BACKGROUND: The addition of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) to statin therapy has been shown to reduce cardiovascular events. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of EPA plus statin (EPA+statin) combination therapy compared with statin monotherapy for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Japan.Methods and Results: A Markov model was applied to assess the costs and benefits associated with EPA+statin combination therapy over a projected 30-year period from the perspective of a public healthcare funder in Japan. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), was estimated for primary prevention and secondary prevention of CVD in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Impact on survival and number of events were based on the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of various input parameters on costs and outcomes of treatment. ICER was ¥29.6 million per QALY gained in primary prevention and ¥5.5 million per QALY gained in secondary prevention. The probabilities that EPA+statin combination therapy would be cost-effective compared with statin monotherapy were 39% in primary prevention and 49% in secondary prevention at a cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that EPA was cost-effective in secondary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: EPA+statin combination therapy showed acceptable cost-effectiveness for secondary prevention, but not primary prevention, of CVD in patients with hypercholesterolemia in Japan.
BACKGROUND: The addition of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) to statin therapy has been shown to reduce cardiovascular events. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of EPA plus statin (EPA+statin) combination therapy compared with statin monotherapy for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Japan.Methods and Results: A Markov model was applied to assess the costs and benefits associated with EPA+statin combination therapy over a projected 30-year period from the perspective of a public healthcare funder in Japan. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), was estimated for primary prevention and secondary prevention of CVD in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Impact on survival and number of events were based on the Japan EPALipid Intervention Study. Sensitivity analyses examined the influence of various input parameters on costs and outcomes of treatment. ICER was ¥29.6 million per QALY gained in primary prevention and ¥5.5 million per QALY gained in secondary prevention. The probabilities that EPA+statin combination therapy would be cost-effective compared with statin monotherapy were 39% in primary prevention and 49% in secondary prevention at a cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that EPA was cost-effective in secondary prevention. CONCLUSIONS:EPA+statin combination therapy showed acceptable cost-effectiveness for secondary prevention, but not primary prevention, of CVD in patients with hypercholesterolemia in Japan.