Why the study?
To estimate the budget impact resulting from reducing heart failure incidence through the introduction of icosapent ethyl to the Spanish healthcare system.
Does icosapent ethyl reduce healthcare costs by preventing heart failure in patients with established cardiovascular disease?
Does icosapent ethyl reduce healthcare costs by preventing heart failure in patients with established cardiovascular disease?
The introduction of icosapent ethyl for patients with established cardiovascular disease in Spain is projected to be cost-saving over 5 years due to the prevention of heart failure hospitalizations.
May support cost offsets via icosapent ethyl in high-risk Spanish patients; leaves open prospective validation of HF reduction.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the budget impact resulting from reducing heart failure incidence through the introduction of icosapent ethyl to the Spanish healthcare system. METHODS: A cost-offset model was developed to estimate the budget impact resulting from introducing icosapent ethyl in Spanish hospitals in patients at high risk for cardiovascular diseases with established cardiovascular disease. Population and cost inputs were sourced from Spanish databases and clinically validated published literature. Clinical inputs were sourced from clinical trials or clinically validated published literature. The comparator was best supportive care, consisting of background statin with or without ezetimibe therapy, which reflects current treatments used in Spanish centers for the target population. RESULTS: Over 5 years, icosapent ethyl prevented 383 heart failures, corresponding to 1722 total days spent in hospital. This resulted in cost savings of €2 469 888 (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the use of icosapent ethyl in patients at high risk for cardiovascular diseases with established cardiovascular disease will result in cost savings in Spanish hospitals, as the benefits of preventing heart failure outweigh the acquisition costs of icosapent ethyl.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tilley et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: