Table 2:
Characteristics of included studies in the review
| Study/ citation | country | Patient population | Health outcome | Perspective | Time horizon | Research question | Mean or Median age | subgroup | Type of model | Sensitive analysis | Discount rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ademi et.al, 2019 | Australia | The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial | Mortality, Hospitalization, QALY, LYQs | Australian public healthcare system | 20-years | Icosapent + statins vs statins | 64 years | Primary vs secondary prevention | Markov model | Y | 5% |
| Gao et.al, 2019 | Australia | A cohort of Australian patients aged 45 years and over with established CVD | QALY, LYQs | Australian healthcare system | 25-years | Icosapent + statins vs statins | 64 years | - | Markov model | Y | 3% |
| ICER, 2019 | US | adults with established CVD being treated with optimal medical management and patients without known CVD but at high risk for cardiovascular events | QALY, LYQs | health care sector | lifetime time horizon | Icosapent vs statins | 64 years | - | A Markov cohort model | Y | 3% |
| Kodera, et.al 2018 | Japan | The Japan Eicosapentaenoic Acid Lipid Intervention Study | QALY, LYQs | Public healthcare funder | 30-years | Eicosapentaenoic + statins vs statins | 61 years | Primary vs secondary prevention | Markov model | Y | 2% |
| Philip et.al, 2016 | US | QALY | Third-party payer | 5-years | Eicosapentaenoic + statins vs statins | - | secondary prevention | decision analytic model | Y | 3% | |
| Weintraub et.al, 2020 | US | REDUCE-IT PATIENTS | QALY, ICER | Payer | in-trial | Icosapent vs standard care | 64 years | primary vs secondary prevention | - | Y | - |
| Michaeli et.al, 2023 | Germany | Dyslipidemia patients | QALY, LY, ICER | Germany’s healthcare system | 20 years | statin combinations with icosapent ethyl vs statin monotherapy | 63 years | primary vs secondary prevention | Markov cohort model | Y | 3 % |
| Michaeli et.al, 2022 | UK | Dyslipidaemia patients | QALY, LY, ICER | UK’s National Health Service | 20-year time horizon (lifetime) | statin combinations with icosapent ethyl vs statin monotherapy | 63 years | Icosapent ethyl in primary vs secondary prevention: Age < 65 years ≥ 65 years Baseline triglyceride ≥ 200 mg/dL and HDL-C ≤ 35 mg/dL No Yes Baseline LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL No Yes Baseline high-sensitivity CRP ≤ 2 mg/L > 2 mg/LL |
Markov model | Y | 3.5% (±1.5%) |
| Lachaine et.al, 2023 | Canada | Statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides | QALY, ICER | Canadian healthcare payer perspective | 20 years | Icosapent ethyl vs Placebo | Median starting age: Range in REDUCE-IT trial | ------------ | Markov model | Y | 1.5% |
| Weintraub et.al, 2022 | US | Hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease risk factor who were treated or diabetes and at least 1 other with statins. | QALY, LY, ICER | US health care sector perspective | lifetime | Icosapent ethyl vs Standard care | 64 years | age (≥65 vs <65 years), sex, trial recruit-ment cohort (primary vs secondary prevention), baseline diabetes status, baseline serum triglyc-eride level (≥200 vs <200 mg/dL and ≥150 vs <150 mg/dL), and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (≥70 vs <70 mg/dL). | Markov model | Y | 3 % |
| Weintraub et .al, 2024 | US | Statin-stabilized patients were eligible with fasting triglycerides ≥135 and <500 mg/dL and LDL-C> 40 and ≤100 mg/dL | QALY, LY, ICER | US health sector perspective | Lifetime | Icosapent ethyl vs Standard care | aged 65 to 84 years | age (≥65 versus <65 years), sex, primary versus secondary prevention, baseline diabetes, baseline serum triglycerides (≥200 versus <200 mg/dL, and ≥150 versus <150 mg/dL), and baseline LDL-C (≥70 versus <70 mg/dL). | Markov model | Y | 3 % |