Development of a routine bedside CYP2C19 genotype assessment program for antiplatelet therapy guidance in a community hospital catheterization laboratory.

Genotype based personalized antiplatelet therapy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been studied in clinical trials. Despite the demonstrated risk associated with CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LoF) carriage in clopidogrel-treated PCI patients, real-world implementation of genotyping for PCI has been low. The goal of the current study was to provide CYP2C19 genotype information to the interventionalist prior to the completion of the catheterization to facilitate immediate personalized antiplatelet therapy. Routine personalization of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for PCI in a community hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory by POC genotyping with the SpartanRx system was first offered in February 2017. A best practice advisory (BPA) based on the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy was placed in the electronic health record prescription medication ordering system. By December 2019, 1,052 patients had CYP2C19 genotype testing, 429 patients underwent PCI with genotype guided antiplatelet therapy, and 250 patients underwent PCI without genotype testing and received antiplatelet therapy at the discretion of the treating physician. BPA compliance was 93. 87% of LoF allele carriers were prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel whereas 96% of non-LoF allele carriers were prescribed clopidogrel. The genotyping results were available within 1 h and made immediately available for decision making by the interventional cardiologist. POC CYP2C19 genotyping is feasible in a community hospital catheterization laboratory and is associated with high rate of best practice compliance.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03040622.

Genetic-Guided Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic and Critical Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) is not recommended in clinical guidelines for coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations of PGx in CAD and to identify variables influential in changing conclusions on cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: From systematic searches across 6 databases, 2 independent reviewers screened, included, and rated the methodological quality of economic evaluations of PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for patients with CAD. Of 35 economic evaluations included, most were model-based cost-utility analyses alone, or alongside cost-effectiveness analyses of PGx testing to stratify patients into antiplatelets (25/35), statins (2/35), pain killers (1/35), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (1/35) to predict CAD risk (8/35) or to determine the coumadin doses (1/35). To stratify patients into antiplatelets (96/151 comparisons with complete findings of PGx versus non-PGx), PGx was more effective and more costly than non-PGx clopidogrel (28/43) but less costly than non-PGx prasugrel (10/15) and less costly and less effective than non-PGx ticagrelor (22/25). To predict CAD risk (51/151 comparisons), PGx using genetic risk scores was more effective and less costly than clinical risk score (13/17) but more costly than no risk score (16/19) or no treatment (9/9). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Mortality risk was the most common variable (47/294) changing conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations to date found PGx to stratify patients with CAD into antiplatelets or to predict CAD risk to be cost-effective, but findings varied based on the non-PGx comparators, underscoring the importance of considering local practice in deciding whether to adopt PGx.

Utilization of P2Y12 Inhibitors in Older Adults With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Frailty.

Choosing optimal P2Y12 inhibitor in frail older adults is challenging because they are at increased risk of both ischemic and bleeding events. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare Advantage Plan beneficiaries who were prescribed clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. Frailty was defined using claims-based frailty index ≥0.25. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with using potent P2Y12 inhibitors and multivariable-adjusted competing risk analyses to compare the rate of discontinuation of potent P2Y12 inhibitors in frail versus non-frail patients. There were 11,239 patients (mean age 74 years, 39% women). The prevalence of cardiovascular and geriatric co-morbidities was as follows: 32% chronic kidney disease, 28% heart failure, 10% previous myocardial infarction, 6% dementia, 20% anemia, and 12% frailty. The proportion of patients receiving clopidogrel decreased from 78.3% in 2010 to 2013 to 42.1% in 2018 to 2020, with a concurrent increase in those receiving potent P2Y12 inhibitors (mostly ticagrelor) from 21.7% to 57.9%. Frailty was independently associated with reduced odds of initiation (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.90) but not with discontinuation of potent P2Y12 inhibitors (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.22). In conclusion, frail older adults are less likely to receive potent P2Y12 inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction, but they are as likely as non-frail patients to continue with the prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies.

Background: Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified. Objectives: The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy. Design: The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials. Setting: The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome. Data sources: Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. Interventions: Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195). Conclusions: This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy. Limitations: The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted. Future work: Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People who have a heart attack are treated with a stent to open up the blocked artery that caused the heart attack, with surgery to bypass the blocked artery or with medication only. Whatever the treatment, they are prescribed one or more antiplatelet drugs, either aspirin only or aspirin and an additional antiplatelet (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor), for 12 months after the heart attack. Antiplatelets are given to prevent another heart attack, but increase the risk of bleeding. We used a large general practice database and a database describing patients' attendances and admissions to hospital to determine how many people bleed with different antiplatelet combinations. We found that, overall, up to 1 in 10 people taking antiplatelets (rising to 2 in 10 if also taking an anticoagulant such as warfarin or dabigatran) reported a bleed. Among patients treated with surgery or medication only, we compared aspirin only (which is a less potent therapy) with aspirin and clopidogrel (a more potent therapy). Among patients treated with stents, we compared aspirin and clopidogrel (less potent therapy) with aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor (more potent therapy). In all three populations, the more potent therapy increased the risk of bleeding by about one and a half times, but this was not offset by a reduced risk of having a subsequent heart attack. This may be explained by low adherence to the medication: between one-third and almost half of all patients did not adhere to their regimen, and non-adherence was generally higher among patients taking a more potent therapy. It may also be explained by bias inherent in the study, for example if the groups prescribed different antiplatelet regimens had different risks of having another heart attack. Nevertheless, the results show that doctors should be cautious about prescribing more potent antiplatelet therapy because it may increase serious bleeds without necessarily reducing the number of heart attacks.

Utilization Trends In Platelet Adenosine Diphosphate P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitor and Cost Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Recent guidelines regarding acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have advocated for use of prasugrel and ticagrelor over clopidogrel for acute coronary syndrome. However, analyses from multiple databases have shown that clopidogrel continues to be the most commonly prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor. We aimed to evaluate the trends in utilization and cost of P2Y12 inhibitors for Medicare beneficiaries using data from Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Data Event set from 2011 to 2018 for P2Y12 inhibitors. Medicare part D total beneficiaries for P2Y12 receptor inhibitors increased from 2011 to 2018 by 34.8% from 2.45 million to 3.31 million. The total cost for P2Y12 antiplatelets decreased from $ 3.72 billion in 2011 to $ 0.72 billion in 2018 by 80.4%. The availability of generic clopidogrel drove the considerable total cost reduction. Clopidogrel was the most prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor since its introduction accounting for more than 90% of the Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2018. Overall, the number of beneficiaries on newer P2Y12 inhibitors showed a steady increase with 5.9% beneficiaries on brilinta in 2018 and 2.1 % on prasugrel. The total cost of brilinta beneficiaries grew exponentially accounting for 59.2% of total cost in 2018 and average cost per beneficiary increased by 465% in study period. Despite the availability of generic version clopidogrel and prasugrel, 2,161,175 beneficiaries were on brand plavix and 87,174 on effient which contributed to the increased total expenditure. Earlier introduction and transition to generic versions of medication may help to reduce the drug cost and potentially enhance medication compliance.

Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitors in Veterans undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection can reduce cardiovascular (CV) events and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The 12-month cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection for Veterans post-ACS/PCI was evaluated from the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using average annualized PCI volumes and P2Y12 inhibitor use from VA data, a decision-analytic model simulated CYP2C19 testing vs. no testing outcomes in 2800 hypothetical Veterans receiving PY212 inhibitor for 12 months post-ACS/PCI (74% clopidogrel, 5% prasugrel, and 21% ticagrelor use at baseline without testing). CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) carrier prevalence was 28%. Model inputs were from studies (bleeding/ischaemic events, CYP2C19-guided therapy effect, health state utilities, CYP2C19 LOF carrier prevalence) and VHA administrative data (costs of events, drugs, CYP2C19 testing; PCI volumes, and P2Y12 inhibitor prescriptions). The primary outcome was cost (2020 US${\$}$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Base-case scenarios, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were completed. CYP2C19-guided therapy resulted in 496 (24%) escalations (clopidogrel to prasugrel/ticagrelor) and 465 (65%) de-escalations (prasugrel/ticagrelor to clopidogrel). CYP2C19 testing averted 1 stroke, 27 myocardial infarctions, 8 CV-related deaths, and caused 3 bleeds. CYP2C19 testing (vs. no testing) was dominant in the base-case scenario (0.0027 QALYs gained, ${\$}$527 saved/person) and in 97.1% of simulations, making it cost-effective and high-value. In scenario analyses, de-escalation in conjunction with escalation is required for CYP2C19 testing to be cost-effective and high-value. CONCLUSION: In Veterans post-ACS/PCI, CYP2C19-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection can improve CV outcomes and lower costs for the VHA within 12 months of implementation.

Prescribing Trends and Health Care Expenditure of P2Y12 Prescriptions in Australia Over the Last Decade.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is guideline therapy following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Novel, potent P2Y12 inhibitors have been developed and studied but it is unclear how this evidence has been incorporated into patient care. We sought to describe the prescribing trends and health care costs of P2Y12therapy in Australia over the last decade. METHOD: The latest statistical data collected by the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS), Australia, was reviewed. PBS codes for coronary indications were selected. Yearly total prescriptions and cost were then compared between all three P2Y12 inhibitors. Linear trend modelling was used to observe general trends over the data collection period. RESULTS: Total yearly P2Y12 scripts have more than doubled between 2010 (403,880 scripts) and 2020 (994,826 scripts). Clopidogrel is the most prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor and has been for the last decade. Ticagrelor represents 26.2% of total prescriptions but accounts for 75% of PBS spending. More than $30 million is spent on ticagrelor every year with a cost per MACE prevented of $72,637. Prasugrel was the least prescribed agent but was 41% cheaper per major adverse cardiac event (MACE) prevented than ticagrelor before being removed from the Australian market. Without prasugrel available, clopidogrel scripts have increased 10% and ticagrelor scripts remain stable. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel remains the most prescribed P2Y12 agent in Australia, despite emergence of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. Ticagrelor is increasingly prescribed but represents a disproportionately large burden of spending. Whilst prasugrel is the most efficacious, cheaper than ticagrelor and guideline recommended P2Y12 inhibitor after ACS, it represented the minority of scripts before being withdrawn. Rather than use of a potent P2Y12 agent, clinicians are reverting to prescribing clopidogrel.

Cost Utility of Prasugrel in Postangioplasty Diabetic Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To prevent thrombotic events after angioplasty, current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and thienopyridine. Clopidogrel is the only thienopyridine currently available in the Brazilian National Health System. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel, an alternative thienopyridine, compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and diabetes mellitus who underwent angioplasty. METHODS: A state-transition Markov model was created to simulate the progression of diabetic patients after angioplasty. The model had a lifetime horizon and discounted outcomes at a 5% annual rate. The risks of myocardial infarction and death were calculated using data from the diabetes subgroup, and the risks of bleeding were calculated using data from the overall group from the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 trial. Direct costs were estimated using official Brazilian open data. Quality of life values were obtained through literature search. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Prasugrel was associated with more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (5.03 vs 4.94) and higher costs (US$975.11 vs US$575.97), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of US$4303.86/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the costs of prasugrel had the greatest impact on ICUR, followed by the initial age entering the cohort. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all ICUR values simulations were less than one Brazilian gross domestic product per capita/QALY (US $5802.86). CONCLUSIONS: Given the appealing economic profile, the clinical debate between reducing the risk of myocardial infarction and increasing the risk of bleeding may overcome economic concerns in the Brazilian National Health System.

Cost Effectiveness of a CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Strategy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from the POPular Genetics Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The POPular Genetics trial demonstrated that a CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor strategy reduced bleeding rates compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel without increasing thrombotic event rates after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: A 1-year decision tree based on the POPular Genetics trial in combination with a lifelong Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between a genotype-guided and a standard P2Y12 inhibitor strategy in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare system perspective. Within-trial survival and utility data were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness for a cohort of 1000 patients. Costs and utilities were discounted at 4 and 1.5%, respectively, according to Dutch guidelines for health economic studies. Besides deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, several scenario analyses were also conducted (different time horizons, different discount rates, equal prices for P2Y12 inhibitors, and equal distribution of thrombotic events between the two strategies). RESULTS: Base-case analysis with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 subjects demonstrated 8.98 QALYs gained and €725,550.69 in cost savings for the genotype-guided strategy (dominant). The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model and the cost-effectiveness results. In scenario analyses, the genotype-guided strategy remained dominant. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel resulted in QALYs gained and cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01761786, Netherlands trial register number: NL2872.

Assessment of Impact of Patient Recruitment Volume on Risk Profile, Outcomes, and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND Whether there are differences in the risk profile and treatment effect in patients recruited in a low recruitment center (LRC) versus patients recruited in a high recruitment center (HRC) in a randomized multicenter trial remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS This study included 4018 patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in the ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) trial. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Overall, 3011 patients (75%) were recruited in the HRCs (7 centers recruiting 258 to 628 patients; median, 413 patients) and 1007 patients (25%) were recruited in the LRCs (16 centers recruiting 5 to 201 patients; median, 52 patients). Patients recruited in the LRCs had more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles than patients recruited in the HRCs. The primary end point occurred in 72 patients in the LRCs and 249 patients in the HRCs (cumulative incidence, 7.3% and 8.4%; P=0.267). All-cause mortality was lower among patients recruited in the LRCs (n=29) than among patients recruited in the HRCs (n=134; cumulative incidence 2.9% versus 4.5%; P=0.031). There was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel and patient recruitment category (LRC versus HRC) regarding the primary efficacy end point (LRC: hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.89-2.28]; HRC: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04-1.72]; P for interaction=0.800). CONCLUSIONS Patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in a LRC appear to have more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles and lower 1-year mortality rates compared with patients recruited in a HRC. The recruitment volume did not interact with the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Pharmacodynamic Profile and Prevalence of Bleeding Episode in East Asian Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated with Prasugrel Standard-Dose versus De-escalation Strategy: A Randomized A-MATCH Trial.

Compared with Caucasian patients, East Asian patients have the unique risk-benefit trade-off and different responsiveness to antithrombotic regimens. The aim of this study was to compare pharmacodynamic profile in East Asian patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) treated with prasugrel standard-dose versus a de-escalation strategy. Before discharge, ACS patients with age <75 years or weight ≥60 kg (n = 255) were randomly assigned to the standard-dose (10-mg group) or de-escalation strategy (5-mg group or platelet function test [PFT]-guided group). After 1 month, VerifyNow P2Y12 assay-based platelet reactivity (P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU]) and bleeding episodes were evaluated. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with the therapeutic window (85 ≤ PRU ≤ 208). The 250 patients completed 1-month treatment. The percentage of patients within the therapeutic window was significantly lower in the 10-mg group (n = 85) compared with the 5-mg (n = 83) and PFT-guided groups (n = 82) (35.3 vs. 67.5 vs. 65.9%) (odds ratio [OR]: 3.80 and 3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01-7.21 and 1.87-6.69, respectively). Compared with the 10-mg group, the bleeding rate was tended to be lower with de-escalation strategies (35.3 vs. 24.1% vs. 23.2%) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58 and 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-1.14 and 0.28-1.09, respectively). "PRU < 127" was the optimal cut-off for predicting 1-month bleeding events (area under the curve: 0.616; 95% CI: 0.543-0.689; p = 0.005), which criteria was significantly associated with early discontinuation of prasugrel treatment (HR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.28-3.03; p = 0.001). In conclusion, compared with the standard-dose prasugrel, the prasugrel de-escalation strategy in East Asian patients presented with ACS showed a higher chance within the therapeutic window and a lower tendency toward bleeding episodes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier:NCT01951001.

Exploring Medication Adherence with P2Y12 Inhibitors Using Conditional and Unconditional Quantile Regression Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Previous research assessing medication adherence with P2Y12 inhibitors has shown good adherence rates, ranging from 78% to 92%. Studies that used administrative claims data defined adherence using an arbitrary cut point of ≥ 80% medication possession ratio (MPR) or proportion of days covered (PDC). While this method is used frequently, it does not allow the researcher to observe how each factor impacts adherence along the entire distribution. The objective of the study was to use conditional quantile regression (CQR) and unconditional quantile regression (UQR) to assess heterogenous effects of adherence to P2Y12 inhibitors and covariates of interest and compare these results to those from a traditional logistic regression framework. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study used the commercial claims and encounters databases from IBM® MarketScan® from 2010 to 2017. We included patients who had an incident percutaneous coronary intervention, used a drug-eluting stent, and filled an incident prescription for a P2Y12 inhibitor. Adherence was measured for 185 days using PDC. Adherence to branded clopidogrel, generic clopidogrel, branded prasugrel, and branded ticagrelor was assessed, along with factors that could impact adherence, using logistic regression, CQR, and UQR. We found that while adherence to the antiplatelets was generally high, prasugrel and ticagrelor had significantly lower PDC compared to branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th percentile. Across all quantiles in both the CRQ and UQR frameworks, comorbidities such as diabetes and depression and living in the southern region had significant negative effects on adherence, although the relative impact differed across quantiles. CONCLUSIONS: Using CQR and UQR allowed for heterogenous assessment of covariates along the adherence distribution, which is not possible with the traditional logistic regression method. The UQR framework revealed patients who initiate prasugrel or ticagrelor generally have lower adherence compared to those treated with branded clopidogrel, especially around the 30th quantile. Using these methods in other types of data sets, such as electronic health records, could help strengthen our results to develop policies to improve antiplatelet adherence in a targeted population.

Cloridrato de Prasugrel para redução de eventos aterotrombóticos em pacientes diabéticos com síndrome coronariana aguda que realizaram angioplastia coronariana primária / Prasugrel hydrochloride to reduce atherothrombotic events in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent primary coronary angioplasty

INTRODUÇÃO: A síndrome coronariana aguda (SCA) é um termo abrangente para: infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM) com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST, IAM sem supradesnivelamento do segmento ST e angina instável (1,2). A incidência é muito variável entre diferentes países e regiões do mundo (3­8). De acordo com a Organização Mundial da Saúde, doenças isquêmicas do coração foram responsáveis por 12% das mortes observadas em países de média e baixa renda, e aproximadamente 16% das mortes em países da alta renda em 2008 (9). Em particular, pacientes com diabetes mellitus (DM) possuem maior potencial pró-trombótico (3,4) e consequente maior potencial de beneficiarem-se de antiagregantes plaquetários (aspirina, clopidogrel) após uma angioplastia. O prasugrel é um anti-agregante plaquetário da mesma classe do clopidogrel, hoje incorporado ao SUS, e do ticagrelor, cuja incorporação foi rejeitada pela CONITEC. PERGUNTA: O prasugrel é eficaz, seguro e custo-efetivo em relação ao clopidogrel para a redução de eventos cardiovasculares em pacientes com síndrome coronariana aguda (SCA) e diabetes mellitus (DM) que realizaram angioplastia? EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: Um único ensaio clínico randomizado (TRITON TIMI 38) avaliou prasugrel versus clopidogrel, 23% dos participantes eram diabéticos. Estudo patrocinado pelo demandante. Baixo risco de viés. A análise em pacientes diabéticos é baseada em uma análise de subgrupo. A qualidade da evidência é limitada pois não houve randomização para diabéticos e o estudo não foi controlado para o tipo e gravidade da doença. Ainda, a interação para diabetes não foi significativa (P = 0,09), ou seja, a análise deste subgrupo como um grupo independente não é adequada. A razão de chances, que no estudo pivotal era de 0,76 para redução de infarto foi recalculada para 0,60 no subgrupo de diabéticos. Analisando os resultados do subgrupo de pacientes diabéticos para o desfecho primário composto de morte cardiovascular, infarto e AVC, foram observados eventos em 17,0% no grupo clopidogrel e 12,2% no grupo prasugrel (HR=0,70; IC 0,58 - 0,85). Para morte cardiovascular, 4,2% no grupo clopidogrel e 3,4% no grupo prasugrel (HR=0,85; IC 0,58 - 1,24); IAM não fatal: 13,2% no grupo clopidogrel e 8,2% no grupo prasugrel (HR=0,60; IC 0,48 - 0,76); Trombose de stent: 3,6% no grupo clopidogrel e 2,0% no grupo prasugrel (HR=0,52; IC 0,33 - 0,84). O prasugrel apresentou maior risco de sangramentos não relacionada à cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica: 4,3% no grupo clopidogrel e 5,3% no grupo prasugrel (HR=1,30; IC 0,92 - 1,82). AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: A avaliação econômica do prasugrel apresentada pelo demandante baseou-se nos resultados do estudo pivotal e em um modelo de custo-efetividade e custo-utilidade utilizado previamente no NICE. Como resultados, prasugrel demonstrou-se ser mais efetivo e com maior custo em relação ao clopidogrel, apresentando uma razão de custo-utilidade incremental (RCEI) de R$ 9.325,00 mil/QALY. O modelo foi refeito pelo parecerista externo, obtendo um novo valor de RCEI de R$ 12.324,53/QALY e com 100% das simulações com valor igual ou inferior a R$ 15.591,13/QALY. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: A Conitec, em sua 89ª reunião ordinária, no dia 06 de agosto de 2020, recomendou a não incorporação no SUS de prasugrel para tratamento de pacientes diabéticos com síndrome coronariana aguda pós angioplastia. A recomendação levou em consideração que a população alvo foi mal definida, gerando incertezas no impacto orçamentário e na proposta de redução de preços. A operacionalização da proposta de redução de preços necessita de esclarecimentos. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: A Conitec, em sua 89ª reunião ordinária, no dia 06 de agosto de 2020, recomendou a não incorporação no SUS de prasugrel para tratamento de pacientes diabéticos com síndrome coronariana aguda pós angioplastia. A recomendação levou em consideração que a população alvo foi mal definida, gerando incertezas no impacto orçamentário e na proposta de redução de preços. A operacionalização da proposta de redução de preços necessita de esclarecimentos. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros da CONITEC presentes na 92ª reunião ordinária, no dia 05 de novembro de 2020, deliberaram por recomendar a não incorporação no SUS do cloridrato de prasugrel para pacientes diabéticos com síndrome coronariana aguda submetidos à angioplastia primária. Os membros presentes entenderam que o medicamento atenderia um subgrupo de pacientes específico e que ainda há incertezas quanto ao seu benefício e segurança. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 573.

Economic Evaluations of CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy Compared to the Universal Use of Antiplatelets in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clopidogrel is widely used after the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and requires activation by cytochrome P450 (CYP), primarily CYP2C19. Patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles are at increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, while more expensive novel antiplatelet agents (ticagrelor and prasugrel) are unaffected by the CYP2C19 mutations. This systematic review aims to answer the question about whether overall evidence supports the genotype-guided selection of antiplatelet therapy as a cost-effective strategy in post-PCI ACS. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and PharmGKB was done to identify all the economic evaluations related to genotype-guided therapy compared to the universal use of antiplatelets in ACS patients. Quality of Health Economic Studies tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: The search identified 13 articles, where genotype-guided treatment was compared to universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and/or prasugrel. Six studies showed that genotype-guided therapy was cost-effective compared to universal clopidogrel, while 5 studies showed that it was dominant. One study specified that genotype-guided with ticagrelor is cost-effective only in both CYP2C19 intermediate and poor metabolizers. Genotype-guided therapy was dominant when compared to universal prasugrel, ticagrelor, or both in 5, 1, and 3 studies, respectively. Only 2 studies reported that universal ticagrelor was cost-effective compared to genotype-guided treatment. All the included articles had good quality. CONCLUSION: Based on current economic evaluations in the literature, implementing CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy is a cost-effective approach in guiding the selection of medication in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in ACS Patients Treated with PCI: A Propensity Score Analysis of the RENAMI and BleeMACS Registries.

INTRODUCTION: Real-life data comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are lacking, as are data for the temporal distribution of ischemic and bleeding risks. METHODS: A total of 19,825 patients were enrolled from the RENAMI and BleeMACS registries. Both were multicenter, retrospective, observational registries including the data and outcomes of consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary PCI and were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We evaluated the long-term outcome stratified by the different antiplatelet agents. RESULTS: A total of 14,105 patients (71.2%) were treated with clopidogrel, 2364 patients (11.9%) with prasugrel and 3356 patients (16.9%) with ticagrelor. After propensity score matching, at 1 year, prasugrel reduced the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE; a composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI] and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 3-5 bleeding) (4.2% vs.7.6%, p = 0.002) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of death and MI) compared with clopidogrel (2.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.007). Ticagrelor decreased rates of MACE compared with clopidogrel (2.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), but not of NACE (6.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.07). Ticagrelor presented similar performance in terms of MACE compared with prasugrel (2.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.56), with a trend towards a reduction in MI (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56), but with higher risk of BARC 3-5 bleedings (3.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.04). In the daily risk analysis, clopidogrel presented a binomial distribution with a peak of ischemic risk at 3 months, which decreased towards bleedings; prasugrel had a constant equivalence between opposite risks; and ticagrelor constantly reduced recurrent MIs despite higher risk of BARC 3-5 events. CONCLUSION: In real life, ticagrelor is more effective in reducing ischemic events during the first year after ACS, despite an increased risk of major bleedings, while prasugrel assures a better balance between ischemic and bleeding recurrent events.

Pharmacodynamic assessment of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with non-cardioembolic stroke: a multicenter, randomized, active-control clinical trial.

Prasugrel, a novel P2Y12 receptor antagonist, has been shown to be more effective than clopidogrel for preventing cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We investigated the dose-response antiplatelet effects of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in Japanese patients with non-cardioembolic stroke. The influence of cytochrome P450 (CYP) polymorphisms on the antiplatelet effects of both drugs was also compared. In this multicenter randomized active-control comparative study, patients were randomized to receive prasugrel 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 7.5 mg (double blind) or clopidogrel 75 mg (open label) once daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) in response to adenosine diphosphate 20 µM within 8 h of study drug administration on day 14. Of the 66 patients randomized, data from 63 (prasugrel 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 7.5 mg groups, n = 14, 16, and 18, respectively; clopidogrel group, n = 15) were used in the pharmacodynamic assessment. IPA (arithmetic mean ± SD) after prasugrel administration increased dose-dependently (33 ± 9%, 44 ± 11%, and 53 ± 14%, at 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 7.5 mg, respectively) and was higher in these groups than after clopidogrel (23 ± 16%). In a subgroup of CYP2C19 intermediate metabolizers, IPA was higher in the prasugrel 5 mg and 7.5 mg groups than in the clopidogrel group. No death or serious adverse events were reported. Prasugrel was well tolerated at doses up to 7.5 mg/day and had antiplatelet effects higher than those of clopidogrel 75 mg/day. CYP2C19 polymorphisms may have reduced clopidogrel-induced IPA.

Are There Different Evidence Thresholds for Genomic Versus Clinical Precision Medicine? A Value of Information-Based Framework Applied to Antiplatelet Drug Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The threshold of sufficient evidence for adoption of clinically- and genomically-guided precision medicine (PM) has been unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence thresholds for clinically guided PM versus genomically guided PM. METHODS: We develop an "evidence threshold criterion" (ETC), which is the time-weighted difference between expected value of perfect information and incremental net health benefit minus the cost of research, and use it as a measure of evidence threshold that is proportional to the upper bound of disutility to a risk-averse decision maker for adopting a new intervention under decision uncertainty. A larger (more negative) ETC value indicates that only decision makers with low risk aversion would adopt new intervention. We evaluated the ETC plus cost of research (ETCc), assuming the same cost of research for both interventions, over time for a pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing intervention and avoidance of a drug-drug interaction (aDDI) intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients indicated for antiplatelet therapy. We then examined how the ETC may explain incongruous decision making across different national decision-making bodies. RESULTS: The ETCc for PGx increased over time, whereas the ETCc for aDDI decreased to a negative value over time, indicating that decision makers with even low risk aversion will have doubts in adopting PGx, whereas decision makers who are highly risk-averse will continue to have doubts about adopting aDDI. National recommendation bodies appear to be consistent over time within their own decision making, but had different levels of risk aversion. CONCLUSION: The ETC may be a useful metric for assessing policy makers' risk preferences and, in particular, understanding differences in policy recommendations for genomic versus clinical PM.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in preventing recurrent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and major bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. DATA SOURCE: Truven Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database (2011-2016). PATIENTS: Study consisted of adults with ACS who newly initiated ticagrelor or prasugrel within 7 days of their first ACS diagnosis and had no prior use for at least 12 months; after propensity score matching, 10,073 patients were in each group. METHODS: The primary study outcomes, first occurrence of a recurrent nonfatal CVD event (composite of myocardial infarction and stroke) and occurrence of a major bleeding event, were compared between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups. Secondary outcomes included occurrence of minor bleeding events, defined based on the presence of bleeding events in outpatient claims. Cox proportional hazards models after propensity score matching were used to obtain the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). In the Cox proportional hazards model, the use of ticagrelor was associated with a decreased risk of recurrent nonfatal CVD events (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92) and major bleeding events (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70) compared with prasugrel. Additionally, the use of ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of minor bleeding events compared with prasugrel (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65-0.78). CONCLUSION: In this population-based cohort of incident ACS patients, ticagrelor was associated with a reduced rate of recurrent nonfatal CVD events, major and minor bleeding events compared with prasugrel.

Tailoring Antiplatelet Therapy Intensity to Ischemic and Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: Balancing ischemic and bleeding risk is an evolving framework. METHODS AND RESULTS: Our objectives were to simulate changes in risks for adverse events and event-driven costs with use of ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to varying levels of ischemic and bleeding risk. Using the validated PARIS risk functions, we estimated 1-year ischemic (myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis) and bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 or 5) event rates among PARIS study participants who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation for an acute coronary syndrome and were discharged with aspirin and clopidogrel (n=1497). Simulated changes in adverse events with ticagrelor or prasugrel were calculated by applying treatment effects from randomized trials for a 1-year time horizon. Event costs were estimated using National Inpatient Sample data. Net costs were calculated between antiplatelet therapy groups according to level of ischemic and bleeding risk. After weighting events for quality-of-life impact, we calculated event rates and costs for risk-tailored treatment versus clopidogrel under multiple drug pricing assumptions. One-year rates (per 1000 person-years) for ischemic events were 12.6, 24.1, and 66.1, respectively, among those at low (n=630), intermediate (n=536), and high (n=331) ischemic risk. Analogous bleeding rates were 11.0, 23.9, and 66.2, respectively, among low (n=728), intermediate (n=634), and high (n=135) bleeding risk patients. Mean per event costs were $22 174 (ischemic) and $12 203 (bleeding). When risks for ischemia matched or exceeded bleeding, simulated utility-weighted event rates favored ticagrelor/prasugrel, whereas clopidogrel reduced utility-weighted events when bleeding exceeded ischemic risk. One-year costs were sensitive to drug pricing assumptions, and risk-tailored treatment with either agent progressed from cost incurring to cost saving with increasing generic market share. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring antiplatelet therapy intensity to patient risk may improve health utility and could produce cost savings in the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00998127.