Abstract 26: Scenario Analyses of Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl (IE)–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) showed that patients with elevated baseline triglyceride and well controlled LDL-C levels on statins had a 30% lower risk of first and recurrent ischemic events, including cardiovascular death, in those who received 2 g of IE twice daily compared to placebo. In this study, we conducted scenario analyses of lifetime cost-effectiveness (CE) of IE compared with standard care (SC) alone. Methods: We applied treatment effects from REDUCE-IT, health care costs from national sources, and costs for IE of $4.16 a day and conducted a combination CE analysis utilizing patient level in-trial cost and clinical outcomes and long-term costs, events, and life expectancy derived from Markov simulation models. The model projected lifetime health care costs, cardiovascular events, survival, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for IE versus SC in eligible patients from a payer perspective. Scenario analyses included lifetime extension of in-trial base case and other four cases. In the lifetime base case, IE adherence and treatment effects would be assumed to reduce linearly beginning after the trial period and extending to 20 years post baseline. In the best case, patients in the IE group would adhere to treatment persisting for the rest of their lives. In the worst case, patients in the treatment group would stop adhering to IE immediately after the trial period. In the fourth scenario, patients would continue to take treatment drug but the effect of the drug would decrease effectiveness over 15 years. In the fifth scenario, patients in the treatment group would have disutility from taking IE. Results: The QALYs for IE and SC were 3.34 and 3.27 in-trial and 11.61 and 11.35 lifetime, respectively. Without background cost, the mean costs for IE and SC in-trial were $23,926 and $24,563 and lifetime $87,077 and $88,912, respectively. IE was a dominant strategy, in-trial 73.2% and lifetime 71.6% of simulations. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 91.9% of simulations indicated that IE would be cost-effective (i.e., below $50,000 per QALY gained). In the lifetime base case, the probability of CE at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 threshold was 91.6%, 92.6%, and 93.2% of simulations, respectively. In the best case, the probability that IE was cost-effective was 98.4%, 99.0%, and 99.3% at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained thresholds, respectively. In the worst case scenario, the probability that IE was cost-effective was 88.1%, 89.4%, and 90.5% at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained , respectively. Similar results were shown in the fourth and fifth scenarios. Conclusions: Icosapent ethyl at a cost of $4.16/day was shown to be cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 per QALY, and a dominant strategy in all post trial persistence-of-IE-effect scenarios.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».