Cost per response analysis of deucravacitinib versus apremilast and first-line biologics among patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economic value of deucravacitinib and apremilast could assist treatment decision-making for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost per response (CPR) for US patients initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: A CPR model using pharmacy and administration costs was developed from a US payer perspective. Response was defined as a 75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at weeks 16 and 24. Long-term response was defined as the cumulative benefit over 52 weeks, measured as area under the curve; subsequent treatment was included. Scenario analyses explored varying the efficacy measure or choices of subsequent treatments and limiting discontinuation. RESULTS: The CPR for deucravacitinib versus apremilast was lower at 16 weeks (difference: -$3796 [95% confidence interval (CI): -$6140 to -$1659]) and 24 weeks (difference: -$12,784 [95% CI: -$16,674 to -$9369]). At 52 weeks, the cost per cumulative benefit was lower for patients who initiated deucravacitinib, regardless of initial treatment period duration (16 or 24 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Scenario analyses found mainly consistent results. This study showed that the CPR is lower when initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among patients with psoriasis initiating apremilast or biologics: a retrospective claims database cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare treatment patterns and healthcare costs for patients with psoriasis who initiate apremilast, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, or interleukin inhibitor. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart to identify propensity score-matched patients initiating apremilast, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or interleukin inhibitors, with 12-month baseline and 24-month follow-up data. Switch, discontinuation, persistence, healthcare resource utilization, and total healthcare costs were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-four-month switch rates were highest for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (32%), followed by apremilast (21%) then interleukin inhibitors (14%). Mean (SD) per-patient-per-month costs for switchers were lowest for apremilast ($4213 [$2304]), higher for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors ($5274 [$2280]), and highest for interleukin inhibitors ($5539 [$2296]; p < .001), primarily attributable to pharmacy costs: $3466 (apremilast), $4432 (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor), and $4721 (interleukin inhibitor). LIMITATIONS: Psoriasis severity is absent from claims data; cost outcomes may be influenced by more severe psoriasis being more costly. CONCLUSION: Switching psoriasis treatment is common and increases over time. Apremilast initiators had lower switch rates and costs compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, despite lower effectiveness reported in previous studies, perhaps indicating patient preference for oral treatment. Additional oral options may be desirable for this population.

Economic Burden of Comorbidities in Patients with Psoriasis in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the comorbidity burden, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (PsO) compared with a matched cohort of the general population without PsO in the USA. METHODS: Comorbidity-related HCRU (incidence rate ratios [IRRs]) and direct medical cost burden (per patient per month [PPPM] 2020 USD) in patients with moderate to severe PsO in the USA, previously apremilast- and biologic-naive, but currently treated, versus the general population were assessed through a retrospective cohort study using IBM (now Merative) MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims data (1 January 2006 to 31 December 2019). Comorbidities included cardiovascular, mental health, pulmonary, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, peripheral vascular, liver, obesity, and other autoimmune disorders. RESULTS: There are increased all-cause HCRU and costs in patients with PsO compared with the general population. These differences (PsO-general population) in HCRU and costs (IRR visits; PPPM) are associated with specific comorbidities, including mental health (1.08; $372), chronic pulmonary disease (1.07; $135), diabetes (1.10; $159), hyperlipidemia (1.13; $203), hypertension (1.13; $305), liver disease (1.21; $360), and obesity (1.12; $145, all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsO experience a higher economic burden of comorbidities than the general population despite using currently available systemic treatments for PsO.

Psoriasis is a disease that causes itchy and painful sores on the skin. People with psoriasis can develop several other diseases, known as comorbidities. These comorbidities include cardiovascular disease, depression, diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and they pose a large economic burden to individuals, households, and society. Existing estimates of this burden are outdated because new treatments have become available for psoriasis. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of comorbidities in people with psoriasis compared with the economic burden in the general population in the USA. Healthcare claims reported in the IBM (now Merative) MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Claims database were used. This study assessed the total number of health-related visits to a doctor's office, hospital, or emergency department and the total costs of these visits in both groups. This study found that people with psoriasis had more health visits and costs because of comorbidities than the general population, despite using advanced treatments for their psoriasis.

Diabetes-Related Complications and Costs in Medicare Beneficiaries with Comorbid Rheumatoid Arthritis and Diabetes Treated with Abatacept Versus Other Targeted DMARDs.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted DMARD (tDMARD) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may increase whole-body insulin sensitivity. Evidence comparing the T2DM-related clinical and economic impact of abatacept versus other tDMARDs is limited. This study compared differences in T2DM-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with RA and T2DM. METHODS: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims (parts A/B/D) to identify patients ≥ 65 age, diagnosed with RA and T2DM, and were either TNFi-experienced (switched from a TNFi to another tDMARD) or tDMARD-naïve, initiating their first tDMARD (abatacept, TNFi, or non-TNFi) between 2010 and 2017. Abatacept users were propensity-score (PS) matched to TNFi and other non-TNFi users separately on baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, T2DM-related HCRU, and costs. Post-index follow-up: until discontinuation of index treatment, disenrollment, death, or end of study period, whichever occurred first. T2DM-related complications and HCRU were assessed. Costs were normalized to per-patient-per-month (PPPM) and inflated to 2019 US$. RESULTS: The TNFi-experienced group included 2169 abatacept/TNFi and 2118 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs; the tDMARD-naïve group included 2667 abatacept/TNFi and 2247 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs. For TNFi-experienced patients, T2DM-related complication rates for inpatient settings PPPM trended lower for abatacept than TNFi (21 vs. 24, p = 0.046) and other non-TNFi groups (21 vs. 26; p < 0.0001). T2DM-related total costs PPPM for TNFi-experienced patients demonstrated lower trends for abatacept than TNFi ($489 vs. $594, p = 0.016) and other non-TNFi users ($493 vs. $606, p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with RA and T2DM who switch to/initiate abatacept as their first tDMARD have directionally lower rates and costs of T2DM-related complications compared with patients switching to/initiating other tDMARDs. Abatacept treatment may help reduce clinical and economic burdens associated with T2DM in patients with RA.

Modification of treatment-sequence model with a customizable number of treatments to better reflect contemporary and future clinical practice in moderate to severe psoriasis.

AIMS: Existing treatment-sequence models for psoriasis are limited by lines of treatments included. We sought to more accurately capture the patient experience with an increasing number of treatments while maintaining the complexity and transparency of current models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted a standard treatment-sequence model for psoriasis with two lines of active treatments followed by best supportive care (BSC). The first line was used to model the targeted treatments for comparison (Biologic A or B). The second line was used potentially to model all treatments (excluding the first-line treatment) before BSC, termed the basket of biologics (BoB). First-line treatment and the BoB were modeled with an induction and maintenance phase. The BoB efficacy was assumed to be the average of all treatments included and the BoB annual discontinuation rate was based on the number of treatments included and their individual annual discontinuation rate. A varying number of treatments in the BoB were tested (1, 5, 10). Model inputs were from published literature. RESULTS: In our example, when the number of treatments in the BoB increased from 1 to 10, the annual discontinuation rate of the BoB dropped from 16.5% to 1.2%. Time on BoB increased from 4.16 to 19.16 years and the time on BSC decreased from 28.28 to 13.29 years. Total costs and quality-adjusted life years increased with an increasing number of treatments in the BoB. LIMITATIONS: The properties of the BoB were simplified in order to maintain the transparency of the model. Results may differ if individual treatments in the BoB are modeled line by line. CONCLUSIONS: Modification with the BoB allows a greater number of treatments within the model, providing a closer reflection of clinical reality, and has implications for evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of psoriasis treatments.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease with no cure that causes itchy and painful plaques and scales, most commonly found on the scalp, trunk, elbows, and knees. A variety of treatments are available that can improve the signs and symptoms of psoriasis. Healthcare payers are interested in the costs, benefits, and risks of treatments for all diseases, including those for psoriasis. These payers often use mathematical models to better understand and compare the value of various treatments. With psoriasis, these models usually assume three lines of active therapy and then a final supportive therapy over a patient's lifetime. However, the average number of therapies patients with psoriasis receive is often greater than three, resulting in them spending most of their time on, and switching among, treatments rather than on best supportive care. Therefore, instead of modeling each line of treatment individually, the researchers proposed a modification to the existing model framework, whereby all subsequent treatments are combined into a single basket. This modification allowed for many treatments to be considered over the lifetime of patients with psoriasis and also maintained the model's complexity. The researchers found that as the amount of time on active therapy increased, the amount of time on supportive therapy decreased, treatment costs increased, and patients spent more time with better quality-of-life. The researchers concluded that the proposed model modification more closely resembles clinical practice than the previous model and would be very useful to healthcare payers in better estimating the value of psoriasis treatments.

Risk and cost of infection-related hospitalizations in medicare beneficiaries with comorbid rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept versus other targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated infection-related hospitalization risk and cost in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced and targeted DMARD (tDMARD) naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that were treated with abatacept, TNFi, or other non-TNFi. METHODS: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims to identify patients ≥65 age, diagnosed with RA, and were either 1) TNFi-experienced, who switched from a TNFi to another tDMARD (subsequent tDMARD claim served as index), or 2) tDMARD naïve (first therapy claim served as index), who initiated either abatacept, TNFi, or non-TNFi as their first tDMARD, between 2010 and 2017. Follow-up ended at the date of disenrollment, death, end of study period, or end of index treatment, whichever occurred first. Infection-related hospitalizations included pneumonia, bacterial respiratory, sepsis, skin and soft tissue, joint or genitourinary infections. A Cox proportional hazard model and two part generalized linear model were developed to estimate adjusted infection-related hospitalization risk and costs. Costs were normalized to per-patient-per-month (PPPM) and inflated to 2019 US$. RESULTS: The infection-related hospitalizations rate was lower during follow-up than during baseline periods for abatacept users, but was reversed for both TNFi and other non-TNFi users in both TNFi-experience and tDMARD naïve (p value < .001 based on Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odds ratios). Infection-related hospitalization PPPM cost was significantly lower in abatacept treated patients compared to TNFi (TNFi-experienced: by $74; tDMARD naïve: $42) and other non-TNFi (TNFi-experienced: by $68; tDMARD naïve: $60). The adjusted infection-related hospitalization risk was significantly higher for RA patients treated with TNFi (TNFi-experienced HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.26-1.75, p < .0001; tDMARD naïve HR:1.59; 95% CI: 1.43-1.77, p < .0001) and other non-TNFi (TNFi-experienced HR:1.46; CI:1.28-1.66; tDMARD naïve HR:1.63; 95% CI: 1.44-1.83) than with abatacept. CONCLUSION: RA Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries who either switched or initiated abatacept have a lower infection-related hospitalization risk and cost compared to patients who switched to or initiated other tDMARDs.

A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis of 2 Trabecular Microbypass Stents at Time of Cataract Surgery in Patients with Mild to Moderate Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To assess, from the Canadian public payer perspective, the cost-utility of implanting iStent Inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) devices in conjunction with cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and visually significant cataract. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using efficacy and safety results of pivotal randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Modeled cohort of patients with OAG (83.1% with mild disease, 16.9% with moderate disease) and visually significant cataract. METHODS: Open-angle glaucoma treatment costs and effects were projected over a 15-year time horizon using a Markov model with Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson glaucoma stages (mild, moderate, advanced, severe or blind) and death as health states. Patients in the mild or moderate OAG health states received implantation of iStent Inject during cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone. On worsening of visual field defect and optic disc damage, patients could receive selective laser trabeculoplasty and trabeculectomy. We measured treatment effect as reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP) and mean medication use and estimated transition probabilities based on efficacy-adjusted visual field mean deviation decline per month. Healthcare resource utilization and utility scores were obtained from the literature. Cost inputs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were derived using the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, expert opinion, medication claims datasets, and Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary medication consumption costs. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of alternative model input values on results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Compared with cataract surgery alone, TBS plus cataract surgery showed a 99% probability of being more effective (+0.023 QALYs; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.004 to 0.044) and a 73.7% probability of being cost-saving (net cost, -C$389.00; 95% CI, -C$1712.00 to C$850.70). In 95% of all simulations, TBS plus cataract surgery showed a cost per QALY of C$62 366 or less. Results were robust in additional sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: iStent Inject TBS implantation during cataract surgery seems to be cost effective for reducing IOP in patients with mild to moderate OAG versus cataract surgery alone.

Comparison of infection-related hospitalization risk and costs in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept or other targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs).

Background: Evidence on the cost and risk of infection-related hospitalizations associated with targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) in patients with RA previously treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is limited. This study compared the risk and cost of infection-related hospitalizations in commercially insured TNFi-experienced RA patients receiving abatacept, TNFi, or another non-TNFi.Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using 2 large insurance claims databases (1 January 2009-30 June 2017). Adult TNFi-experienced RA patients initiating a subsequent tDMARD (initiation date of tDMARD = index date) with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre-index date, and who had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical RA claims on 2 different dates were included. Abatacept was compared to TNFis (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) and other non-TNFis (tocilizumab, rituximab, and tofacitinib). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the adjusted risk for infection-related hospitalization; costs were calculated on a per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis using generalized linear models.Results: More patients in the abatacept cohort had an infection-related hospitalization at baseline (4.5%) vs TNFis (2.0%, p < .0001) and other non-TNFis (3.6%, p = .2619). However, during follow-up abatacept patients had fewer infection-related hospitalizations (abatacept: 2.8%, TNFi: 3.7% and other non-TNFis: 5.2%; p < .05). Regression results indicated that compared to patients on abatacept, patients receiving a TNFi [HR: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.2)] and other non-TNFis [HR: 1.9 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.8)] had a significantly higher risk of infection-related hospitalization. Abatacept PMPM costs were lowest ($0.25 vs $0.39 and $0.43 for TNFi and other non-TNFi respectively). Mean PPPM (95% CI) cost in the follow-up was lower for abatacept compared to TNFi ($73 vs. $115; p = .042), and other non-TNFi ($73 vs. $125; p = .039).Conclusions: There were significantly lower infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs in TNF-experienced RA patients treated with abatacept than TNFis and other non-TNFis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of standalone trabecular micro-bypass stents in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-utility of two trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) implantation vs standard of care (SOC) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the Canadian healthcare setting. METHODS: The deterioration in visual field (VF) defect over a 15-year time horizon was tracked using a Markov model with Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson stages of glaucoma (mild, moderate, advanced, severe/blind) and death as health states. Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials were conducted to estimate the pooled reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication use due to TBS and SOC. The rate of decline in VF loss was adjusted by the extent of IOP reduction to estimate transition probabilities. Healthcare resource utilization, unit costs (2017 CAD), and progression-related utility scores were obtained by literature review, and medication costs with wastage were obtained from IMS Brogan PharmaStat. The impact of parameter and methodological uncertainty on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was examined using probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed an additional reduction of 1.13 medications/patient and an additional decrease in IOP of -1.10 mmHg at 36 months favoring TBS. TBS strongly dominated medication alone, due to higher improvement in quality-of-life (0.068 QALYs), fewer blind eyes (-0.0031), and a decrease in total healthcare costs of C$2,908.3 per patient over the time horizon (C$9,394.1 TBS vs C$12,302.4 medication alone). Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust to the uncertainties in model inputs and assumptions. Time-to-dominance was 44 months (3.7 years). CONCLUSIONS: The TBS procedure was cost-effective over SOC in a 15-year time horizon, with quality-of-life gains.

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in epilepsy: A Spanish perspective.

BACKGROUND: Persistent seizures are associated with physical injury, reduced quality of life, and psychosocial impairment. Perampanel is approved for the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of perampanel as adjunctive therapy to other antiepileptic drugs (AED) compared with AED maintenance therapy alone for the treatment of PGTCS. METHODS: We developed a Markov model for PGTCS where transitions were based on treatment response rates. The analysis was conducted over a 33-year time horizon from the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspectives. Efficacy data were derived from clinical studies. Resource use, market shares, costs, and utilities were obtained from Kantar Health's National Health and Wellness Survey. Drug costs were obtained from the Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis from the NHS perspective, perampanel was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16,557/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to AED maintenance therapy for the treatment of PGTCS. Incremental costs were €5475 and incremental QALYs were 0.33. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were strongly influenced by discounting rate for costs and health effects, with little influence of other parameters, including perampanel cost and utilities. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability of perampanel being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY was 89.3%. From the societal perspective, perampanel provided a cost-savings of €5288 per patient compared with AED maintenance therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that perampanel is likely to be a cost-effective option.

Budget impact of perampanel as adjunctive treatment of uncontrolled partial-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the budget impact (BI) of adopting perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS), with or without secondarily generalized seizures, and the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in patients 12years or older in the United States. METHODS: A BI model was developed to estimate the potential BI of adopting adjunctive perampanel from a US payer (direct costs only) and societal (direct and indirect costs) perspective over a 5-year period. Efficacy data for perampanel and antiepileptic drug (AED) maintenance therapy were obtained from perampanel phase III clinical trials. Drug, direct medical (healthcare provider, emergency room, and hospitalizations), and indirect (productivity loss) costs were obtained from appropriate sources (e.g., AnalySource® Online [wholesale acquisition costs], 2013 Optum Insight Clinformatics Database [market share percentages, direct medical costs per unit], and 2011-2013 National Health and Wellness Survey [NHWS; healthcare resource utilization, overall work impairment, and baseline distribution of patients across the 4 health states]). Mapping of seizure frequency to medical resource utilization and work impairment was obtained from Kantar Health's NHWS. RESULTS: In a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, 660 (0.066%) members ≥12years old had uncontrolled POS (395 [59.8%]) or PGTCS (265 [40.2%]). During the first 5years of adoption of perampanel, absolute BI (including drug, direct medical, and indirect costs) was $852, $2124, $3855, $5318, and $6397, respectively, for a cumulative absolute BI of $18,545. Drug cost was estimated to increase by $13,888, $34,646, $62,863, $86,728, and $104,326, respectively; however, this cost would be mostly offset by decreases in direct medical ($5041, $12,576, $22,818, $31,481, and $37,869, respectively) and indirect ($7995, $19,946, $36,190, $49,929, and $60,060, respectively) costs. Total per-member-per-month cost (drug and direct medical costs) was estimated to increase by $0.0007, $0.0018, $0.0033, $0.0046, and $0.0055 from years 1 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: Based on results of this BI model, increased cost of adopting perampanel in a health plan of 1 million members would be minimal for payers, and societal costs would be close to neutral.

Cost-utility analysis of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with moderate-to-high risk acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is recommended over clopidogrel in poor/intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), reducing the risk of ischemic events. CYP2C19 genetic testing can guide antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of genotype-guided treatment, compared with prasugrel or generic clopidogrel treatment without genotyping, from the US healthcare provider's perspective. METHODS: A decision model was developed to project lifetime economic and humanistic burden associated with clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke and major bleeding) for the three strategies in patients with ACS. Probabilities, costs and age-adjusted quality of life were identified through systematic literature review. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for the treatment strategies, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness outcome. Relative risk of developing myocardial infarction and stroke between patients with and without variant CYP2C19 when receiving clopidogrel were estimated to be 1.34 and 3.66, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Clopidogrel cost USD19,147 and provided 10.03 QALYs versus prasugrel (USD21,425, 10.04 QALYs) and genotype-guided therapy (USD19,231, 10.05 QALYs). The ICUR of genotype-guided therapy compared with clopidogrel was USD4,200. Genotype-guided therapy provided more QALYs at lower costs compared with prasugrel. Results were sensitive to the cost of clopidogrel and relative risk of myocardial infarction and stroke between CYP2C19 variant vs. non-variant. Net monetary benefit curves showed that genotype-guided therapy had at least 70% likelihood of being the most cost-effective alternative at a willingness-to-pay of USD100,000/QALY. In comparison with clopidogrel, prasugrel therapy was more cost-effective with <21% certainty at willingness-to-pay of >USD170,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our modeling analyses suggest that genotype-guided therapy is a cost-effective strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing planned percutaneous coronary intervention.