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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Balance of benefit and risk of ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease according to bleeding risk assessment with the CRUSADE score: Data from THEMIS and THEMIS PCI.

BACKGROUND: The THEMIS trial demonstrated that in high-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without previous myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor, in addition to aspirin, reduced the incidence of ischemic events but increased major bleeding. Identification of patients who could derive the greatest net benefit from the addition of ticagrelor appears important. We used the CRUSADE bleeding risk score to risk stratify the THEMIS population. METHODS: The population was divided into tertiles: score ≤22, 23 to 33, and ≥34. In each tertile, primary efficacy (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and safety (TIMI major bleeding) outcomes were analyzed. NACE (net adverse clinical events) was defined as the irreversible harm composite, in which all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, amputations, fatal bleeds, and intracranial hemorrhage were counted. RESULTS: Patients in the lower risk tertile experienced fewer ischemic events with ticagrelor than placebo, whereas there was no significant benefit from ticagrelor in the other tertiles (Pinteraction = .008). Bleeding rates were consistently increased with ticagrelor across all tertiles (Pinteraction = .79). Ticagrelor reduced NACE in the first tertile (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90) but not in the others (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.86-1.23 and HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.22, respectively; Pinteraction = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, only those at the lower end of the bleeding risk spectrum according to the CRUSADE score derived net benefit from ticagrelor.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ticagrelor Compared with Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome from Vietnamese Healthcare Payers' Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial (NCT00391872) demonstrated that ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in ACS patients from a Vietnamese healthcare payers' perspective. METHODS: A two-part cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Cardiovascular event rates, hospital bed days, interventions, investigations, study drug utilization and EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) data were derived from the PLATO trial. Unit costs of medical services were derived from the Vietnamese governmental price list, and drug costs were based on the weighted average price from the Vietnamese social security report (in VND; 10.000 VND = 0.405 USD). An annual discount rate of 3% was used. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: Ticagrelor was associated with an incremental cost of VND 5.34 million (USD 216.49) and a QALY gain of 0.11. This resulted in a cost per QALY gained of VND 49.58 million (USD 2009.96) from the Vietnamese healthcare payers' perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that ticagrelor has 59% probability of being cost-effective compared with clopidogrel when using a willingness-to-pay threshold of one gross domestic products (GDP) per capita. Deterministic sensitivity analysis using clinical outcomes from the Asian sub-population of PLATO resulted in a cost per QALY of VND 42.25 million (USD 1712.80). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor can be considered a cost-effective treatment for ACS compared with clopidogrel from a Vietnamese healthcare payers' perspective.

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

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

Comparative Methodological Assessment of the Randomized GLOBAL LEADERS Trial Using Total Ischemic and Bleeding Events.

BACKGROUND: Time-to-first-event analysis considers only the first event irrespective of its severity. There are several methods to assess trial outcomes beyond time-to-first-event analysis, such as analyzing total events and ranking outcomes. In the GLOBAL LEADERS study, time-to-first-event analysis did not show superiority of ticagrelor monotherapy following one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention to conventional 12-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy in the reduction of the primary composite end point of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction. This study sought to explore various analytical approaches in assessing total ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention in the GLOBAL LEADERS study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Total ischemic and bleeding events were defined as all-cause mortality, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, any revascularization, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 2 or 3 bleeding. We used various analytical approaches to analyze the benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy over conventional DAPT. For ischemic and bleeding events at 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy demonstrated a 6% risk reduction, compared with conventional 12-month DAPT in time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-1.01]; log-rank P=0.10). In win ratio analysis, win ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.97-1.13; P=0.20). Negative binomial regression and Andersen-Gill analyses which include repeated events showed statistically significant advantage for ticagrelor monotherapy (rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P=0.020] and hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P=0.028], respectively), although in weighted composite end point analysis, the hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.04; log-rank P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical analyses considering repeated events or event severity showed that ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced ischemic and bleeding events by 5% to 8%, compared with conventional 1-year DAPT. Applying multiple statistical methods could emphasize the multiple facets of a trial and result in accurate and more appropriate analyses. Considering the recurrence of ischemic and bleeding events, ticagrelor monotherapy appeared to be beneficial after percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Standard approaches to trial design and analyses can be inefficient and non-pragmatic. Failure to consider a range of outcomes impedes evidence-based interpretation and reduces power. Traditional approaches synthesizing information obtained from separate analysis of each outcome fail to incorporate associations between outcomes and recognize the cumulative nature of outcomes in individual patients, suffer from competing risk complexities during interpretation, and since efficacy and safety analyses are often conducted on different populations, generalizability is unclear. Pragmatic and efficient approaches to trial design and analyses are needed. METHODS: Approaches providing a pragmatic assessment of benefits and harms of interventions, summarizing outcomes experienced by patients, and providing sample size efficiencies are described. Ordinal outcomes recognize finer gradations of patient responses. Desirability of outcome ranking is an ordinal outcome combining benefits and harms within patients. Analysis of desirability of outcome ranking can be based on rank-based methodologies including the desirability of outcome ranking probability, the win ratio, and the proportion in favor of treatment. Partial credit analyses, involving grading the levels of the desirability of outcome ranking outcome similar to an academic test, provides an alternative approach. The methodologies are demonstrated using the acute stroke or transient ischemic attack treated with aspirin or ticagrelor and patient outcomes study (SOCRATES; NCT01994720), a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Two 5-level ordinal outcomes were developed for SOCRATES. The first was based on a modified Rankin scale. The odds ratio is 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.75, 0.99; p = 0.04) indicating that the odds of worse stroke categorization for a trial participant assigned to ticagrelor is 0.86 times that of a trial participant assigned to aspirin. The 5-level desirability of outcome ranking outcome incorporated and prioritized survival; the number of strokes, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding events; and whether a stroke event was disabling. The desirability of outcome ranking probability and win ratio are 0.504 (95% confidence interval = 0.499, 0.508; p = 0.10) and 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 0.98, 1.26; p = 0.10), respectively, implying that the probability of a more desirable result with ticagrelor is 50.4% and that a more desirable result occurs 1.11 times more frequently on ticagrelor versus aspirin. CONCLUSION: Ordinal outcomes can improve efficiency through required pre-specification, careful construction, and analyses. Greater pragmatism can be obtained by composing outcomes within patients. Desirability of outcome ranking provides a global assessment of the benefits and harms that more closely reflect the experience of patients. The desirability of outcome ranking probability, the proportion in favor of treatment, the win ratio, and partial credit can more optimally inform patient treatment, enhance the understanding of the totality of intervention effects on patients, and potentially provide efficiencies over standard analyses. The methods provide the infrastructure for incorporating patient values and estimating personalized effects.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 24 de julho de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on July 24, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referentes ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 21 artigos e 15 protocolos.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data.

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CYP2C19 genotype can guide DAPT selection, prescribing ticagrelor or prasugrel for loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers (genotype-guided escalation). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are traditionally grounded in clinical trial data. We conduct a CEA using real-world data using a 1-year decision-analytic model comparing primary strategies: universal empiric clopidogrel (base case), universal ticagrelor, and genotype-guided escalation. We also explore secondary strategies commonly implemented in practice, wherein all patients are prescribed ticagrelor for 30 days post PCI. After 30 days, all patients are switched to clopidogrel irrespective of genotype (nonguided de-escalation) or to clopidogrel only if patients do not harbor an LOF allele (genotype-guided de-escalation). Compared with universal clopidogrel, both universal ticagrelor and genotype-guided escalation were superior with improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY's). Only genotype-guided escalation was cost-effective ($42,365/QALY) and demonstrated the highest probability of being cost-effective across conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. In the secondary analysis, compared with the nonguided de-escalation strategy, although genotype-guided de-escalation and universal ticagrelor were more effective, with ICER of $188,680/QALY and $678,215/QALY, respectively, they were not cost-effective. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing is cost-effective compared with either universal clopidogrel or universal ticagrelor using real-world implementation data. The secondary analysis suggests genotype-guided and nonguided de-escalation may be viable strategies, needing further evaluation.

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.