Assessment of platelet functional activity in healthy individuals and patients receiving antiplatelet therapy. Possible inconsistencies between aggregation and flow cytometry tests.

Platelet functional activity was assessed in healthy volunteers (HV, n=92), patients with stable angina pectoris (SA, n=42) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS, n=73), treated with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) + clopidogrel and ASA + ticagrelor, respectively. In all HV and patients we have compared parameters of platelet aggregation (maximum light transmission and velocity, Tmax and Vmax) and parameters, characterizing exposure of platelet activation markers, evaluated by flow cytometry. HV platelets were activated by 10 µM, 1 µM TRAP, and 20 µM, 5 µM, 2.5 µM ADP; patient platelets were activated by 10 µM TRAP and by 20 µM and 5 µM ADP. Strong and significant correlations between the aggregation and flow cytometry parameters (the r correlation coefficient from 0.4 up to >0.6) most frequently were registered in HV platelet during activation by 1 µM TRAP and in SA patients during platelet activation by 20 µM and 5 µM ADP. However, in many other cases these correlations were rather weak (r < 0.3) and sometimes statistically insignificant. In HV the differences in PAC-1 binding parameters between platelets activated by 10 µM TRAP (the strongest agonist) and all ADP concentrations were negligible (≤ 10%), while CD62P binding (at all ADP concentrations) and LTA parameters for (5 µM and 2.5 µM ADP) were significantly lower (by 40-60%). Antiplatelet therapy in patients decreased all parameters as compared to HV, but to varying extents. For 10 µM TRAP the MFI index for PAC-1 binding (40-50% decrease) and for both ADP concentrations the Tmax values (60-85% decrease) appeared to be the most sensitive in comparison with the other parameters that decreased to a lesser extent. The data obtained indicate a possibility of inconsistency between different LTA and flow cytometry parameters in assessing platelet activity and efficacy of antiplatelet drugs.

Empiric treatment with aspirin and ticagrelor is the most cost-effective strategy in patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: Patients with minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) are often treated with dual antiplatelet therapy regimens as part of secondary stroke prevention. Clopidogrel, an antiplatelet used in these regimens, is metabolized into its active form by the CYP2C19 enzyme. Patients with loss of function (LOF) mutations in CYP2C19 are at risk for poorer secondary outcomes when prescribed clopidogrel. AIMS: We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of three different treatment antiplatelet regimens in ischemic stroke populations with minor strokes or TIAs and how these treatment regimens are influenced by the LOF prevalence in the population. METHODS: Markov models were developed to look at the cost-effectiveness of empiric treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel versus empiric treatment with aspirin and ticagrelor, versus genotype-guided therapy for either 21 or 30 days. Effect ratios were obtained from the literature, and incidence rates and costs were obtained from the national data published by the Singapore Ministry of Health. The primary endpoints were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Empiric treatment with aspirin and ticagrelor was the most cost-effective treatment. Genotype-guided therapy was more cost-effective than empiric aspirin and clopidogrel if the LOF was above 48%. Empiric ticagrelor and aspirin was cost saving when compared to genotype-guided therapy. Results in models of dual antiplatelet therapy for 30 days were similar. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that in patients with minor stroke and TIA planned for dual antiplatelet regimens, empiric ticagrelor and aspirin is the most cost-effective treatment regimen. If ticagrelor is not available, genotype-guided therapy is the most cost-effective treatment regimen if the LOF prevalence in the population is more than 48%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack in China.

AIMS: The study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel, compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. METHODS: A 90-day decision tree and 30-year Markov model were employed to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of personalized antiplatelet therapy for patients with minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack, compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy in the Chinese healthcare system. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The data sources included clinical trials, published literature, official documents and local prices. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to confirm the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The base-case analysis indicated that the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet strategy was cost-effective, and cilostazol group and ticagrelor group yielded an ICER of 3327.40 US dollars (USD)/QALY and 3426.92 USD/QALY, respectively, which were less than threshold. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust, where the most sensitive parameter was the disability distribution in the modified Rankin scale 3-5. The probabilistic analysis showed that the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with either cilostazol or ticagrelor was 100% cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel appeared to be more cost-effective than conventional antiplatelet therapy for acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack patients over 30 years in China.

Assessing the impact of a financial incentive and refill reminder program on medication adherence and costs.

BACKGROUND: Improving medication adherence remains an important goal to improve therapeutic outcomes and lower health care costs. Point-of-sale prescription costs and forgetfulness remain top reasons why patients do not adhere to medications. Programs using both text message-based reminders and financial incentives may encourage patients to refill their prescriptions on time by reducing copays through discounts at the point of sale. Sempre Health, the subject of our analysis, provides both text message refill reminders and a dynamic discount incentive program to improve medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a financial incentive/refill reminder program on medication adherence and total cost of care for patients taking the antithrombotic agents ticagrelor, apixaban, or rivaroxaban in a large regional health plan. METHODS: After propensity-score matching on demographics, socioeconomic status, baseline copay, prior pharmacy/medical spend, and morbidity, we compared-using a difference-in-differences analytic approach-adherence (measured by proportion of days covered), unplanned health care utilization, and costs (total cost of care, medical, and pharmacy cost) of health plan members who did and did not enroll in the financial incentive/refill reminder program between February 1, 2019, and October 31, 2021, over 1 and 2 years. Because of differences in patient characteristics, we analyzed patients on ticagrelor (the antiplatelet group), apixaban, and rivaroxaban (the anticoagulant group) separately. RESULTS: There were a total of 1,292 one-to-one program and control propensity-matched patients: 166 each for the antiplatelet group and 480 each for the anticoagulant group. The average age of the anticoagulant group was 62 years; more than 60% were male, and approximately 45% had no prior unplanned care events. In contrast, the average age of the antiplatelet group was 57 years; more than 70% were male, and approximately 21% had no prior unplanned care events. In the antiplatelet group, the proportions adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) were 63.3% vs 42.8% (P = 0.0002) for program vs controls. Similarly, in the anticoagulant group, the proportion adherent was 77.9% vs 60.2% (P < 0.0001) for program vs controls. Reflecting improved adherence, costs of apixaban and rivaroxaban increased by $79 per member per month (PMPM) (P < 0.0001), with no statistically significant differences in other costs. Similarly, the cost of ticagrelor increased by $77 PMPM (P = 0.0102) with no statistically significant differences in other costs. Finally, there was a 16% (P = 0.032) reduction in emergency department use for those in the program. CONCLUSIONS: The financial incentive and refill reminder program was associated with improved adherence to antithrombotic medications, reduced emergency department use, and increased medication costs, but not in total pharmacy, medical, or total cost of care in both subgroups.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes in patients with a prior myocardial infarction treated with extended dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor 60 mg: findings from ALETHEIA, a multi-country observational study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend extended dual antiplatelet therapy, including ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily, in high-risk post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients who have tolerated 12 months and are not at high bleeding risk. The real-world utilization and bleeding and ischaemic outcomes associated with long-term ticagrelor 60 mg in routine clinical practice have not been well described. METHODS: Register and claims data from the USA (Optum Clinformatics, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare) and Europe (Sweden, Italy, UK, and Germany) were extracted. Patients initiating ticagrelor 60 mg ≥12 months after MI, meeting eligibility criteria for the PEGASUS-TIMI (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 45) 54 trial, were included. The cumulative incidence of the composite of MI, stroke, or all-cause mortality and that of bleeding requiring hospitalization were calculated. Meta-analyses were performed to combine estimates from each source. RESULTS: A total of 7035 patients treated with ticagrelor 60 mg met eligibility criteria. Median age was 67 years and 29% were females; 12% had a history of multiple MIs. The majority (95%) had been treated with ticagrelor 90 mg prior to initiating ticagrelor 60 mg. At 12 months from initiation of ticagrelor 60 mg, the cumulative incidence [95% confidence interval (CI)] of MI, stroke, or mortality was 3.33% (2.73-4.04) and was approximately three-fold the risk of bleeding (0.96%; 0.69-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the use of ticagrelor 60 mg in patients with prior MI in clinical practice. Observed event rates for ischaemic events and bleeding generally align with those in the pivotal trials, support the established safety profile of ticagrelor, and highlight the significant residual ischaemic risk in this population.Clinical Trials.gov Registration NCT04568083.

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.

Early Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel on Peripheral Endothelial Function After Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and Assessment of Its Relationship With Coronary Microvascular Function.

Peripheral endothelial dysfunction is an independent predictor of adverse long-term prognosis after acute coronary syndrome. Data are lacking on the effects of oral P2Y12-inhibitors on peripheral endothelial function in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). Furthermore, the relation between peripheral endothelial function and invasive indexes of coronary microvascular function in NSTEACS is unclear. Between March 2018 and July 2020, hospitalized patients with NSTEACS were randomized (1:1) to ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Peripheral endothelial function was assessed with brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD). Invasive indexes of coronary microvascular function were obtained using an intracoronary pressure-temperature sensor-tipped wire. In 70 patients included, mean age was 58.6 years, 78.6% (n = 55) were male and 20% (n = 14) had diabetes mellitus. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly improved FMD (14.2 ± 5.4% vs 8.9 ± 5.3%, p <0.001) after a median treatment time of 41.2 hours. The FMD was significantly correlated with the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) measured in the infarct-related artery (r = -0.38, p = 0.001), with a stronger correlation found in those who did not have percutaneous coronary intervention (r = -0.52, p = 0.03). Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, an FMD of 8.2% identified an IMR of >34 as the threshold, with 77.6% sensitivity and 52.4% specificity. In patients who did not have a percutaneous coronary intervention, an FMD of 11.49% identified an IMR of >34 with 84.6% sensitivity and 80% specificity. In conclusion, ticagrelor significantly improved peripheral endothelial function compared with clopidogrel in patients with NSTEACS. There was a significant correlation between brachial artery FMD and IMR of the infarct-related artery.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of a Novel Antithrombotic Drug Removal System to Reduce Bleeding Risk in Patients on Preoperative Ticagrelor Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs, including the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor, increase the risk of perioperative bleeding in patients requiring urgent cardiac surgery. Perioperative bleeding can lead to increased mortality and prolong intensive care unit and hospital stays. A novel sorbent-filled hemoperfusion cartridge that intraoperatively removes ticagrelor via hemoadsorption can reduce the risk of perioperative bleeding. We estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using this device versus standard practices to reduce the risk of perioperative bleeding during and after coronary artery bypass grafting from the US healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: We used a Markov model to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the hemoadsorption device in three cohorts: (1) surgery within 1 day from last ticagrelor dose; (2) surgery between 1 and 2 days from last ticagrelor dose; and (3) a combined cohort. The model analyzed costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were interpreted as both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits (NMBs) at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY. We analyzed parameter uncertainty using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The hemoadsorption device was dominant for each cohort. Patients with less than 1 day of washout in the device arm gained 0.017 QALYs at a savings of $1748 (USD), for an NMB of $3434. In patients with 1-2 days of washout, the device arm yielded 0.014 QALYs and a cost savings of $151, for an NMB of $1575. In the combined cohort, device gained 0.016 QALYs and a savings of $950 for an NMB of $2505. Per-member-per-month cost savings associated with device was estimated to be $0.02 for a one-million-member health plan. CONCLUSION: This model found the hemoadsorption device to provide better clinical and economic outcomes compared with the standard of care in patients who required surgery within 2 days of ticagrelor discontinuation. Given the increasing use of ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome, incorporating this novel device may represent an important part of any bundle to save costs and reduce harm.

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.

Evaluation of Potential Racial Disparities in CYP2C19-Guided P2Y12 Inhibitor Prescribing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Black patients suffer worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than White patients. Inequities in antiplatelet prescribing may contribute to this health disparity. We compared P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing by race following CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy selection after PCI. Patients from 9 sites that performed clinical CYP2C19 genotyping after PCI were included. Alternative therapy (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) was recommended for CYP2C19 no-function allele carriers, in whom clopidogrel is predicted to be less effective. The primary outcome was choice of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs. alternative therapy) based on genotype. Of 3,342 patients included, 2,448 (73%) were White, and 659 (20%) were Black. More Black than White patients had a no-function allele (34.3% vs. 29.7%, P = 0.024). At hospital discharge following PCI, 44.2% of Black and 44.0% of White no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy. At the time of the last follow-up within 12 months, numerically fewer Black (51.8%) than White (56.7%) no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy (P = 0.190). However, the difference was not significant after accounting for other factors associated with P2Y12 inhibitor selection (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.08). Alternative therapy use did not differ between Black (14.3%) and White (16.7%) patients without a no-function allele (P = 0.232). Among real-world patients who received CYP2C19 testing after PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing rates did not differ between Black and White patients. Our data suggest an absence of racial disparity in genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing among patients receiving CYP2C19 testing.

Cost-effectiveness of testing for CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers following transient ischemic attack/minor stroke: A Canadian perspective.

BACKGROUND: The CHANCE-2 study compared 3 weeks of aspirin-ticagrelor to aspirin-clopidogrel in CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers following a transient ischemic attack (TIA)/minor stroke and demonstrated a modestly lower risk of stroke recurrence with aspirin-ticagrelor. This stroke protection was largely for minor stroke and came at an increased risk of bleeding. The cost-effectiveness of implementing testing for LOF allele status to personalize antiplatelet regimen for secondary stroke prevention after a TIA/minor stroke in the Canadian health care context is unknown. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic Markov cohort model with a lifetime horizon was performed to determine the costs and health benefits of testing for LOF allele status compared with no testing (current standard of care). The population of interest was patients living in Canada who suffered a TIA/minor stroke. Outcomes of interest were life-years gained (LYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, costs (reported in 2022 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We adopted the perspective of the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministries of Health and used a 1.5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to standard of care, LOF allele testing leads to 0.14 LYG (undiscounted), 0.12 QALYs gained (undiscounted), and additional lifetime costs of CAD$432 (discounted) per patient. The ICER of the LOF allele testing strategy is CAD$4310 per QALY gained compared with standard of care. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LOF allele testing was cost-effective in more than 99.99% of simulations using a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD$50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on available evidence, testing for LOF allele followed by short duration 3 weeks of aspirin-ticagrelor compared to standard-of-care aspirin-clopidogrel can lead to prolonged life and improved quality of life and can be considered very cost-effective when compared with other well-accepted technologies in health and medicine.

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.

Assessment of myocardial salvage in patients with STEMI undergoing thrombolysis: ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the faster and stronger antiplatelet action of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel, as well as its pleiotropic effects, could result in a greater degree of cardioprotection and final infarct size (FIS) limitation. The aim of our study was to comparatively evaluate the effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on myocardial salvage index (MSI) in STEMI patients undergoing thrombolysis. METHODS: Forty-two STEMI patients treated with thrombolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel (n = 21) or ticagrelor (n = 21), along with aspirin. Myocardial area at risk (AAR) was calculated according to the BARI and the APPROACH jeopardy scores. FIS was quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) performed 5-6 months post-randomization. MSI was calculated as (AAR-FIS)/AAR × 100%. Primary endpoint of our study was MSI. Secondary endpoints were FIS and CMR-derived left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 5 -6 months post-randomization. RESULTS: By using the BARI score for AAR calculation, mean MSI was 52.25 ± 30.5 for the clopidogrel group and 54.29 ± 31.08 for the ticagrelor group (p = 0.83), while mean MSI using the APPROACH score was calculated at 51.94 ± 30 and 53.09 ± 32.39 (p = 0.9), respectively. Median CMR-derived FIS-as a percentage of LV-was 10.7% ± 8.25 in the clopidogrel group and 12.09% ± 8.72 in the ticagrelor group (p = 0.6). Mean LVEF at 5-6 months post-randomization did not differ significantly between randomization groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the administration of ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing thrombolysis offer a similar degree of myocardial salvage, compared to clopidogrel.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor in patients of 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The POPular AGE trial showed that clopidogrel significantly reduced bleeding risk compared with ticagrelor without any signs of an increase in thrombotic events. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor in these patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A 1-year decision tree based on the POPular AGE trial in combination with a lifelong Markov model was developed to compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor in terms of clinical outcomes, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in elderly patients (above 70 year) with NSTE-ACS. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a Dutch healthcare system perspective. Events rates and utility data observed in the POPular AGE trial were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate costs and effects for a fictional cohort of 1000 patients. Treatment with clopidogrel instead of ticagrelor led to a cost saving of €1484 575 (€1485 per patient) and a decrease of 10.96 QALYs (0.011 QALY per patient) in the fictional cohort. In an alternative base case with equal distribution over health states in the first year, treatment with clopidogrel led to an increase in QALYs. In all scenario analyses, treatment with clopidogrel was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel is a cost-saving alternative to ticagrelor in elderly patients after NSTE-ACS, though regarding overall cost-effectiveness clopidogrel was not superior to ticagrelor, as it resulted in a small negative effect on QALYs. However, based on the results of the alternative base case and clinical outcomes of the POPular AGE trial, clopidogrel could be a reasonable alternative to ticagrelor for elderly NSTE-ACS patients with a higher bleeding risk.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a European economic evaluation of the THEMIS trial.

AIMS: To conduct a health economic evaluation of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) from a multinational payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor were evaluated in the overall effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) trial population and in the predefined patient group with prior percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov model was developed to extrapolate patient outcomes over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were compared with conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds [€47 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in Sweden and €30 000/QALY in other countries].Treatment with ticagrelor resulted in QALY gains of up to 0.045 in the overall population and 0.099 in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Increased costs and benefits translated to ICERs ranged between €27 894 and €42 252/QALY across Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Spain in the overall population. In patients with prior PCI, estimated ICERs improved to €18 449, €20 632, €20 233, and €13 228/QALY in Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Spain, respectively, driven by higher event rates and treatment benefit. CONCLUSION: Based on THEMIS results, ticagrelor plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone may be cost-effective in some European countries in patients with T2DM and CAD and no prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. Additionally, ticagrelor is likely to be cost-effective across European countries in patients with a history of PCI.