ArticleBMC health services research2025
Expected value of implementation of icosapent ethyl in Sweden.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCardiovascular disease poses a significant health and economic challenge in Europe, yet the adoption of novel cost-effective treatments like icosapent ethyl remains limited. This study aims to estimate the absolute and relative value of eliminating suboptimal implementation of icosapent ethyl in Sweden.
methodsThis study estimates the effects of optimal and actual implementation of icosapent ethyl in Sweden with a five-year perspective by combining available cost-effectiveness evidence with epidemiology data from the Swedeheart registry and Swedish health authorities. The implementation analysis is based on the expected value of perfect implementation framework which estimates the value of increasing implementation from the current level of prescriptions up to an optimal level, where 80% of patients with indication for icosapent ethyl receives it. FINDINGS AND
interpretationThe results provide an upper limit of the value that could be gained by improving implementation of icosapent ethyl in five years in Sweden. Optimal implementation of icosapent ethyl in Sweden over five years could prevent 1,228 cardiovascular events, including 99 deaths, while generating a health gain of 3,538 QALYs and net value of implementation of 497 QALYs. Regional differences and delays in implementation play a major role in the suboptimal uptake of care. Enhancing implementation strategies could lead to additional gains in QALYs and significantly reduce CV events and healthcare costs.
conclusionThere is significant health, QALY and monetary gains in ensuring improved implementation of icosapent ethyl in Sweden. There is a need for tailored interventions to address factors influencing prescribing practices. However, challenges remain with a lack of clear national or local guidelines. By decreasing the large regional variations, one could enhance patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.