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.

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.

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.

The use of antiplatelet agents after an acute coronary syndrome in a large community Italian setting of more than 12 million subjects.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet agents are the cornerstone of medical treatment in acute coronary syndromes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical epidemiology of patients after an acute coronary syndrome treated with different antiplatelet agent regimens in a large real community setting. METHODS: The ARCO database, including more than 12 million inhabitants, was evaluated. Antiplatelet agent prescriptions were analysed as follows: aspirin, clopidogrel, other antiplatelet agents used alone; the free and fixed combination of clopidogrel and aspirin; the free combination of aspirin with other antiplatelet agents. Healthcare costs included drug prescriptions (prices reimbursed by the Italian National Health System), outpatient specialist services and hospitalisations (Italian national tariffs). RESULTS: From 1 January to 31 December 2014, 26,834 patients were discharged after an acute coronary syndrome. Of these, 19,333 (77%) were prescribed with an antiplatelet agent. Among patients undergoing a revascularisation procedure either percutaneous or surgical (47% of the total population), antiplatelet agents were prescribed in 90% of cases. Dual antiplatelet agent therapy was prescribed in 49.6% of the total population and in 68.5% of those treated invasively. Prescription continuity was observed in just 75% of patients. The highest adherence was observed for the fixed combination of aspirin/clopidogrel (81.5%). Throughout one year of follow-up re-hospitalisation occurred in 47.9% of the patients and the direct cost per patient treated with an antiplatelet agent was €13,297 versus €16,647 in patients not treated with antiplatelet agents. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that antiplatelet agent prescriptions, specifically dual antiplatelet agent therapy, are at least suboptimal as well as in prescription continuity. Hospitalisations were frequent and were the main driver of the costs, accounting for 84% of the total costs for the Italian National Health System.

Comparison of 6-Month Costs Between Oral Antiplatelet Agents Following Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), newer antiplatelet agents prasugrel and ticagrelor have lower rates of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in economic outcomes when comparing these agents in ACS-PCI patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess aggregated costs and medical resource utilization among ACS-PCI patients prescribed prasugrel, ticagrelor, or generic clopidogrel, using a large commercial insurance claims database. METHODS: Costs attributable to any medical and pharmacy service and resource utilization including number of admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency room visits, and office visits over the 180-day postdischarge period were compared. All-cause and cardiovascular health care costs and resource utilization were separately analyzed for patients enrolled in the data over the continuous follow-up (CFU) period, and for patients continuously taking their initial treatment for 6 months (CTX). Potential confounders collected over a 6-month baseline assessment period were controlled for, using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Over the 180-day follow-up, prasugrel and ticagrelor patients underwent fewer admissions (rate ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95) from CFU and RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.89 from CTX) compared with clopidogrel patients. The newer agent cohort incurred more overall health care costs than the generic clopidogrel group, with added costs of $957 (95% CI = $236-$1,725) in the CFU group and $1,122 (95% CI = $455-$1,865) in the CTX group, which were smaller than the increase in all-cause outpatient pharmacy costs associated with the newer agents versus clopidogrel (CFU: $1,175, 95% CI = $1,079-$1,278 and CTX: $1,360, 95% CI = $1,256-$1,487). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the economic outcomes associated with prasugrel and ticagrelor. There were, however, significant correlations between all-cause and cardiovascular-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The higher price of prasugrel and ticagrelor was partially offset by a decrease in hospital admission compared with generic clopidogrel over a 6-month postdischarge period. Aggregated medical costs and resource utilization were not significantly different between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. DiDomenico has received an honorarium from Amgen for preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. Walton has served as a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Merck, Genentech, Primus, Takeda, and Abbott. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Prescribing patterns of oral antiplatelets in Wales: evolving trends from 2005 to 2016.

AIM: Antiplatelets have been used for decades to prevent atherothrombotic disease, but there is limited 'real-life' prescribing data. We hereby report the prescribing patterns for oral antiplatelets in Wales, UK. METHODS/RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of anonymized data in Wales from 2005 to 2016 revealed differences in prescribing patterns of oral antiplatelets. Aspirin and dipyridamole use declined with a corresponding increase in clopidogrel prescription. Costs declined with a sharp decrease coinciding with clopidogrel coming off patent. Prasugrel and ticagrelor have shown significant cost contribution (29% of total) despite only forming 1% of total items prescribed in 2016. CONCLUSION: This first-look analysis of real-life antiplatelet data demonstrates a decrease in the overall prescribing costs with varying patterns. This may aid policy-makers in reviewing funding strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different durations of DAPT. METHODS: We created a probabilistic patient-level Markov microsimulation model to assess the discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of short duration (3-6 months: short-duration group) vs standard therapy (12 months: standard-duration group) vs prolonged therapy (30-36 months: long-duration group) in patients undergoing PCI. RESULTS: The majority of patients in the model underwent PCI for stable angina (47.1%) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (62%) and were receiving clopidogrel (83.6%). Short-duration DAPT was the most effective strategy (7.163 ± 1.098 QALYs) compared with standard-duration DAPT (7.161 ± 1.097 QALYs) and long-duration DAPT (7.156 ± 1.097 QALYs). However, the magnitude of these differences was very small. Similarly, the average discounted lifetime cost was CAN$24,859 ± $6533 for short duration, $25,045 ± $6533 for standard duration, and $25,046 ± $6548 for long duration. Thus, in the base-case analysis, short duration was dominant, being more effective and less expensive. However, there was a moderate degree of uncertainty, because short duration was the preferred option in only ∼ 55% of simulations at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a stable angina cohort receiving clopidogrel with second-generation stents, a short duration of DAPT was marginally better. However, the differences are minimal, and decisions about duration of therapy should be driven by clinical data, patient risk of adverse events, including bleeding, and cardiovascular events.

Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in contemporary Western European patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving drug-eluting stents: Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis from the BASKET-PROVE cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was only evaluated using TRITON-TIMI 38 event rates. A comparative analysis of both drugs in contemporary European ACS patients is lacking. METHODS: To address this issue, cardiac and bleeding events of 2 "sister" multicenter stent trials, BASKET-PROVE (BP) I with clopidogrel and BPII with prasugrel (for 12months each) were used in a hybrid analysis. Medication costs were 2015 sales prices, event costs modelled for Denmark (DNK), Germany (GER) and Switzerland (SUI) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) by EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. RESULTS: In BPI and II, 1012 and 985 ACS-patients received drug eluting stents, respectively, followed-up for 2years. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel-treated patients had no more major cardiac events (5.2% vs. 6.4%, p=0.422) nor cardiac deaths (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.255), but more major bleedings (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p<0.001) and altogether no difference in QALYs (-0.027 (95%CI: -0.064/0.011)). Prasugrel caused higher total expenditures per patient: 1116.3 (DNK), 1063.5 (GER) and 880.8 (SUI) EURO, respectively. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness was negative for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel with ratios of -45,907 (DNK), -39,909 (GER) and -33,435 (SUI) EURO/QALY gained, making clopidogrel an economically dominant strategy, even after accounting for the non-randomized comparison. CONCLUSION: Findings of this contemporary European ACS-cohort showed markedly lower cardiac event rates than TRITON-TIMI 38 and no significant difference in 2-year QALYs between prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients. At current drug prices, clopidogrel use resulted in an economically dominant treatment strategy in Western European patients.

CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM: Determine whether using CYP2C19 genotype to optimize antiplatelet therapy selection is cost effective over the initial 30 days and 1-year following percutaneous coronary intervention. MATERIALS & METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes and cost across three treatment strategies (universal clopidogrel, universal prasugrel, genotype-guided) in a hypothetical cohort. RESULTS: Base-case scenario results at 30 days indicated that the incremental cost per major cardiovascular or bleeding event avoided for genotype-guided treatment was US$8525 and US$42,198 compared with universal clopidogrel and prasugrel, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that genotype-guided treatment was cost effective over 30 days and 1 year in 62 and 70% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a CYP2C19 genotype-guided approach to antiplatelet therapy could have a positive economic impact by preventing readmissions following percutaneous coronary intervention.

CYP2C19 LOF and GOF-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 loss-of-function and gain-of-function allele guided (LOF/GOF-guided) antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A life-long decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of three strategies: universal clopidogrel (75 mg daily), universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel 10 mg daily or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily), and LOF/GOF-guided therapy (LOF/GOF allele carriers receiving alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, wild-type patients receiving clopidogrel). Model outcomes included clinical event rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs from perspective of US healthcare provider. RESULTS: Base-case analysis found nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.62%) and stent thrombosis (1.2%) to be the lowest in universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor arm, whereas nonfatal stroke (0.72%), cardiovascular death (2.42%), and major bleeding (2.73%) were lowest in LOF/GOF-guided group. LOF/GOF-guided arm gained the highest QALYs (7.5301 QALYs) at lowest life-long cost (USD 76,450). One-way sensitivity analysis showed base-case results were subject to the hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in carriers versus non-carriers of LOF allele and hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in non-carriers of LOF allele versus general patients. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, LOF/GOF-guided therapy, universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, and universal clopidogrel were the preferred strategy (willingness-to-pay threshold = 50,000 USD/QALY) in 99.07%, 0.04%, and 0.89% of time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using both CYP2C19 GOF and LOF alleles to select antiplatelet therapy appears to be the preferred antiplatelet strategy over universal clopidogrel and universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients with PCI.

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

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

Early Cessation of Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors Among Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the TRANSLATE-ACS Study (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome).

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) therapy for 1 year postacute myocardial infarction; yet, early cessation of therapy occurs frequently in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 11 858 acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention discharged alive on ADPri therapy from 233 United States TRANSLATE-ACS study (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) participating hospitals to determine the prevalence of early ADPri cessation (within 1 year), patient-reported reasons for cessation, and associated risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Overall, 2514 (21.2%) of percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients stopped ADPri by 1 year postmyocardial infarction; the median time from discharge to cessation was 200.5 days (25th, 75th percentiles: 71, 340). Among those with early ADPri cessation, 53.9% received drug-eluting stents and had a median duration of 301 treatment days (25th, 75th percentiles: 137, 353); 33.3% of drug-eluting stent patients stopped treatment within 6 months compared with 64.2% of bare metal stent patients. Those discharged on prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) had a slightly higher likelihood of early ADPri cessation (23.2% versus 21.0%; P=0.03; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.40). Patient-reported reasons for early ADPri cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation (54%), as well as patient self-discontinuation, because of cost (19%), medication side effects (9%), and procedural interruption (10%). Using a time-dependent covariate model, early cessation of ADPri therapy was associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.65; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 percutaneous coronary intervention-treated myocardial infarction patients stopped ADPri treatment within 1 year. Early cessation was associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular event risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Prasugrel Use in Real Life: A Report From the Outpatient Setting in France.

The objective of this study was to provide descriptive statistics on patterns of prasugrel usage in the outpatient setting in France. This retrospective study was conducted to describe treatment patterns for prasugrel in the outpatient setting in France using the Intercontinental Marketing Services (IMS) Disease Analyzer database, which collates electronic medical records updated by a nationally representative database of 1200 French general practitioners (GPs). Anonymous data were collected prospectively at each follow-up visit. The study population consisted of patients with ≥1 prescription for prasugrel in the outpatient setting from its launch date to 3 years post-launch. Patients were followed up from the date of the first prescription for prasugrel recorded in the database until they died, changed GP, or reached the end of the study, whichever came first. In France, the IMS Disease Analyzer included 1052 patients receiving ≥1 prescription of prasugrel from January 2010 until October 2012. Eighty-five percent of the population was male. The mean age was 58 years; 94.3% were age <75 years, and 95.0% weighed ≥60 kg. Of the total, 99.8% of patients were prescribed a daily maintenance dose of 10 mg, and 0.2% had a history of transient ischemic attack/stroke. Concomitant medications were antiplatelet agents (100%; aspirin, 93.7%), lipid-lowering agents (90.1%), ß-blockers (83.7%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (62.2%), and anti-ulcer medications (55.1%). The results reflect good usage of prasugrel by French GPs in the outpatient setting, with excellent implementation of the Prasugrel European Summary Product Characteristics.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalized antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenetic-guided (PG-guided) and platelet reactivity testing-guided antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was simulated including four antiplatelet strategies: universal clopidogrel 75 mg daily, universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor), PG-guided therapy, and platelet reactivity testing-guided therapy. RESULTS: PG-guided therapy was the preferred option with lowest cost (US$75,208) and highest quality-adjusted life years gained (7.6249 quality-adjusted life years). The base-case results were robust in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: PG-guided antiplatelet therapy showed the highest probability to be preferred antiplatelet strategy for acute coronary syndrome patients with percutaneous coronary intervention.

Comparative resource utilization and costs for patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel.

PURPOSE: Results of a study of bleeding events and other inhospital outcomes with the use of clopidogrel versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are reported. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data on adults hospitalized for ACS, managed with PCI, and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel during a two-year period were extracted from a large hospital claims database. Bleeding rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs during the index hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 75,297 patients who received clopidogrel and 9,477 who received prasugrel. The unadjusted bleeding rates were 5.7% with clopidogrel use and 3.2% with prasugrel use (p < 0.0001). After propensity score stratification to adjust for selection bias, rates of bleeding events were not significantly different between clopidogrel- and prasugrel-treated patients (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.02; p = 0.0949). The adjusted mean ± S.D. hospital LOS was 0.22 day lower (95% CI, 0.15-0.28; p < 0.001) with the use of prasugrel versus clopidogrel, and adjusted total mean hospital costs were $375 less for prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: After adjustments for demographic and clinical characteristics, rates of inhospital bleeding in patients who received prasugrel and those who received clopidogrel were not significantly different. The adjusted analyses showed that the mean hospital LOS was shorter and total mean hospital costs were lower for patients treated with prasugrel.

CYP2C19 genotype plus platelet reactivity-guided antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome patients: a decision analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 genotype plus platelet reactivity-guided antiplatelet therapy (PG-PRT) from the perspective of US healthcare providers. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to simulate life-long medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three antiplatelet strategies in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients with acute coronary syndrome after a percutaneous coronary intervention: (a) universal clopidogrel (75 mg daily), (b) universal alternative antiplatelet therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), and (c) all PG-PRT patients were genotyped. Noncarriers of the CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele received clopidogrel 75 mg daily. CYP2C19 LOF allele(s) carriers who were poor metabolizers received prasugrel or ticagrelor. CYP2C19 LOF allele(s) carriers who were intermediate metabolizers (IM) received high-dose clopidogrel (225 mg daily) and were tested for high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR). IM patients with HTPR were switched to prasugrel or ticagrelor. Model inputs were derived from the literature. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, PG-PRT was the least costly (USD 71,887) strategy with highest QALYs gained (7.886 QALYs). Sensitivity analyses found universal clopidogrel to be the preferred strategy if the prevalence of the CYP2C19 LOF allele was less than 2.6% or the incidence of HTPR in IM patients was greater than 82.8%. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, PG-PRT was less costly than universal clopidogrel by USD 91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 83-99; P=0.0499], with higher QALYs by 0.0257 (95% CI: 0.0256-0.0258; P<0.001). Compared with universal alternative antiplatelet therapy, PG-PRT was less costly by USD 2208 (95% CI: 2195-2221; P<0.001) and gained 0.0085 QALYs (95% CI: 0.0083-0.0087; P=0.0260). CONCLUSION: PG-PRT seems to be cost-saving and effective for guiding selection of antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Economic outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: observations from prasugrel users and matched clopidogrel users.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs between clopidogrel and prasugrel over 30-day and 365-day periods after discharge from the hospital or emergency room (ER) in patients treated with prasugrel who were hospitalized or had an ER visit for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was based on claims from January 2009-July 2012 in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Clopidogrel patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 to prasugrel-treated patients. Lin's frequentist cost history method for censored data and Bayesian zero-inflated gamma regression models were used to analyze healthcare costs. RESULTS: The clopidogrel/prasugrel matched-cohort included 10,963 well-matched pairs of patients. Lin's frequentist analysis showed that outpatient visit costs were significantly lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel after 30 days of follow-up. At 30 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization costs and showed very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related outpatient visit costs. At 365 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause outpatient visit costs and very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for ACS-related outpatient visit costs. Point estimates of the all-cause and ACS-related ER visit costs at 30 days and 365 days were similar, but statistical results were inconclusive because of the large variability in this outcome variable. CONCLUSION: Based on retrospective observational data in a real-world setting, all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization and outpatient visit costs were lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel over 30 days after discharge from a hospitalization or ER visit associated with ACS in patients treated with prasugrel. At 365 days the difference in all-cause and ACS-related outpatient costs remained, but there was little evidence of a difference in either all-cause or ACS-related hospitalization costs.

One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Hospital charge master data were used to identify ACS-PCI patients aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 in-hospital claim for prasugrel or ticagrelor between August 1, 2011-April 30, 2013. Treatment groups were propensity matched for baseline and index hospitalization characteristics. HCRU and costs were assessed through 90-days post-discharge. Costs were determined based on hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and adjusted to 2013 US dollars. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor patients were older, more-often female, and had increased cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel patients. Propensity-matched length of index hospital stay (4.7 vs 4.9 days, p = 0.23) and risk for all-cause [30-day: relative risk (RR) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.73-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.80-1.0, and CV-related (30-day: RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59-1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.73-1.1) re-hospitalizations did not significantly differ between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. Compared to ticagrelor, the propensity-matched risk of re-hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) (30-day: RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.75; 90-day: RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.81) and an outpatient medical encounter for dyspnea (30-day: RR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33-0.74; 90-day: RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.46-0.80) were significantly lower for prasugrel patients, with no significant differences in bleeding encounters between groups (30-day: RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.54-1.40; 90-day: RR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.71-1.50). Matched total healthcare costs were not significantly different between groups during the index hospitalization ($36,011 vs $37,247, p = 0.21), 30-days post-discharge ($2007 vs $2522, p = 0.48), 90-days post-discharge ($4564 vs $5242, p = 0.49), and aggregate of the index hospitalization through 90-day follow-up ($40,576 vs $42,494, p = 0.09) timeframes. CONCLUSIONS: Re-hospitalization for MI and outpatient encounters for dyspnea were lower in prasugrel treated than in ticagrelor treated ACS-PCI patients up to 90-days post-index hospitalization discharge, with no difference in bleeding encounters or healthcare costs between the two populations. This data supports the utility of prasugrel in routine clinical practice. These findings should be considered within limitations of observational research.