australia
  • Costs in the US after AMI were based on estimations to treat the population in the CHAOS trial
  • Cost of vitamin E was based on retail price.
Data Collection Summary:
Costs of Treatment Vitamin E-Treated Subjects Placebo-Treated Subjects Cost Savings
Australia
$1,748
$1,875
$127
US
$14,995
$15,573   
$578
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Summary of Results:
Treatment Costs Vitamin E Placebo Per Patient Cost Savings
Australia
$1,748
$1,875
$127
US
$14,995
$15,573   
$578

 

Author Conclusion:

The use of vitamin E therapy in patients with angiographically-proven atherosclerosis is cost-saving and cost-effective in the Australian and US settings.

Funding Source:
Industry:
Henkle P/L (Australia), Blackmores (Australia)
Other:
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? N/A
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? ???
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? ???
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? N/A
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? N/A
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? N/A
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? N/A