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

Comprehensive comparative efficacy and safety of potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients undergoing coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Potent P2Y12 receptor antagonists have been used widely for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with different results. Benefits from different regimens various between trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria; thus, they may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader population. This study was aimed to comprehensively investigate the outcomes of potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients undergoing PCI, including RCTs and real-world evidence (RWE) studies. Multiple electronic databases were systemically reviewed and searched on compared potent P2Y12 inhibitors with clopidogrel. The primary efficacy end point was composite ischemic cardiovascular event and primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Overall estimates of proportions and incidence rates with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed-effects models. Total 24 studies (140,986 patients) underwent coronary intervention were included in this meta-analysis, including 18 RCTs and 6 large cohort studies with propensity score matching. The potent P2Y12 inhibitors including cangrelor, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, significantly decreased the risk of composite adverse cardiovascular ischemic events (95 % CI 0.89-0.96, p < 0.001), but increased major bleeding (95 % CI 1.15-1.33, p < 0.001) or any bleeding (95 % CI 1.21-1.33, p < 0.001) compared with Clopidogrel. This meta-analysis merges RCTs and RWE studies and comprehensively evidences newer potent P2Y12 inhibitors are significantly more effective than clopidogrel in reduction of composite adverse thrombotic events, but the incidence of major or any bleeding was higher compared with clopidogrel.

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.

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.