MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7036839650

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl (IPE) for the Reduction of the Risk of Ischemic Cardiovascular Events in Canada

2023· article· en· W7036839650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboCoronary heart diseaseMyocardial infarctionFormularyProbabilistic logicClinical endpointResidual riskPharmacyDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jean Lachaine,1,2 Jean-Nicolas Charron,2 Jean C Gregoire,3 Robert A Hegele,4 Lawrence A Leiter5 1University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2PeriPharm Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada; 3Institut de cardiologie de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 4Robarts Research Institute, London, ON, Canada; 5Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Jean Lachaine, Faculty of Pharmacy University of Montreal, 2900 Edouard-Montpetit Blvd, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1J4, Canada, Email jean.lachaine@umontreal.caBackground: Despite the use of statins, many patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) have persistent residual risk. In a large Phase III trial (REDUCE-IT), icosapent ethyl (IPE) was shown to reduce the first occurrence of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina.Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis comparing IPE to placebo in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides, from a publicly funded, Canadian healthcare payer perspective, using a time-dependent Markov transition model over a 20-year time horizon. We obtained efficacy and safety data from REDUCE-IT, and costs and utilities from provincial formularies and databases, manufacturer sources, and Canadian literature sources.Results: In the probabilistic base-case analysis, IPE was associated with an incremental cost of $12,523 and an estimated 0.29 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $42,797/QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 and $100,000/QALY gained, there is a probability of 70.4% and 98.8%, respectively, that IPE is a cost-effective strategy over placebo. The deterministic model yielded similar results. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied between $31,823-$70,427/QALY gained. Scenario analyses revealed that extending the timeframe of the model to a lifetime horizon resulted in an ICER of $32,925/QALY gained.Conclusion: IPE represents an important new treatment for the reduction of ischemic CV events in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides. Based on the clinical trial evidence, we found that IPE could be a cost-effective strategy for treating these patients in Canada.Keywords: cardiovascular diseases, icosapent ethyl, IPE, cost-effectiveness, cost per QALY

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→