Aspirin with Low-Dose Ticagrelor or with Low-Dose Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention: A Cost per Outcome Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and high ischemic risk poses a significant challenge in clinical practice. The combinations of aspirin with low-dose (LD) ticagrelor or LD rivaroxaban have shown superiority in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with aspirin treatment alone. The comparative value for money of these two regimens remains unexplored. METHODS: We analyzed each regimen's annual cost needed to treat (CNT) by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of each drug. The aNNTs were based on outcome data from PEGASUS TIMI-54 and COMPASS trials. Scenario analyses were performed to overcome variances in terms of population risk. Costs were calculated as 75% of US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC), extracted in January 2022. The primary outcome was defined as CNT to prevent one MACE across the two regimens. Secondary value analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death as separate outcomes. RESULTS: The aNNTs to prevent MACE with LD ticagrelor and with LD rivaroxaban were 229 [95% confidence interval (CI) 141-734] and 147 (95% CI 104-252), respectively. At an annual cost of US$3726 versus US$4533, the corresponding CNTs were US$853,254 (95% CI 525,366-2,734,884) with LD ticagrelor and US$666,351 (95% CI 471,432-1,142,316) with LD rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Combining aspirin with LD rivaroxaban provides better value for money than with LD ticagrelor for secondary prevention of MACE.

The Effect of Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate Solution and University of Wisconsin Solution: An Analysis of the Eurotransplant Registry.

BACKGROUND: Both University of Wisconsin (UW) and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solutions are currently used in the Eurotransplant region for preservation of liver allografts. Previous studies on their effect have led to a lot of discussion. This study aims to compare the effect of HTK and UW on graft survival. METHODS: First liver transplantations in recipients 18 years or older from January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2016, were included. Graft survival was compared for livers preserved with HTK and UW at 30 days, 1, 3, and 5 years. Multivariable analysis of risk factors was performed and outcome was adjusted for important confounders. RESULTS: Of all 10 628 first liver transplantations, 8176 (77%) and 2452 (23%) were performed with livers preserved with HTK and UW, respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in graft survival between HTK and UW at 30 days (89% vs 93%, P=<0.001), 1 year (75% vs 82%, P=<0.001), 3 years (67% vs 72%, P<0.001), and at 5 years (60% vs 67%, P<0.001). No significant differences in outcome were observed in separate analyses of Germany or non-German countries. In multivariable analysis, UW was associated with a decreased risk of graft loss at 30 days (HR 0.772, P=0.002) and at 1 year (0.847 (0.757-0.947). When adjusted for risk factors, no differences in long term outcome could be detected. CONCLUSIONS: Because the use of preservation fluids is clustered geographically, differences in outcome by preservation fluids are strongly affected by regional differences in donor and recipient characteristics. When adjusted for risk factors, no differences in graft survival exist between transplantations performed with livers preserved with either HTK or UW.

Comparison of sodium nitroprusside and adenosine for fractional flow reserve assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has become a useful tool in the assessment of physiological significance of coronary artery stenosis (CAS), and Adenosine (ADE) is associated with a high incidence of transient side effects. Sodium nitroprusside (NPS) has been proposed as an alternative vasodilator agent. A meta-analysis of studies comparing ADE and NPS for FFR assessment in the same coronary lesions was performed. METHODS: Authors searched for articles comparing NPS and ADE for FFR assessment in intermediate coronary lesions published through January 2018. The following keywords were used: 'fractional flow reserve' AND 'nitroprusside'. Data were summarized using weighted mean differences for paired data. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified comprising 342 patients and 401 lesions. Four studies evaluated intravenous ADE and 3 studies intracoronary ADE administration. Weighted means FFR values obtained with ADE and NPS were 0.8411 and 0.8445, respectively (weighted mean difference: 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01, p = 0,548). Adverse events were significantly reduced with IC NPS (RR = 0.08, 95%CI 0.02-0.30, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: NPS produces similar FFR measurements compared to ADE with a significant reduction in adverse effects. These results may support its use as a suitable alternative to ADE for FFR assessment.

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.

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.

Clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor use and clinical outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A nationwide long-term registry analysis from 2009 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and P2Y12 õinhibitors has been established for patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the optimal duration of DAPT is under debate. The aim of the present study was to investigate the long-term utilization and clinical outcome of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor in patients with ACS from 2009 to 2014 in Austria. METHODS: We analysed data from 13 Austrian health insurance funds for the years 2009 to 2014, on 72,676 patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of ACS. The primary end point was recurrence of ACS or death >30days after the index event. RESULTS: 32,830 subjects received a prescription of a P2Y12 inhibitor within 30days after the index ACS. 18,640 (56.8%) subjects were discharged with clopidogrel, 6683 (20.4%) with prasugrel, and 7507 (22.9%) with ticagrelor, respectively. Data from 32,174 patients with 4975 events during a median follow-up period of 24.9months were available for survival analysis. The cumulative incidence for recurrence of ACS or death at two years was 18.7% in patients receiving clopidogrel, and 8.7% and 12.0% in those receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor, respectively. CONCLUSION: Utilization of P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with ACS was consistent with guideline recommendations. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients and associated with a lower number of recurrence of ACS or death compared to clopidogrel. However, clopidogrel was predominantly used in older patients with more co-morbidities.

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.

Switching of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor after hospital discharge among myocardial infarction patients: Insights from the Treatment with Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) observational study.

The reasons for postdischarge adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) switching among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are unclear. We sought to describe the incidence and patterns of postdischarge ADPri switching among patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We used TRANSLATE-ACS (2010-2012) data to assess postdischarge ADPri switching among 8,672 MI patients discharged after percutaneous coronary intervention who remained on ADPri therapy 1 year post-MI. We examined patient-reported reasons for switching, GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and definite stent thrombosis events around the time of the switch. RESULTS: Among patients still on ADPri therapy 1 year post-MI, 663 (7.6%) switched ADPri during that year. Switching occurred at a median of 50 days postdischarge and most frequently in patients discharged on ticagrelor (64/226; 28.3%), followed by prasugrel (383/2,489; 15.4%) and clopidogrel (216/5,957; 3.6%) (P < .001). Among patients discharged on prasugrel, 97.3% of switches were to clopidogrel and 87.5% of ticagrelor switches were to clopidogrel; both of these groups most often cited cost as a reason for switching (43.6% and 39.1%, respectively), whereas 60.7% who switched from clopidogrel cited physician decision as a reason. In the 7 days preceding the switch from clopidogrel, 40 (18.5%) had a MACE and 12 (5.6%) had a definite stent thrombosis event, whereas that from prasugrel or ticagrelor, a GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding event occurred in 1 (0.3%) and 0 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge ADPri switching occurred infrequently within the first year post-MI and uncommonly was associated with MACEs or bleeding events.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ticagrelor and Prasugrel for the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In the management of Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the comparative cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel, referenced to generic clopidogrel, is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel as compared with generic clopidogrel in patients with ACS in Singapore. METHODS: A Markov model simulating a typical cohort of 62-year-old patients with ACS was constructed from a patient's perspective over a lifetime horizon. Treatment effects and adverse events, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, major bleeding related to non-coronary artery bypass grafting, dyspnea, or death, were estimated from pivotal trials comparing clopidogrel with ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Costs were estimated from a tertiary hospital with more than 1500 admissions for ACS per year. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life-year gained for ticagrelor was about three times more favorable than for prasugrel (Singapore dollar [SGD] 13,276 vs. SGD 38,809). The ICER per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for prasugrel and ticagrelor, however, was comparable at SGD 18,921 and SGD 18,647, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER per QALY gained for prasugrel and ticagrelor was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of all-cause mortality and utility for dyspnea, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that compared with clopidogrel, the probabilities of prasugrel and ticagrelor being cost-effective are 87.1% and 88.3% based on the willingness-to-pay value of SGD 65,000 (one time the gross domestic product per capita in Singapore). CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor is more cost-effective than prasugrel in reducing all-cause mortality in patients with ACS. The cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and prasugrel become similar, however, when accounting for the impact of dyspnea on QALY.

ACS Treatment Continues to Improve: But Price Matters.

Over 90% of patients achieve adequate levels of platelet inhibition with both Prasugrel and Ticagrelor. The introduction of Prasugrel was met with some hesitation from physicians because of the significant increase in cost. This pharmaceutically sponsored and authored retrospective study suggests that both agents are effective.

Impact of timing from blood sampling to pharmacodynamic assessment on measures of platelet reactivity in patients treated with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors.

Several platelet function tests (PFT) are available to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of P2Y12 inhibitors. However, there are technical variances between PFT, and P2Y12 inhibitors differ in pharmacological properties. Manufactures of PFT recommend a time-frame within which assessments needs to be executed. However, if the timing from blood sampling to processing affects PD results is unknown. We conducted a prospective study assessing the impact of timing from blood sampling to processing on PD measures using three different PFT. We studied 60 aspirin-treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) on maintenance P2Y12 inhibiting therapy [clopidogrel 75 mg/day (n=20), prasugrel 10 mg/day (n=20) and ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n=20)]. PD assessments (trough levels) were performed by VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN), light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) at 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours post-sampling; VASP was also performed at 24 hours. P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) by VN significantly decreased over time with all P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel p<0.001; prasugrel p=0.016; ticagrelor p<0.001). PRU at 30 minutes and 2 hours were similar, but decreased at 4 hours. LTA showed consistent findings with VN. Conversely, PD measures as assessed by VASP were stable over time (p>0.1 for all P2Y12 inhibitors). In conclusion, in CAD patients on maintenance therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors, timing from blood sampling to processing significantly influences PD measures as assessed by VN and LTA, but not by VASP.

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.

Optimal P2Y12 Inhibitor in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI). BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitors in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. METHODS: Clinical trials enrolling STEMI patients were identified and relevant data was extracted. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as the composite of all cause mortality, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Network meta-analysis was performed using Bayesian methods. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies with 88,402 STEMI patients and 5,077 MACE were analyzed. Outcomes at 1 month (22 studies and 60,783 patients) suggest that prasugrel was associated with: lower MACE than clopidogrel (standard dose odds ratio [OR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50 to 0.69; high-dose OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.71; upstream OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.94), and ticagrelor (standard dose OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.84; upstream OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.05); lower mortality and MI than clopidogrel and standard ticagrelor; lower stroke risk than standard clopidogrel and standard or upstream ticagrelor; and lower stent thrombosis than standard or upstream clopidogrel. At 1-year (10 studies, n = 40,333) prasugrel was associated with lower mortality and MACE than other P2Y12 inhibitors. MACE was particularly lower with prasugrel in studies where patients received bivalirudin, drug-eluting stents, and but not glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor are more efficacious than clopidogrel; in addition, prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor particularly in conjunction with bivalirudin and drug-eluting stents.

Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel Treatment in Patients With ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

AIMS: Ticagrelor improves the clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). However, few studies have directly compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor against clopidogrel, an oral, thienopyridine-class antiplatelet drug. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. METHODS: We enrolled 400 patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI at the Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University and the First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, China, between January 01, 2013 and April 30, 2015. All patients received 300 mg of aspirin and were randomized to receive one of the following treatments: (1) a loading dose of clopidogrel (600 mg) before PPCI followed by clopidogrel (75 mg once daily for 1 year) post PPCI or (2) a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg) before PPCI followed by ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily for 1 year) post PPCI. Some patients were treated by intracoronary bolus of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa) inhibitor [tirofiban (10 µg/kg) plus maintenance infusion (0.15 µg·kg·min) for 24-36 hours] in accordance with specified guidelines. The primary end points evaluated were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) [defined as a composite of overall death, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, or stroke], stent thrombosis, and the composite end point of CV death, nonfatal MI, and stroke. The supplemental use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups was monitored as another study end point, although the secondary safety end point evaluated was the incidence of bleeding events. RESULTS: Compared with the clopidogrel-treated group, ticagrelor treatment significantly reduced the incidence of MACCE [5 vs. 14; odds ratio (OR), 0.341; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.120-0.964; P = 0.034] and the composite end points of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and stroke (4 vs. 13; OR, 0.294; 95% CI, 0.094-0.916; P = 0.026). Fewer patients in the ticagrelor group received GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors after PPCI compared with those in the clopidogrel group (10 vs. 21; OR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.206-0.979; P = 0.040). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidences of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, unplanned revascularization, stroke, stent thrombosis (P = 0.522, P = 0.246, P = 0.246, P = 0.217, P = 0.246, respectively), or bleeding events (10 vs. 7; OR, 1.451; 95% CI, 0.541-3.891; P = 0.457). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI, ticagrelor reduces the incidence of MACCE and the composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and stroke compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor also reduces the need for GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. However, no significant difference was observed in the risk of bleeding between the 2 groups.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome in Colombia / Análisis de costo-efectividad del ticagrelor en comparación con el clopidogrel para el tratamiento de pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo en Colombia

Introduction: Acute coronary syndrome is one of the most frequent medical emergencies in developing countries. Objective: To determine, from the perspective of the Colombian health system, the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Materials and methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Colombian health system comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome. To estimate the expected costs and outcomes, a Markov model was constructed in which patients could remain stable without experiencing new cardiovascular events, suffer from a new event, or die. For the baseline case, a 10-year time horizon and a discount ratio of 3% for costs and benefits were adopted. The transition probabilities were extracted from the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) clinical trial. Vital statistics were drawn from the Departmento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE) and additional information from Colombian patients included in the Access registry. To identify and measure resource use, a standard case was built by consulting guidelines and protocols. Unit costs were obtained from Colombian rate lists. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted in which costs were represented by a triangular distribution, and the effectiveness through a beta distribution. Results: In the base case, the additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with ticagrelor was COP$ 28,411,503. The results were sensitive to changes in the time horizon and the unit cost of clopidogrel. For a willingness-to-pay equivalent to three times the Colombian per capita gross domestic product, the probability of ticagrelor being cost-effective was 75%. Conclusions: Ticagrelor is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome in Colombia.

Introducción. El síndrome coronario agudo es una de las emergencias médicas más frecuentes en los países en desarrollo. Objetivo. Determinar, desde la perspectiva del sistema de salud colombiano, la relación de costo-efectividad del ticagrelor comparado con el clopidogrel para el tratamiento de pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo. Materiales y métodos. Se hizo un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva del sistema de salud colombiano, comparando el ticagrelor y el clopidogrel para el tratamiento de pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo. Para estimar los costos y resultados esperados de las dos alternativas, se construyó un modelo de Markov en el cual los pacientes podían permanecer estables sin experimentar nuevos eventos cardiovasculares, sufrir de un nuevo evento coronario o morir. Para el caso de base, se adoptó un horizonte temporal de 10 años y una tasa de descuento de 3 % para los costos y beneficios. Las probabilidades de transición se extrajeron del estudio Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes , PLATO. Las estadísticas vitales se consultaron en informes del Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE) y los parámetros adicionales del modelo se basaron en la información de los pacientes colombianos incluidos en el registro en Access. Para identificar y medir el uso de recursos, se construyó un caso estándar a partir de guías y protocolos. Los costos unitarios se obtuvieron de manuales tarifarios colombianos. Se hizo un análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico en el que los costos se representaron por una distribución triangular y, las probabilidades de transición, mediante una distribución beta. Resultados. En el caso de base, el costo adicional por años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados con el ticagrelor fue de COP$ 28´411.503. Los resultados fueron sensibles a los cambios en el horizonte temporal y al costo unitario del clopidogrel. Para un umbral de costo-efectividad equivalente a tres veces el producto interno bruto per cápita de Colombia, la probabilidad de que el ticagrelor fuera costo-efectivo fue de 75 %. Conclusiones. El ticagrelor es una estrategia costo-efectiva para el tratamiento de los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo en Colombia.

Impact of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin co-administration on platelet reactivity in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy.

BACKGROUND: Residual high-on treatment platelet reactivity (HRPR) still represents a challenging matter in patients with coronary artery disease. Drug-to-drug interaction has been suggested between some statin and antiplatelet agents, despite their co-administration is mandatory in patients after an acute cardiovascular event or coronary stenting. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate any impact of rosuvastatin or atorvastatin co-administration on platelet reactivity in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). METHODS: Our population is represented by patients on DAPT (ASA and either clopidogrel 75 mg or ticagrelor 90 mg b.i.d) after an ACS or percutaneous revascularization, and receiving rosuvastatin or atorvastatin. Platelet function was assessed by Multiplate Impedance Aggregometry (Roche Diagnostics AG). RESULTS: We included a total of 374 patients, 240 (64.2%) receiving atorvastatin, 134 (35.8%) rosuvastatin. Rosuvastatin treated patients were more often using beta-blockers (p = 0.05), diuretics (p = 0.04) and displayed higher HDL (p < 0.001) and lower LDL cholesterol (p < 0.001). The prevalence of HRPR for ASA was low, with no difference according to statin type (0.8% vs 1.5%, p = 0.62, adjusted OR[95%CI] = 2[0.23-16.6], p = 0.52). Concerning ADP-antagonists, in the 163 patients treated with clopidogrel, rosuvastatin co-administration was associated with a significantly increased rate of HRPR (55.6%vs 32%, p = 0.01, adjusted OR[95%CI] = 2.69[1.22-5.96], p = 0.015) with higher ADP-mediated platelet reactivity (p = 0.01) and TRAP-test results (p = 0.04). On the contrary, in the 211 ticagrelor treated patients, statin type did not affect mean platelet reactivity or the prevalence of HRPR with ticagrelor (10.5% vs 11.2%, p = 0.99, adjusted OR[95%CI] = 0.86[0.34-2.22], p = 0.76) CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving DAPT, rosuvastatin but not atorvastatin is associated with an increased rate of HRPR for clopidogrel, without any influence on the antiplatelet effect of ASA or ticagrelor. Therefore, cautiousness should be exerted for clopidogrel and rosuvastatin therapeutic association.