Ticagrelor versus genotype-driven antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Genetic-Guided Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic and Critical Review of Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) is not recommended in clinical guidelines for coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations of PGx in CAD and to identify variables influential in changing conclusions on cost-effectiveness.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From systematic searches across 6 databases, 2 independent reviewers screened, included, and rated the methodological quality of economic evaluations of PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for patients with CAD. Of 35 economic evaluations included, most were model-based cost-utility analyses alone, or alongside cost-effectiveness analyses of PGx testing to stratify patients into antiplatelets (25/35), statins (2/35), pain killers (1/35), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (1/35) to predict CAD risk (8/35) or to determine the coumadin doses (1/35). To stratify patients into antiplatelets (96/151 comparisons with complete findings of PGx versus non-PGx), PGx was more effective and more costly than non-PGx clopidogrel (28/43) but less costly than non-PGx prasugrel (10/15) and less costly and less effective than non-PGx ticagrelor (22/25). To predict CAD risk (51/151 comparisons), PGx using genetic risk scores was more effective and less costly than clinical risk score (13/17) but more costly than no risk score (16/19) or no treatment (9/9). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Mortality risk was the most common variable (47/294) changing conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations to date found PGx to stratify patients with CAD into antiplatelets or to predict CAD risk to be cost-effective, but findings varied based on the non-PGx comparators, underscoring the importance of considering local practice in deciding whether to adopt PGx.

Assessing the utility of measurement methods applied in economic evaluations of pharmacogenomics applications

An increasing number of economic evaluations are published annually investigating the economic effectiveness of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. This work was designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the available utility methods used in cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis studies of PGx interventions. A comprehensive review was conducted to identify economic analysis studies using a utility valuation method for PGx testing. A total of 82 studies met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies were from the USA and used the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, as the utility valuation method. Cardiovascular disorders was the most studied therapeutic area while discrete-choice studies mainly focused on patients' willingness to undergo PGx testing. Future research in applying other methodologies in PGx economic evaluation studies would improve the current research environment and provide better results.

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.

Novel Antithrombotic Agents in Pregnancy Anticoagulants and Antiplatelet Agents

Increasing rates of thromboembolic complications have required increasing use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents during and after pregnancy. Furthermore, thromboembolism is both a cause and a complication of severe maternal morbidity requiring intensive care. As a consequence, almost all patients admitted to intensive care units receive an anticoagulant or an antiplatelet agent (or both) for either treatment or prevention of thromboembolism. In this review, we summarize commonly used anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents and outline the potential role of newly developed (novel) antithrombotic agents for pregnant and postpartum patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines: A Systematic Review

The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.

Cost Effectiveness of a CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Strategy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from the POPular Genetics Trial

INTRODUCTION

The POPular Genetics trial demonstrated that a CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y₁₂ inhibitor strategy reduced bleeding rates compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel without increasing thrombotic event rates after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

METHODS

A 1-year decision tree based on the POPular Genetics trial in combination with a lifelong Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between a genotype-guided and a standard P2Y₁₂ inhibitor strategy in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare system perspective. Within-trial survival and utility data were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness for a cohort of 1000 patients. Costs and utilities were discounted at 4 and 1.5%, respectively, according to Dutch guidelines for health economic studies. Besides deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, several scenario analyses were also conducted (different time horizons, different discount rates, equal prices for P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, and equal distribution of thrombotic events between the two strategies).

RESULTS

Base-case analysis with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 subjects demonstrated 8.98 QALYs gained and €725,550.69 in cost savings for the genotype-guided strategy (dominant). The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model and the cost-effectiveness results. In scenario analyses, the genotype-guided strategy remained dominant.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel resulted in QALYs gained and cost savings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01761786, Netherlands trial register number: NL2872.

Short- and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy, universal clopidogrel, versus universal ticagrelor in post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients in Qatar

BACKGROUND

Patients having CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and receiving clopidogrel are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet that is unaffected by the CYP2C19 polymorphism. The main aim of the current research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness among CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy, universal ticagrelor, and universal clopidogrel after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

A two-part decision-analytic model, including a one-year model and a 20-year follow-up Markov model, was created to follow the use of (i) universal clopidogrel, (ii) universal ticagrelor, and (iii) genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy. Outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost/success) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR, cost/quality-adjusted life years [QALY]). Therapy success was defined as survival without myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and no therapy discontinuation because of adverse events, i.e. major bleeding and dyspnea. The model was based on a multivariate analysis, and a sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes, including against variations in drug acquisition costs.

RESULTS

Against universal clopidogrel, genotype-guided therapy was cost-effective over the one-year duration (ICER, USD 6102 /success), and dominant over the long-term. Genotype-guided therapy was dominant against universal ticagrelor over the one-year duration, and cost-effective over the long term (ICUR, USD 1383 /QALY). Universal clopidogrel was dominant over ticagrelor for the short term, and cost-effective over the long-term (ICUR, USD 10,616 /QALY).

CONCLUSION

CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy appears to be the preferred antiplatelet strategy, followed by universal clopidogrel, and then universal ticagrelor for post-PCI patients in Qatar.

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.

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 Platelet Function-Guided Strategy with Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor

Some patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can still exhibit heightened residual platelet reactivity (HRPR), which is potentially linked to adverse vascular outcomes. Better tailored DAPT strategies are needed to address this medical need. Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of guided DAPT with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in addition to aspirin when using VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ testing in post-ACS patients. Methods: The costs were calculated per 1,000 patients aged >55 years. It was assumed that all patients received either generic clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 1 year, and underwent VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay testing before DAPT maintenance. Results: Guided DAPT will prevent five more MIs and six more deaths per 1,000 patients than a standard prescription of generic clopidogrel. The total predictive value of costs per patient is 32% lower if a guided strategy is used than if ticagrelor is given to all patients. Conclusion: Assessment of heightened residual platelet reactivity with P2Y₁₂ assay in triaging DAPT post-ACS patients for 1 year is a cost-effective strategy that would reduce financial burden compared to routine administration of more expensive antiplatelet agents.

Systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment for cardiovascular diseases

PURPOSE

To examine the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomics (PGx) in cardiovascular disease (CVD) care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases from inception to 2018. The titles and abstracts of cost-effectiveness studies on PGx-guided treatment in CVD care were screened, and full texts were extracted.

RESULTS

We screened 909 studies and included 46 to synthesize. Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation were the predominantly studied conditions (59%). Most studies (78%) examined warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1 or clopidogrel-CYP2C19. A payer's perspective was commonly used (39%) for cost calculations, and most studies (46%) were US-based. The majority (67%) of the studies found PGx testing to be cost-effective in CVD care, but cost-effectiveness varied across drugs and conditions. Two studies examined PGx panel testing, of which one examined pre-emptive testing strategies.

CONCLUSION

We found mixed evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PGx in CVD care. Supportive evidence exists for clopidogrel-CYP2C19 and warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1, but evidence is limited in other drug-gene combinations. Gaps persist, including unclear explanation of perspective and cost inputs, underreporting of study design elements critical to economic evaluations, and limited examination of PGx panel and pre-emptive testing for their cost-effectiveness. This review identifies the need for further research on economic evaluations of PGx implementation.

An Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Comprehensive MTM Integrated with Point-of-Care Phenotypic and Genetic Testing for U.S. Elderly Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Poor health outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients is an area of concern among policymakers and administrators. In an effort to determine the best strategy to improve outcomes among elderly patients who underwent PCI, several studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with universal use of any one of the antiplatelet drugs indicated for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent PCI. The results have either been in favor of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy or universal use of ticagrelor. However, no study has yet evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-provided face-to-face medication therapy management (MTM) combined with point-of-care genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel for the elderly after PCI.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist integration of MTM with POCP (MTM-POCP) when compared with universal use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel combined with MTM (MTM-ticagrelor or MTM-clopidogrel).

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. A hybrid model, consisting of a 1-year decision tree and a 20-year Markov model, was used to simulate a cohort of elderly patients (aged at least 65 years) with ACS who underwent PCI. Treatment strategies available to patients were POCP, POCP-MTM, MTM-clopidogrel, or MTM-ticagrelor. Data used to populate the model were obtained from the PLATO trial and other published studies. Outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY gained. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for the joint uncertainty around the key parameters of the model. Finally, a benchmark willingness to pay of $50,000-200,000 was considered.

RESULTS

The use of PCOP (with dual antiplatelet therapy) resulted in 5.29 QALYs, at a cost of $50,207. MTM-clopidogrel resulted in 5.34 QALYs, at a cost of $50,011. The use of POCP-MTM resulted in 5.36 QALYs, at a cost of $50,270. Finally, MTM-ticagrelor resulted in 5.42 QALYs, at a cost of $53,346. MTM-ticagrelor was found to be cost-effective compared with MTM-clopidogrel or MTM-POCP, irrespective of the willingness to pay. The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MTM-ticagrelor was cost-effective when compared with MTM-POCP or MTM-clopidogrel. The transitional probabilities, however, were mostly based on published studies. Analysis based on a prospective randomized clinical study, comparing all the treatment strategies included in this study, is warranted to confirm our findings.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Study concept and design were contributed by Okere and Diaby. Ezendu took the lead in data collection, along with Okere. Data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Okere, Diaby, and Berthe and revised by Okere and Diaby.

Universal versus platelet reactivity assay-driven use of P2Y12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome patients

Platelet reactivity assays (PRAs) can predict patients’ likely response to clopidogrel. As ticagrelor and prasugrel are typically considered first-line agents for acute coronary syndrome in Europe, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal compared to PRA-driven selection of these agents. A Markov model was used to calculate five-year costs (2013£/€), quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for one-year of universal ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to all) compared to each agents’ corresponding PRA-driven strategy (ticagrelor/prasugrel in those with high platelet reactivity [HPR, >208 on the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay], others given generic clopidogrel). We assumed patients had their index event at 65–70 years of age and had a 42.7% incidence of HPR 24–48 hours post-revascularisation. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and United Kingdom) and used a one-year cycle length. Event data for P2Y12 inhibitors were taken from multinational randomised trials and adjusted using country-specific epidemiologic data. Neither universal ticagrelor nor prasugrel were found to be cost-effective (all ICERs >40,250€ or £36,600/QALY) compared to their corresponding PRA-driven strategies in any of the countries evaluated. Results were sensitive to differences in P2Y12 Inhibitors costs and drug-specific relative risks of major adverse cardiac events. Monte Carlo simulation suggested universal ticagrelor or prasugrel were cost-effective in only 25–44% and 11–17% of 10,000 iterations compared to their respective PRA-driven strategies, when applying a willingness-to-pay threshold = €30,000 or £20,000/QALY. In conclusion, the universal use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors is not likely cost-effective compared to PRA-driven strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment: are we there yet?

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) has the potential to personalize pharmaceutical treatments. Many relevant gene-drug associations have been discovered, but PGx-guided treatment needs to be cost-effective as well as clinically beneficial to be incorporated into standard health-care. We reviewed economic evaluations for PGx associations listed in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling. We determined the proportion of evaluations that found PGx-guided treatment to be cost-effective or dominant over the alternative strategies, and estimated the impact on this proportion of removing the cost of genetic testing. Of the 137 PGx associations in the FDA table, 44 economic evaluations, relating to 10 drugs, were identified. Of these evaluations, 57% drew conclusions in favour of PGx testing, of which 30% were cost-effective and 27% were dominant (cost-saving). If genetic information was freely available, 75% of economic evaluations would support PGx-guided treatment, of which 25% would be cost-effective and 50% would be dominant. Thus, PGx-guided treatment can be a cost-effective and even a cost-saving strategy. Having genetic information readily available in the clinical health record is a realistic future prospect, and would make more genetic tests economically worthwhile.

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.

Forecasting Pharmaceutical Prices for Economic Evaluations When There Is No Market: A Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation helps policy makers and healthcare payers make decisions on drug listing, coverage, and reimbursement. When economic evaluations are conducted before a product launch, the prices of the pharmaceuticals have to be forecast.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the methods of establishing proxy prices and their accuracies compared with actual market prices after the product launch.

METHODS

We searched the literature for evaluations for drugs that were licensed in the US between 2010 and 2015. We reviewed the studies for the forecasting strategies used, and then estimated the difference between actual 2016 post-launch prices and what the proxy prices would be if the forecast was carried out in the US in 2016.

RESULTS

We identified six such studies, with seven drugs. Four studies used substitute drugs as proxies for the study drug, and three used other methods. The range of the values of actual minus proxy price varied considerably, and no trend was observed.

CONCLUSION

Forecasting drug prices is as precarious as forecasting in other areas of the economy. We urge caution in reviewing and accepting a cost-effectiveness ratio that is based on forecast prices.

Latin American Clinical Epidemiology Network Series - Paper 8: Ticagrelor was cost-effective vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome in Chile

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the use of ticagrelor as a substitute for clopidogrel for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome in Chile.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model: Safety and effectiveness data of ticagrelor were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Costs are expressed in Chilean pesos (CLP) as of 2013. The evaluation was conducted from the payer standpoint. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis comprising discount rates and national cost variability was done. A budget impact analysis estimated for 2015 was conducted to calculate the total cost for both treatments.

RESULTS

The ICER with a discount rate of 6% for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel was CLP 4,893,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (=9,689 US$). In the budget impact analysis for the baseline scenario, considering 100% of treatment, coverage, and adherence, ticagrelor represented an additional cost of CLP 5,233,854,272, for 979 QALYs gained compared with clopidogrel.

CONCLUSIONS

Ticagrelor is cost-effective in comparison with clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome. These findings are similar to those reported in other international cost-effectiveness studies.

Economic analysis of pharmacogenomic-guided clopidogrel treatment in Serbian patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION

Clopidogrel, which is activated by the CYP2C19 enzyme, is among the drugs for which all major regulatory agencies recommend genetic testing to be performed to identify a patient's CYP2C19 genotype in order to determine the optimal antiplatelet therapeutic scheme. The CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*3 variants are loss-of-function alleles, leading to abolished CYP2C19 function and thus have the risk of thrombotic events for carriers of these alleles on standard dosages, while the CYP2C19*17 allele results in CYP2C19 hyperactivity.

AIMS

Here, we report our findings from a retrospective study to assess whether genotyping for the CYP2C19*2 allele was cost effective for myocardial infarction patients receiving clopidogrel treatment in the Serbian population compared with the nongenotype-guided treatment.

RESULTS

We found that 59.3% of the CYP2C19*1/*1 patients had a minor or major bleeding event versus 42.85% of the CYP2C19*1/*2 and *2/*2, while a reinfarction event occurred only in 2.3% of the CYP21C9*1/*1 patients, compared with 11.2% of the CYP2C19*1/*2 and CYP2C19*2/*2 patients. There were subtle differences between the two patient groups, as far as the duration of hospitalization and rehabilitation is concerned, in favor of the CYP2C19*1/*1 group. The mean cost for the CYP2C19*1/*1 patients was estimated at €2547 versus €2799 in the CYP2C19*1/*2 and CYP2C19*2/*2 patients. Furthermore, based on the overall CYP2C19*1/*2 genotype frequencies in the Serbian population, a break-even point analysis indicated that performing the genetic test prior to drug prescription represents a cost-saving option, saving €13 per person on average.

CONCLUSION

Overall, our data demonstrate that pharmacogenomics-guided clopidogrel treatment may represent a cost-saving approach for the management of myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in Serbia.

Economic Evaluations of Pharmacogenetic and Pharmacogenomic Screening Tests: A Systematic Review. Second Update of the Literature

Objective

Due to extended application of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic screening (PGx) tests it is important to assess whether they provide good value for money. This review provides an update of the literature.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and papers published between August 2010 and September 2014, investigating the cost-effectiveness of PGx screening tests, were included. Papers from 2000 until July 2010 were included via two previous systematic reviews. Studies’ overall quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results

We found 38 studies, which combined with the previous 42 studies resulted in a total of 80 included studies. An average QHES score of 76 was found. Since 2010, more studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most recent studies performed cost-utility analysis, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and discussed limitations of their economic evaluations. Most studies indicated favorable cost-effectiveness. Majority of evaluations did not provide information regarding the intrinsic value of the PGx test. There were considerable differences in the costs for PGx testing. Reporting of the direction and magnitude of bias on the cost-effectiveness estimates as well as motivation for the chosen economic model and perspective were frequently missing.

Conclusions

Application of PGx tests was mostly found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy. We found that only the minority of recent pharmacoeconomic evaluations assessed the intrinsic value of the PGx tests. There was an increase in the number of studies and in the reporting of quality associated characteristics. To improve future evaluations, scenario analysis including a broad range of PGx tests costs and equal costs of comparator drugs to assess the intrinsic value of the PGx tests, are recommended. In addition, robust clinical evidence regarding PGx tests’ efficacy remains of utmost importance.

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.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, coronary heart disease accounts for 7 million deaths each year. In Sweden, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a leading cause of hospitalization and is responsible for 1 in 4 deaths.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (BID) in combination with standard antiplatelet therapy (ST-APT) versus ST-APT alone, for the secondary prevention of ACS in adult patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers without a prior history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), from a Swedish societal perspective, based on clinical data from the global ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial, literature-based quality of life data and costs sourced from Swedish national databases.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to capture rates of single and multiple myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major, minor, and "requiring medical attention" bleeds, revascularization events, and associated costs and utilities in patients who were stabilized after an initial ACS event. Efficacy and safety data for the first 2 years came from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial. Long-term probabilities were extrapolated using safety and effectiveness of acetylsalicylic acid data, which was estimated from published literature, assuming constant rates in time. Future cost and effects were discounted at 3.0%. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, the use of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID was associated with improvements in survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), yielding an incremental cost per QALY of 71,246 Swedish Krona (SEK) (€8045). The outcomes were robust to changes in inputs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID to be cost-effective in >99.9% of cases, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 500,000 (€56,458).

CONCLUSION

Compared with ST-APT alone, the use of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID in combination with ST-APT can be considered a cost-effective treatment option for ACS patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers without a prior history of stroke/TIA in Sweden.

FUNDING

Bayer Pharma AG.

Pharmacogenomics of oral antiplatelet drugs

Pharmacogenomics has been implicated in the response variability of antiplatelet drugs in coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly for aspirin and clopidogrel. A large number of studies and several meta-analyses have been published on this topic, but until recently, there have been no clear conclusions and no definite guidelines on the clinical use of pharmacogenetic testing before prescribing antiplatelet drugs for CAD. In this review, the available evidence is summarized. The most consistent results are on clopidogrel, where CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles are associated with stent thrombosis events. We recommend to genotype for CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles in patients with CAD who are to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting, and to adjust the antiplatelet treatment based on the genotyping results.

Review of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy

INTRODUCTION

Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet agent widely prescribed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and it is activated by the CYP enzyme system to active metabolite. CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele(s) affect the responsiveness of clopidogrel, but not the new antiplatelet agents (prasugrel and ticagrelor). We reviewed the pharmacoeconomic studies on genotype-guided use of new antiplatelet agents.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted between the period of 2000 and 2014. Seven studies including cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit analyses of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients were reviewed. Genotype-guided prasugrel was found to be cost-effective when compared with universal antiplatelet therapy in four studies. Three studies showed genotype-guided ticagrelor to be cost-effective in ACS patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and universal ticagrelor to be cost-effective in ACS patients. Drug cost of antiplatelet agents and relative risk of the new antiplatelet versus clopidogrel for clinical events were common influential factors of cost-effectiveness analyses.

EXPERT OPINION

All studies in the present review focused on selecting antiplatelet agents for carriers of CYP2C19 LOF allele(s). Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided use of antiplatelets was demonstrated in high-risk ACS patients.

Genotype-guided use of oral antithrombotic therapy: a pharmacoeconomic perspective

Pharmacogenomics focuses on tailoring therapy to the individual as opposed to the historical model of fitting the individual to the therapy, and it offers the potential to maximize medication efficacy while reducing adverse events. By its very nature, personalized medicine is conducive to a patient-centered care model. Oral antithrombotics as a class could benefit immensely from this type of approach because an imbalance of safety and efficacy in either direction can yield deadly consequences. Since the current healthcare climate in the USA requires thoughtful allocation of resources, pharmacoeconomic analysis has become critical for all stakeholders, and the adoption of new technologies hinges upon economic impact. This article summarizes the current state of genetics in oral antithrombotic therapy, including clinical relevance as well as cost-effectiveness from a US healthcare system perspective, and provides insight into the future of pharmacogenomics in treating and preventing thromboembolic disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Canada

BACKGROUND

Ticagrelor demonstrated a significant reduction in major cardiac events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with clopidogrel in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in ACS patients from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded health care system.

METHODS

A two-part model was developed consisting of a 1-year decision tree and a lifetime Markov model. Within the decision tree, patients remained event-free, experienced a nonfatal myocardial infarction, a nonfatal stroke, or death due to vascular or nonvascular related causes based on data from the PLATO trial. The lifetime Markov model followed these patients and allowed for subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Patient utility and resource use were derived from the PLATO trial. Transition probabilities and specific Canadian unit costs were derived from published sources. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case lifetime analysis, treatment with ticagrelor resulted in more years of life per person (0.097), more quality-adjusted life years per person (QALYs, 0.084), and an incremental cost per QALY gained of $9,745 (Canadian$), assuming a generic cost for clopidogrel. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the base case analysis, with a 93% probability of being below $20,000 per QALY gained and a 99% probability of being below $30,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Ticagrelor is a clinically superior and cost-effective option for the prevention of thrombotic events among ACS patients in Canada.

Cost–effectiveness of using CYP2C19 genotype to guide selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Australia

Aims: This study aims to assess the cost–effectiveness in Australia of screening CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LoF) alleles to guide selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor for individuals with acute coronary syndrome who are likely to undergo coronary stenting. Methods: Three treatment strategies were compared: universal clopidogrel therapy, universal ticagrelor therapy and genotyping CYP2C19 with use of ticagrelor for individuals with a LoF allele and clopidogrel for individuals without a LoF allele. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment strategy were estimated using a Markov model. The risks of events were primarily derived from the genetic substudy of the pivotal randomized controlled trial. Results: CYP2C19 genotyping resulted in greater effectiveness and was cost-effective when compared with universal use of clopidogrel. However, universal use of ticagrelor was the most effective strategy overall and the incremental cost–effectiveness compared with the genotyping strategy was generally within what is considered acceptable. Conclusion: Ticagrelor is likely to be cost-effective even for individuals not carrying a CYP2C19 LoF allele.

Original submitted 30 May 2013; Revision submitted 16 August 2013

Dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel or ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in interventional cardiology

For several years, clopidogrel plus aspirin has been the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of choice for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation. More recently, prasugrel and ticagrelor have demonstrated greater efficacy than clopidogrel. In TRITON-TIMI 38, the risk of TIMI major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was similar for prasugrel and clopidogrel after excluding subgroups with increased bleeding risk (previous stroke or transient ischemic event; age ≥75 years; weight <60 kg). In the PLATO trial, rates of TIMI major bleeding were similar for ticagrelor and clopidogrel, but ticagrelor was associated with a significantly higher rate of non-CABG-related TIMI major bleeding. Current evidence suggests that prasugrel or ticagrelor plus aspirin should be the DAPT of choice in patients with ACS undergoing PCI unless they are at particularly high risk of bleeding. No studies have yet compared prasugrel and ticagrelor in ACS patients, however prasugrel and ticagrelor have different side effect profiles, and the choice of agent should be made either as a default choice and/or on an individual patient basis. Ongoing trials in ACS patients will increase the evidence base for new P2Y(12) receptor inhibitors and help to establish the most effective DAPT regimens.

Modeling hard clinical end-point data in economic analyses

OBJECTIVE

The availability of hard clinical end-point data, such as that on cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, is increasing, and as a result there is growing interest in using hard end-point data of this type in economic analyses. This study investigated published approaches for modeling hard end-points from clinical trials and evaluated their applicability in health economic models with different disease features.

METHODS

A review of cost-effectiveness models of interventions in clinically significant therapeutic areas (CV diseases, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases) was conducted in PubMed and Embase using a defined search strategy. Only studies integrating hard end-point data from randomized clinical trials were considered. For each study included, clinical input characteristics and modeling approach were summarized and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles (23 CV, eight cancer, two respiratory) were accepted for detailed analysis. Decision trees, Markov models, discrete event simulations, and hybrids were used. Event rates were incorporated either as constant rates, time-dependent risks, or risk equations based on patient characteristics. Risks dependent on time and/or patient characteristics were used where major event rates were >1%/year in models with fewer health states (<7). Models of infrequent events or with numerous health states generally preferred constant event rates.

LIMITATIONS

The detailed modeling information and terminology varied, sometimes requiring interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Key considerations for cost-effectiveness models incorporating hard end-point data include the frequency and characteristics of the relevant clinical events and how the trial data is reported. When event risk is low, simplification of both the model structure and event rate modeling is recommended. When event risk is common, such as in high risk populations, more detailed modeling approaches, including individual simulations or explicitly time-dependent event rates, are more appropriate to accurately reflect the trial data.

Antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: economic considerations

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most common medical procedures performed for treatment of coronary artery disease. Antiplatelet medications as adjunctive therapy for PCI are used routinely, with indications for specific agents or their combinations varying depending on the clinical scenario. While the cost-effectiveness of well-established agents has been extensively studied, newer drugs have not been evaluated as thoroughly. In addition, the clinical application of some antiplatelet drugs has recently changed, thus making older studies of cost effectiveness less applicable to the current landscape of clinical practice. This article reviews cost-effectiveness considerations of antiplatelet therapies in the treatment of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing PCI. Aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors including clopidogrel and the newer agents prasugrel and ticagrelor, as well as glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors, are discussed. Overall, the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients undergoing PCI improves ischaemic outcomes and appears to be cost effective. The few available studies suggest that the recently approved medications prasugrel and ticagrelor are cost-effective alternatives to clopidogrel. However, no direct comparison between these two newer agents is available. The indications for GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors have changed in the current PCI era, and there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness data for their use in contemporary care.

Clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor? a practical guide to use of antiplatelet agents in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Aspirin is a cornerstone of therapy in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, dual antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of stent thrombosis and cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of patients with ACS. Recently, there has been debate as to which antiplatelet agent should be added to aspirin in the ACS treatment regimen. This review summarizes the pharmacologic and clinical data comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, and provides a practical guide to clinicians for determining which antiplatelet to use for patients with ACS.

Cost-effectiveness of universal and platelet reactivity assay-driven antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome

Assays monitoring P2Y12 platelet reactivity can accurately predict which patients will have a poor response to clopidogrel. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of using platelet reactivity assays (PRAs) to select a dual-antiplatelet regimen for patients with acute coronary syndrome. A hybrid decision tree Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel (given to all patients) or PRA-driven ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to patients with high platelet reactivity, defined as >230 on the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay; the others received generic clopidogrel). We assumed a cohort of 65-year-old patients with acute coronary syndrome and an incidence of high platelet reactivity of 32% and 13% at ~24 to 48 hours after revascularization and 1 month, respectively. The 5-year costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel compared with universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel. PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel were cost-effective compared with universal clopidogrel (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $40,100 and $49,143/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively); however, universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $61,651 and $96,261/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested PRA-driven ticagrelor, PRA-driven prasugrel, universal ticagrelor, and universal prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 52%, 40%, 23%, and 2% of the iterations compared with universal clopidogrel, respectively. Universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not cost-effective compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $68,182; $116,875/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested universal ticagrelor and prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 26% and 4% of iterations compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens. The results were most sensitive to differences in agent costs and drug-specific relative risks of death. In conclusion, even with generic clopidogrel, PRA-driven selection of antiplatelet therapy appeared to be a cost-effective strategy with the potential to decrease the overall acute coronary syndrome-associated healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness of 12-month treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) randomized trial (NCT00391872) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) reported that ticagrelor (in addition to aspirin) reduced the rate of the composite end point of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death compared with clopidogrel (in addition to aspirin) by 16% over 12 months (P < 0.001). No significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding was noted, but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE

By extrapolating the key findings of PLATO, we sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of ACS in a contemporary Australian setting.

METHODS

A Markov model with 4 health states (free from further ACS events, MI, stroke, and death) was developed to simulate the long-term costs and outcomes associated with ACS. Event risks were based on data derived directly from PLATO, and costs and utilities were drawn from published sources. A 10-year time horizon was simulated, and future costs and benefits were discounted at a 5% annual rate. However, treatment with ticagrelor and clopidogrel was only assumed for the first 12 months, with no benefits applied beyond drug cessation. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken based on variations to key data inputs. All costs for resource use applied in the analysis were based on published Australian prices (in 2010/2011 dollars [A$]).

RESULTS

Over 10 years, the estimated quality-adjusted life-years lived per-patient were 5.74 and 5.68 for ticagrelor and clopidogrel, respectively. Net costs were A$19,132 for ticagrelor and A$18,428 for clopidogrel. These equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$9031 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. Sensitivity analyses indicated the result to be robust.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessed from the perspective of the Australian health care system, ticagrelor is likely to be cost-effective compared with clopidogrel in preventing downstream morbidity and mortality associated with ACS.

Advances in antiplatelet technologies to improve cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: a review of ticagrelor

Antiplatelet therapy is widely used with proven benefit for the prevention of further ischemic cardiac complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Treatment guidelines for acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention now recommend the use of oral antiplatelet agents including ticagrelor, prasugrel, or clopidogrel in combination with aspirin to comprise dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent ischemic events. The limitations of conventional antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel include the potential for low response to clopidogrel identified through platelet reactivity or genetic testing, increased risk of bleeding with prasugrel, or slower return to normal platelet activity in patients who received either prasugrel or clopidogrel prior to emergent or planned surgical procedures. This review will discuss the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ticagrelor in comparison to conventional P2Y12 receptor inhibitors and its utility in patients identified as low responders to clopidogrel. Completed clinical studies and substudies comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel and ongoing clinical trials evaluating ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients will also be reviewed.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in acute coronary syndromes

Ticagrelor is a reversibly binding oral P2Y(12) inhibitor, which belongs to a novel chemical class of antiplatelet agents named cyclopentyl-triazolo-pyrimidines. Ticagrelor administered with acetylsalicylic acid has been shown to reduce the rate of the composite end point of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding compared with clopidogrel plus acetylsalicylic acid in patients with acute coronary syndromes. In addition to these clinical findings, it has been shown that the cost per quality-adjusted life year with ticagrelor is below the generally acceptable thresholds for cost-effectiveness compared with clopidogrel. Healthcare decision-makers need to consider the costs and cost-effectiveness when prioritizing treatments among scarce healthcare resources. This is of particular importance in cases similar to ticagrelor, where the novel treatment is expected to improve effectiveness at a higher acquisition cost. In this article, the authors review and discuss the health-economic evidence of ticagrelor.

Genetic testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The CYP2C19 genotype is a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CYP2C19*2 genotype-guided strategy of antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients undergoing PCI, compared with two 'no testing' strategies (empiric clopidogrel or prasugrel).

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies. The model captured adverse cardiovascular events and antiplatelet-related complications. Costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and estimated using diagnosis-related group codes and Medicare reimbursement rates. The net wholesale price for prasugrel was estimated as $5.45 per day. A generic estimate for clopidogrel of $1.00 per day was used and genetic testing was assumed to cost $500.

RESULTS

Base case analyses demonstrated little difference between treatment strategies. The genetic testing-guided strategy yielded the most QALYs and was the least costly. Over 15 months, total costs were $18 lower with a gain of 0.004 QALY in the genotype-guided strategy compared with empiric clopidogrel, and $899 lower with a gain of 0.0005 QALY compared with empiric prasugrel. The strongest predictor of the preferred strategy was the relative risk of thrombotic events in carriers compared with wild-type individuals treated with clopidogrel. Above a 47% increased risk, a genotype-guided strategy was the dominant strategy. Above a clopidogrel cost of $3.96 per day, genetic testing was no longer dominant but remained cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients undergoing PCI, a genotype-guided strategy yields similar outcomes to empiric approaches to treatment, but is marginally less costly and more effective.

Ticagrelor

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X.

Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The January 2012 monograph topics are on clobazam, ruxolitinib, bupivacaine liposome injection suspension, ivacaftor, and teriflunomide. The DUE/MUE is on clobazam.

Critical appraisal of ticagrelor in the management of acute coronary syndrome

Ticagrelor is a novel P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist which, like clopidogrel and prasugrel, functions by blocking adenosine diphosphate-mediated platelet aggregation. However, unlike the aforementioned agents, the binding of ticagrelor to this receptor is reversible. Ticagrelor is also believed to mediate some of its beneficial effects by augmenting the effects of adenosine, which is another unique pharmacologic property of this drug. In terms of antiplatelet effect, ticagrelor is more potent than clopidogrel and produces a faster and stronger inhibition of platelet aggregation. This may also be an advantage of ticagrelor over prasugrel, but this has not been adequately studied. Due to the reversible nature of the binding of ticagrelor to the platelet receptor, ticagrelor has a relatively fast offset of effect, with platelet aggregation approaching pretreatment levels about 3 days after discontinuation of therapy. This has advantages in patients requiring invasive procedures, but also makes medication adherence very important in order to be able to maintain an effective antiplatelet effect. Ticagrelor has been shown to be clinically superior to clopidogrel when given to patients with an acute coronary syndrome, resulting in significantly lower rates of myocardial infarction and vascular death. However, ticagrelor is indicated to be administered with aspirin, and the clinical benefits of ticagrelor may be less when daily dosages of aspirin exceed 100 mg. As expected, bleeding is the most common adverse effect with ticagrelor, although it occurs at rates comparable with those seen for clopidogrel with the exception of noncoronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding and fatal intracranial bleeds, the latter of which occurs only rarely. Dyspnea is another common adverse effect with ticagrelor, although this is usually not severe and resolves with drug discontinuation. Unlike clopidogrel, there are no known pharmacogenomic concerns with ticagrelor, and emerging data suggest ticagrelor to be effective in patients resistant to clopidogrel, although more study is needed on this topic. While preliminary data suggest ticagrelor to be cost effective when compared with generic clopidogrel, the acquisition cost of ticagrelor is not insignificant and this will likely be an issue for many health care organizations. Currently, ticagrelor is well positioned to assume an active role in the treatment of coronary artery disease due to an impressive efficacy profile and reasonable safety. Its ultimate role in therapy will continue to evolve as studies on this drug continue eg, (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin, PEGASUS) and more information hopefully becomes available on its use in clopidogrel nonresponders and relative safety and efficacy compared with prasugrel.