Risk of Total Events With Icosapent Ethyl: Can We Reduce It?

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States

BACKGROUND

In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Lipid-Lowering Drugs and Supplements-A Narrative Review

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Since the establishment of the "lipid hypothesis", according to which, cholesterol level is directly correlated to the risk of CVD, many different lipid-lowering agents have been introduced in clinical practice. A majority of these drugs, in addition to their lipid-lowering properties, may also exhibit some anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory activities. This hypothesis was based on the observation that a decrease in lipid levels occurs along with a decrease in inflammation. Insufficient reduction in the inflammation during treatment with lipid-lowering drugs could be one of the explanations for treatment failure and recurrent CVD events. Thus, the aim of this narrative review was to evaluate the anti-inflammatory properties of currently available lipid-lowering medications including statins, ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants (BAS), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, fibrates, omega-3 fatty acids, and niacin, as well as dietary supplements and novel drugs used in modern times.

Treatment With Icosapent Ethyl to Reduce Ischemic Events in Patients With Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From REDUCE-IT PCI

Background

Patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events despite aggressive medical therapy.

Methods and Results

This post hoc analysis focused on the subset of patients with prior PCI enrolled in REDUCE‐IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of icosapent ethyl versus placebo. Icosapent ethyl was added to statins in patients with low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL and fasting triglycerides 135–499 mg/dL. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. There were 8179 patients randomized in REDUCE‐IT followed for a median of 4.9 years, and 3408 (41.7%) of them had a prior PCI with a median follow‐up of 4.8 years. These patients were randomized a median of 2.9 years (11 days to 30.7 years) after PCI. Among patients treated with icosapent ethyl versus placebo, there was a 34% reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58–0.76; P<0.001; number needed to treat^{4.8 years}=12) and a 34% reduction in the key secondary composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56–0.79; P<0.001; NNT^{4.8 years}=19) versus placebo. Similarly, large reductions occurred in total coronary revascularizations and revascularization subtypes. There was also a 39% reduction in total events (rate ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52–0.72; P<0.001).

Conclusions

Among patients treated with statins with elevated triglycerides and a history of prior PCI, icosapent ethyl substantially reduced the risk of recurrent events during an average of ~5 years of follow‐up with a number needed to treat of only 12.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment

Importance

The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness.

Results

A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, -$1788 [95% CI, -$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Statistical methods for composite endpoints

Composite endpoints are commonly used in clinical trials, and time-to-first-event analysis has been the usual standard. Time-to-first-event analysis treats all components of the composite endpoint as having equal severity and is heavily influenced by short-term components. Over the last decade, novel statistical approaches have been introduced to overcome these limitations. We reviewed win ratio analysis, competing risk regression, negative binomial regression, Andersen-Gill regression, and weighted composite endpoint (WCE) analysis. Each method has both advantages and limitations. The advantage of win ratio and WCE analyses is that they take event severity into account by assigning weights to each component of the composite endpoint. These weights should be pre-specified because they strongly influence treatment effect estimates. Negative binomial regression and Andersen-Gill analyses consider all events for each patient -rather than only the first event - and tend to have more statistical power than time-to-first-event analysis. Pre-specified novel statistical methods may enhance our understanding of novel therapy when components vary substantially in severity and timing. These methods consider the specific types of patients, drugs, devices, events, and follow-up duration.

Gaps in Evidence-Based Therapy Use in Insured Patients in the United States With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Evidence‐based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Methods and Results

Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence‐based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high‐intensity statin, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence‐based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high‐intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence‐based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12‐month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence‐based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients.

Conclusions

Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence‐based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

Cardiovascular risk reduction with icosapent ethyl

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Residual risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) persists even among patients with optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Randomized trials attempting to modulate other lipids beyond LDL-C have failed to demonstrate significant reductions in ischemic events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mounting evidence suggests that triglyceride elevation is an independent risk factor for ASCVD. Though trials of triglyceride-lowering therapy in the statin era have failed to provide protection from ASCVD events, subgroup analyses have revealed that those with the highest triglycerides at time of enrollment appeared to receive the greatest clinical benefit. REDUCE-IT was a trial that enrolled patients with high triglycerides despite having goal LDL-C levels on statin therapy. Treatment with icosapent ethyl, a highly purified omega-3 fatty acid (OM3FA), eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester, provided a 25% relative risk reduction for the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.68--0.83; P = 0.00000001), as well as a 30% relative risk reduction in total ischemic events (P = 0.00000000036).

SUMMARY

Icosapent ethyl was rigorously shown to decrease residual risk for cardiovascular events, though the benefits seen were likely because of mechanisms beyond mere triglyceride lowering. Clinical application of icosapent ethyl in this cohort of patients with residual risk is urgently needed.

REDUCE-IT USA: Results From the 3146 Patients Randomized in the United States

BACKGROUND

Some trials have found that patients from the United States derive less benefit than patients enrolled outside the United States. This prespecified REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl - Intervention Trial) subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the degree of benefit of icosapent ethyl in the United States.

METHODS

REDUCE-IT randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with qualifying triglycerides ≥135 and <500 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >40 and ≤100 mg/dL and a history of atherosclerosis or diabetes mellitus to icosapent ethyl 4 g/d or placebo. The primary composite end point was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. The key secondary composite end point was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. A hierarchy was prespecified for examination of individual and composite end points.

RESULTS

A total of 3146 US patients (38.5% of the trial) were randomized and followed for a median of 4.9 years; 32.3% were women and 9.7% were Hispanic. The primary composite end point occurred in 24.7% of placebo-treated patients versus 18.2% of icosapent ethyl-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.80]; P=0.000001); the key secondary composite end point occurred in 16.6% versus 12.1% (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.57-0.83]; P=0.00008). All prespecified hierarchical end points were meaningfully and significantly reduced, including cardiovascular death (6.7% to 4.7%; HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.90]; P=0.007), myocardial infarction (8.8% to 6.7%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56-0.93]; P=0.01), stroke (4.1% to 2.6%; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.93]; P=0.02), and all-cause mortality (9.8% to 7.2%; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]; P=0.004); for all-cause mortality in the US versus non-US patients, Pinteraction=0.02. Safety and tolerability findings were consistent with the full study cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the non-US subgroup showed significant reductions in the primary and key secondary end points, the US subgroup demonstrated particularly robust risk reductions across a variety of individual and composite end points, including all-cause mortality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01492361.