Cost analysis of CYP2C19 genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention patients.

CYP2C19 loss of function (LOF) carriers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased risk of ischemic events when treated with clopidogrel. PCI patients in TAILOR-PCI were randomized to clopidogrel or genotype-guided (GG) therapy in which LOF carriers received ticagrelor and non-carriers clopidogrel. Direct medical costs associated with a GG approach have not been described before. TAILOR-PCI participants for whom direct medical costs were available for the duration from the date of PCI to one-year post PCI were included. Primary cost estimates were obtained from the Mayo Clinic Cost Data Warehouse. There were no differences in direct medical costs between the GG and clopidogrel groups (mean $20,682 versus $19,747, p = 0.11) however total costs were greater in the GG group (mean $21,245 versus $19,891, p = 0.02) which was primarily driven by ticagrelor costs. In conclusion the increased expense of a GG strategy post PCI as compared to clopidogrel for all is primarily driven by the cost of ticagrelor.

Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndromes in Singapore.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a genotype-guided strategy among patients with acute coronary syndromes using a decision-tree model based on the Singapore healthcare payer's perspective over a 1-year time horizon. Three dual antiplatelet strategies were considered: universal clopidogrel, genotype-guided, and universal ticagrelor. The prevalence of loss-of-function alleles was assumed to be 61.7% and model inputs were identified from the literature. Our primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to universal clopidogrel. Both genotype-guided (72,158 SGD/QALY) and universal ticagrelor (82,269 SGD/QALY) were considered cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of SGD 88,991. In our secondary analysis, the ICER for universal ticagrelor was 114,998 SGD/QALY when genotype-guided was taken as a reference. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that genotype-guided was the most cost-effective strategy when the WTP threshold was between SGD 70,000 to 100,000. Until more data are available, our study suggests that funding for a once-off CYP2C19 testing merits a consideration over 1 year of universal ticagrelor.

Comparison of 6-Month Costs Between Oral Antiplatelet Agents Following Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), newer antiplatelet agents prasugrel and ticagrelor have lower rates of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in economic outcomes when comparing these agents in ACS-PCI patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess aggregated costs and medical resource utilization among ACS-PCI patients prescribed prasugrel, ticagrelor, or generic clopidogrel, using a large commercial insurance claims database. METHODS: Costs attributable to any medical and pharmacy service and resource utilization including number of admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency room visits, and office visits over the 180-day postdischarge period were compared. All-cause and cardiovascular health care costs and resource utilization were separately analyzed for patients enrolled in the data over the continuous follow-up (CFU) period, and for patients continuously taking their initial treatment for 6 months (CTX). Potential confounders collected over a 6-month baseline assessment period were controlled for, using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Over the 180-day follow-up, prasugrel and ticagrelor patients underwent fewer admissions (rate ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95) from CFU and RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.89 from CTX) compared with clopidogrel patients. The newer agent cohort incurred more overall health care costs than the generic clopidogrel group, with added costs of $957 (95% CI = $236-$1,725) in the CFU group and $1,122 (95% CI = $455-$1,865) in the CTX group, which were smaller than the increase in all-cause outpatient pharmacy costs associated with the newer agents versus clopidogrel (CFU: $1,175, 95% CI = $1,079-$1,278 and CTX: $1,360, 95% CI = $1,256-$1,487). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the economic outcomes associated with prasugrel and ticagrelor. There were, however, significant correlations between all-cause and cardiovascular-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The higher price of prasugrel and ticagrelor was partially offset by a decrease in hospital admission compared with generic clopidogrel over a 6-month postdischarge period. Aggregated medical costs and resource utilization were not significantly different between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. DiDomenico has received an honorarium from Amgen for preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. Walton has served as a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Merck, Genentech, Primus, Takeda, and Abbott. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Health Economic Analysis of Antiplatelet Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Context of Five Eastern Asian Countries.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The economic outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients are still unclear. We aimed to evaluate the economic outcomes of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. METHODS: A two-phase model consisting of a 1-year decision tree and a lifetime Markov model was used to estimate the economic outcomes. The data from the East Asian subgroup of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) and PHILO studies were used for the calculation of the events rate for ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the first 12 months, whereas the costs were obtained from East Asian sources and utility from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness. RESULTS: Ticagrelor showed the marginal lifetime quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.0050, 0.0091, 0.0107, 0.0050, and 0.0050 in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong compared with clopidogrel, with marginal healthcare costs of (all values in US dollars) $562, $595, $975, $611, and $672, respectively. The marginal cost per QALY gained with ticagrelor was $112,051, $65,692, $91,207, $121,838, and $133,953 from a public healthcare system perspective of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed consistent results. CONCLUSION: Treatment of ACS for 12 months with ticagrelor is not a cost-effective option for the prevention of thrombotic events in East Asia.

An Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Comprehensive MTM Integrated with Point-of-Care Phenotypic and Genetic Testing for U.S. Elderly Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Poor health outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients is an area of concern among policymakers and administrators. In an effort to determine the best strategy to improve outcomes among elderly patients who underwent PCI, several studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with universal use of any one of the antiplatelet drugs indicated for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent PCI. The results have either been in favor of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy or universal use of ticagrelor. However, no study has yet evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-provided face-to-face medication therapy management (MTM) combined with point-of-care genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel for the elderly after PCI. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist integration of MTM with POCP (MTM-POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel combined with MTM (MTM-ticagrelor or MTM-clopidogrel). METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. A hybrid model, consisting of a 1-year decision tree and a 20-year Markov model, was used to simulate a cohort of elderly patients (aged at least 65 years) with ACS who underwent PCI. Treatment strategies available to patients were POCP, POCP-MTM, MTM-clopidogrel, or MTM-ticagrelor. Data used to populate the model were obtained from the PLATO trial and other published studies. Outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for the joint uncertainty around the key parameters of the model. Finally, a benchmark willingness to pay of $50,000-200,000 was considered. RESULTS: The use of PCOP (with dual antiplatelet therapy) resulted in 5.29 QALYs, at a cost of $50,207. MTM-clopidogrel resulted in 5.34 QALYs, at a cost of $50,011. The use of POCP-MTM resulted in 5.36 QALYs, at a cost of $50,270. Finally, MTM-ticagrelor resulted in 5.42 QALYs, at a cost of $53,346. MTM-ticagrelor was found to be cost-effective compared with MTM-clopidogrel or MTM-POCP, irrespective of the willingness to pay. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MTM-ticagrelor was cost-effective when compared with MTM-POCP or MTM-clopidogrel. The transitional probabilities, however, were mostly based on published studies. Analysis based on a prospective randomized clinical study, comparing all the treatment strategies included in this study, is warranted to confirm our findings. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Study concept and design were contributed by Okere and Diaby. Ezendu took the lead in data collection, along with Okere. Data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Okere, Diaby, and Berthe and revised by Okere and Diaby.

Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in contemporary Western European patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving drug-eluting stents: Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis from the BASKET-PROVE cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was only evaluated using TRITON-TIMI 38 event rates. A comparative analysis of both drugs in contemporary European ACS patients is lacking. METHODS: To address this issue, cardiac and bleeding events of 2 "sister" multicenter stent trials, BASKET-PROVE (BP) I with clopidogrel and BPII with prasugrel (for 12months each) were used in a hybrid analysis. Medication costs were 2015 sales prices, event costs modelled for Denmark (DNK), Germany (GER) and Switzerland (SUI) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) by EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. RESULTS: In BPI and II, 1012 and 985 ACS-patients received drug eluting stents, respectively, followed-up for 2years. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel-treated patients had no more major cardiac events (5.2% vs. 6.4%, p=0.422) nor cardiac deaths (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.255), but more major bleedings (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p<0.001) and altogether no difference in QALYs (-0.027 (95%CI: -0.064/0.011)). Prasugrel caused higher total expenditures per patient: 1116.3 (DNK), 1063.5 (GER) and 880.8 (SUI) EURO, respectively. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness was negative for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel with ratios of -45,907 (DNK), -39,909 (GER) and -33,435 (SUI) EURO/QALY gained, making clopidogrel an economically dominant strategy, even after accounting for the non-randomized comparison. CONCLUSION: Findings of this contemporary European ACS-cohort showed markedly lower cardiac event rates than TRITON-TIMI 38 and no significant difference in 2-year QALYs between prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients. At current drug prices, clopidogrel use resulted in an economically dominant treatment strategy in Western European patients.

CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM: Determine whether using CYP2C19 genotype to optimize antiplatelet therapy selection is cost effective over the initial 30 days and 1-year following percutaneous coronary intervention. MATERIALS & METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes and cost across three treatment strategies (universal clopidogrel, universal prasugrel, genotype-guided) in a hypothetical cohort. RESULTS: Base-case scenario results at 30 days indicated that the incremental cost per major cardiovascular or bleeding event avoided for genotype-guided treatment was US$8525 and US$42,198 compared with universal clopidogrel and prasugrel, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that genotype-guided treatment was cost effective over 30 days and 1 year in 62 and 70% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a CYP2C19 genotype-guided approach to antiplatelet therapy could have a positive economic impact by preventing readmissions following percutaneous coronary intervention.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 30-month vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin after drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year reduces late stent thrombosis and ischemic events after drug-eluting stents (DES) but increases risk of bleeding. We hypothesized that extending DAPT from 12 months to 30 months in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after DES is cost-effective. A lifelong decision-analytic model was designed to simulate 2 antiplatelet strategies in event-free ACS patients who had completed 12-month DAPT after DES: aspirin monotherapy (75-162 mg daily) and continuation of DAPT (clopidogrel 75 mg daily plus aspirin 75-162 mg daily) for 18 months. Clinical event rates, direct medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were the primary outcomes from the US healthcare provider perspective. Base-case results showed DAPT continuation gained higher QALYs (8.1769 vs 8.1582 QALYs) at lower cost (USD42 982 vs USD44 063). One-way sensitivity analysis found that base-case QALYs were sensitive to odds ratio (OR) of cardiovascular death with DAPT continuation and base-case cost was sensitive to OR of nonfatal stroke with DAPT continuation. DAPT continuation remained cost-effective when the ORs of nonfatal stroke and cardiovascular death were below 1.241 and 1.188, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, DAPT continuation was the preferred strategy in 74.75% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations at willingness-to-pay threshold of 50 000 USD/QALYs. Continuation of DAPT appears to be cost-effective in ACS patients who were event-free for 12-month DAPT after DES. The cost-effectiveness of DAPT for 30 months was highly subject to the OR of nonfatal stroke and OR of death with DAPT continuation.

A Multicenter Cohort Comparison Study of the Safety, Efficacy, and Cost of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Aneurysm Flow Diverter Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications are among the most feared adverse events in the endovascular treatment of aneurysms, and this is particularly the case for flow diverter devices. Dual antiplatelet therapy has become standard of care; however, the safety, efficacy, and cost profiles of newer antiplatelet agents are not well characterized in the neurovascular context. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and cost of one of these newer agents, ticagrelor, to the most frequently used agent, clopidogrel. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort comparison study design of consecutively treated aneurysms with flow diverter embolization device and treated with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics and risk factors, procedural details, antiplatelet treatment regime, complications, and angiographic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing flow diverter device deployment and treatment with ticagrelor were compared to 53 patients undergoing flow diversion and treatment with clopidogrel. The patients' age, sex, smoking status, aneurismal morphology and size, and procedural details did not differ between the 2 groups; neither did the rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, angiographical, and functional outcomes. Ticagrelor was more expensive when compared to clopidogrel. CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor is a safe and effective agent for prevention of thromboembolic complications following flow diverter deployment when compared to clopidogrel. However, ticagrelor remains significantly more expensive than clopidogrel, and, thus, we would advise ticagrelor be reserved for patients who are hyporesponsive to clopidogrel.

Policy objective of generic medicines from the investment perspective: The case of clopidogrel.

The objective of generic drug policies in most countries is defined from a disinvestment perspective: reduction in expenditures without compromising health outcomes. However, in countries with restricted access of patients to original patented drugs, the objective of generic drug policies can also be defined from an investment perspective: health gain by improved patient access without need for additional health budget. This study examines the investment aspect of generic medicines by analyzing clopidogrel utilization in European countries between 2004 and 2014 using multilevel panel data models. We find that clopidogrel consumption was strongly affected by affordability constraints before the generic entry around 2009, but this effect decayed by 2014. After controlling for other variables, utilization had a substantially larger trend increase in lower-income European countries than in the higher-income ones. Generic entry increased clopidogrel consumption only in lower- and average-income countries but not in the highest-income ones. An earlier generic entry was associated with a larger effect. The case of clopidogrel indicates that the entrance of generics may increase patient access to effective medicines, most notably in lower-income countries, thereby reducing inequalities between European patients. Policymakers should also consider this investment aspect of generic medicines when designing pharmaceutical policies.

The budget impact of using enteric-coated aspirin 325 mg + immediate-release omeprazole 40 mg to prevent recurrent cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVE: Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) is commonly used for secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events, but may be associated with gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, which can reduce adherence. Use of ASA co-therapy with proton pump inhibitors in patients at risk may be suboptimal. PA32540 (Yosprala™) is a coordinated-delivery tablet combining EC-ASA 325 mg and immediate-release omeprazole 40 mg. The objective of this flexible budget impact model was to project the financial consequences of introducing PA32540 325 mg/40 mg to prevent recurrent CV events, while reducing ASA-associated GI events in US adults. METHODS: A Markov Model was employed to estimate health state transitions associated with ASA 75-325 mg, ASA 75-325 mg + generic delayed-release omeprazole 40 mg, PA32540, or clopidogrel 75 mg to prevent recurrent CV events. Health states included ulcers, GI bleeding, CV events, and death. Model inputs included demographics, treatment dosages, treatment costs, adverse GI and CV events, and premature death. Data from peer-reviewed literature and censuses enabled appropriate allocation of CV and GI disease prevalence and mortality. The PA32540 non-adherence rate was conservatively set at 20%. PA32540 market share was set to 50%. RESULTS: The model projected annual savings of $81.0 million to $190.9 million within 1-5 years after PA32540 introduction to the plan, which included 134,558 members at risk for recurrent CV events. These values translate into savings of $602 (year 5) to $1,419 (year 1) per patient per year, and $81 (year 5) to $191 (year 1) per member per year. These values were robust to variations in parameters under a deterministic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: PA32540 use to prevent recurrent CV events was associated with cost reductions in each year examined with the model. From a health plan perspective, PA32540 is likely to have a net overall effect, resulting in significant cost savings.

Latin American Clinical Epidemiology Network Series - Paper 8: Ticagrelor was cost-effective vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome in Chile.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of ticagrelor as a substitute for clopidogrel for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome in Chile. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model: Safety and effectiveness data of ticagrelor were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Costs are expressed in Chilean pesos (CLP) as of 2013. The evaluation was conducted from the payer standpoint. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis comprising discount rates and national cost variability was done. A budget impact analysis estimated for 2015 was conducted to calculate the total cost for both treatments. RESULTS: The ICER with a discount rate of 6% for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel was CLP 4,893,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (=9,689 US$). In the budget impact analysis for the baseline scenario, considering 100% of treatment, coverage, and adherence, ticagrelor represented an additional cost of CLP 5,233,854,272, for 979 QALYs gained compared with clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor is cost-effective in comparison with clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome. These findings are similar to those reported in other international cost-effectiveness studies.

CYP2C19 LOF and GOF-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 loss-of-function and gain-of-function allele guided (LOF/GOF-guided) antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A life-long decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of three strategies: universal clopidogrel (75 mg daily), universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel 10 mg daily or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily), and LOF/GOF-guided therapy (LOF/GOF allele carriers receiving alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, wild-type patients receiving clopidogrel). Model outcomes included clinical event rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs from perspective of US healthcare provider. RESULTS: Base-case analysis found nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.62%) and stent thrombosis (1.2%) to be the lowest in universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor arm, whereas nonfatal stroke (0.72%), cardiovascular death (2.42%), and major bleeding (2.73%) were lowest in LOF/GOF-guided group. LOF/GOF-guided arm gained the highest QALYs (7.5301 QALYs) at lowest life-long cost (USD 76,450). One-way sensitivity analysis showed base-case results were subject to the hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in carriers versus non-carriers of LOF allele and hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in non-carriers of LOF allele versus general patients. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, LOF/GOF-guided therapy, universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, and universal clopidogrel were the preferred strategy (willingness-to-pay threshold = 50,000 USD/QALY) in 99.07%, 0.04%, and 0.89% of time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using both CYP2C19 GOF and LOF alleles to select antiplatelet therapy appears to be the preferred antiplatelet strategy over universal clopidogrel and universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients with PCI.

Early Cessation of Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors Among Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the TRANSLATE-ACS Study (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome).

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) therapy for 1 year postacute myocardial infarction; yet, early cessation of therapy occurs frequently in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 11 858 acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention discharged alive on ADPri therapy from 233 United States TRANSLATE-ACS study (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) participating hospitals to determine the prevalence of early ADPri cessation (within 1 year), patient-reported reasons for cessation, and associated risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Overall, 2514 (21.2%) of percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients stopped ADPri by 1 year postmyocardial infarction; the median time from discharge to cessation was 200.5 days (25th, 75th percentiles: 71, 340). Among those with early ADPri cessation, 53.9% received drug-eluting stents and had a median duration of 301 treatment days (25th, 75th percentiles: 137, 353); 33.3% of drug-eluting stent patients stopped treatment within 6 months compared with 64.2% of bare metal stent patients. Those discharged on prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) had a slightly higher likelihood of early ADPri cessation (23.2% versus 21.0%; P=0.03; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.40). Patient-reported reasons for early ADPri cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation (54%), as well as patient self-discontinuation, because of cost (19%), medication side effects (9%), and procedural interruption (10%). Using a time-dependent covariate model, early cessation of ADPri therapy was associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.65; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 percutaneous coronary intervention-treated myocardial infarction patients stopped ADPri treatment within 1 year. Early cessation was associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular event risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

[Budget impact analysis of antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome after coronary artery bypass surgery]. / Analiz «vliyaniya na byudzhet¼ primeneniya antitrombotsitarnoi terapii tikagrelorom i klopidogrelom u patsientov s ostrym koronarnym sindromom, perenesshikh operatsiyu koronarnogo shuntirovaniya.

AIM: Clinical and economic examinations were made to study whether it is appropriate to use antiplatelet therapy (APT) with ticagrelor in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus a combination of clopidogrel and ASA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A budget impact analysis was used. Data on the efficiency and safety of APT were taken from a relevant analysis in the subgroups of the randomized controlled trial PLATO. Direct medical cost due to APT and expenses on therapy for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and massive bleeding, and those on medical care for patients dying from cardiovascular events and other causes, as well as indirect cost - gross domestic product (GDP) losses due to untimely death, were taken into account. The findings were assessed from the perspectives of society. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that direct medical costs per patient following CABS, both in case of calculation based on the recorded price for ticagrelor and on the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, and based on the auction prices for comparison agents proved to be lower when clopidogrel was administered because of the higher cost of ticagrelor-based APT. At the same time GDP losses due to untimely death, as calculated per patient with ACS during post-CABS therapy with clopidogrel + ASA, were more than twice above average losses per patient taking ticagrelor in combination with ACA (107,122 and 221,645 rubles, respectively). From the registered price for ticagrelor and the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, the total costs per patient with ACS following CABS were lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with clopidogrel in combination with ASA (210,092 and 273,257 rubles per year, respectively; the cost savings were 63,165 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was administered). On the basis of the auction prices for comparison drugs, the total costs per patient with ACS after CABS proved to be lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with brand name clopidogrel in combination with ASA (201,018 and 293,982 rubles per patients year, respectively; the cost savings were 92,963 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was used). CONCLUSION: The use of ticagrelor in combination with ASA ensures resource savings to treat ACS patients undergoing CABS as compared with a regiment including a combination of clopidogrel and ASA.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Clopidogrel for Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in China.

INTRODUCTION: There are a number of economic evaluation studies of clopidogrel for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) published from the perspective of multiple countries in recent years. However, relevant research is quite limited in China. We aimed to estimate the long-term cost effectiveness for up to 1-year treatment with clopidogrel plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA alone for NSTEACS from the public payer perspective in China. METHODS: This analysis used a Markov model to simulate a cohort of patients for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost for lifetime horizon. Based on the primary event rates, adherence rate, and mortality derived from the CURE trial, hazard functions obtained from published literature were used to extrapolate the overall survival to lifetime horizon. Resource utilization, hospitalization, medication costs, and utility values were estimated from official reports, published literature, and analysis of the patient-level insurance data in China. To assess the impact of parameters' uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results, one-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken for key parameters, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted using the Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The therapy of clopidogrel plus ASA is a cost-effective option in comparison with ASA alone for the treatment of NSTEACS in China, leading to 0.0548 life years (LYs) and 0.0518 QALYs gained per patient. From the public payer perspective in China, clopidogrel plus ASA is associated with an incremental cost of 43,340 China Yuan (CNY) per QALY gained and 41,030 CNY per LY gained (discounting at 3.5% per year). PSA results demonstrated that 88% of simulations were lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold of 150,721 CYN per QALY gained. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, results are most sensitive to price of clopidogrel, but remain well below this threshold. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that treatment with clopidogrel plus ASA for up to 1 year for patients with NSTEACS is cost effective in the local context of China from a public payers' perspective. FUNDING: Sanofi China.

Rationale and design of the Affordability and Real-world Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness after Myocardial Infarction Study (ARTEMIS): A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor copayment reduction after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction (MI) can reduce risks of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, and stroke), yet medication persistence is suboptimal. Although copayment cost has been implicated as a factor influencing medication persistence, it remains unclear whether reducing or eliminating these costs can improve medication persistence and/or downstream clinical outcomes. DESIGN: ARTEMIS is a multicenter, cluster-randomized clinical trial designed to examine whether eliminating patient copayment for P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy affects medication persistence and clinical outcomes. We will enroll approximately 11,000 patients hospitalized for acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation MI at 300 hospitals. Choice and duration of treatment with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor will be determined by the treating physician. Hospitals randomized to the copayment intervention will provide vouchers to cover patients' copayments for their P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for up to 1 year after discharge. The coprimary end points are 1-year P2Y12 receptor inhibitor persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points include choice of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, patient-reported outcomes, and postdischarge cost of care. CONCLUSION: ARTEMIS will be the largest randomized assessment of a medication copayment reduction intervention on medication persistence, clinical outcomes, treatment selection, and cost of care after acute MI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalized antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenetic-guided (PG-guided) and platelet reactivity testing-guided antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was simulated including four antiplatelet strategies: universal clopidogrel 75 mg daily, universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor), PG-guided therapy, and platelet reactivity testing-guided therapy. RESULTS: PG-guided therapy was the preferred option with lowest cost (US$75,208) and highest quality-adjusted life years gained (7.6249 quality-adjusted life years). The base-case results were robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: PG-guided antiplatelet therapy showed the highest probability to be preferred antiplatelet strategy for acute coronary syndrome patients with percutaneous coronary intervention.

Comparative resource utilization and costs for patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel.

PURPOSE: Results of a study of bleeding events and other inhospital outcomes with the use of clopidogrel versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are reported. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data on adults hospitalized for ACS, managed with PCI, and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel during a two-year period were extracted from a large hospital claims database. Bleeding rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs during the index hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 75,297 patients who received clopidogrel and 9,477 who received prasugrel. The unadjusted bleeding rates were 5.7% with clopidogrel use and 3.2% with prasugrel use (p < 0.0001). After propensity score stratification to adjust for selection bias, rates of bleeding events were not significantly different between clopidogrel- and prasugrel-treated patients (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.02; p = 0.0949). The adjusted mean ± S.D. hospital LOS was 0.22 day lower (95% CI, 0.15-0.28; p < 0.001) with the use of prasugrel versus clopidogrel, and adjusted total mean hospital costs were $375 less for prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: After adjustments for demographic and clinical characteristics, rates of inhospital bleeding in patients who received prasugrel and those who received clopidogrel were not significantly different. The adjusted analyses showed that the mean hospital LOS was shorter and total mean hospital costs were lower for patients treated with prasugrel.