[Budget impact analysis of antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome after coronary artery bypass surgery]. / Analiz «vliyaniya na byudzhet¼ primeneniya antitrombotsitarnoi terapii tikagrelorom i klopidogrelom u patsientov s ostrym koronarnym sindromom, perenesshikh operatsiyu koronarnogo shuntirovaniya.

AIM: Clinical and economic examinations were made to study whether it is appropriate to use antiplatelet therapy (APT) with ticagrelor in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus a combination of clopidogrel and ASA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A budget impact analysis was used. Data on the efficiency and safety of APT were taken from a relevant analysis in the subgroups of the randomized controlled trial PLATO. Direct medical cost due to APT and expenses on therapy for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and massive bleeding, and those on medical care for patients dying from cardiovascular events and other causes, as well as indirect cost - gross domestic product (GDP) losses due to untimely death, were taken into account. The findings were assessed from the perspectives of society. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that direct medical costs per patient following CABS, both in case of calculation based on the recorded price for ticagrelor and on the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, and based on the auction prices for comparison agents proved to be lower when clopidogrel was administered because of the higher cost of ticagrelor-based APT. At the same time GDP losses due to untimely death, as calculated per patient with ACS during post-CABS therapy with clopidogrel + ASA, were more than twice above average losses per patient taking ticagrelor in combination with ACA (107,122 and 221,645 rubles, respectively). From the registered price for ticagrelor and the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, the total costs per patient with ACS following CABS were lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with clopidogrel in combination with ASA (210,092 and 273,257 rubles per year, respectively; the cost savings were 63,165 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was administered). On the basis of the auction prices for comparison drugs, the total costs per patient with ACS after CABS proved to be lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with brand name clopidogrel in combination with ASA (201,018 and 293,982 rubles per patients year, respectively; the cost savings were 92,963 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was used). CONCLUSION: The use of ticagrelor in combination with ASA ensures resource savings to treat ACS patients undergoing CABS as compared with a regiment including a combination of clopidogrel and ASA.