Outcomes and costs of abciximab versus eptifibatide for percutaneous coronary intervention

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting

Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive eptifibatide in patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding eptifibatide to the standard treatment for selected high-risk patients undergoing coronary stenting in Germany. Furthermore, to investigate the impact of several extrapolation methods on the results.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to reflect the clinical events in this specific patient population, including target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death. To extrapolate clinical data beyond 1 year, a linear, an exponential, and a Weibull survival curves were estimated. Patient characteristics and transition probabilities were derived from a high-risk subgroup of the ESPRIT trial; patient-level utility data came from a published Dutch study. Costs were calculated from a hospital and from a third-party payer perspective.

RESULTS

For both perspectives, the additional treatment with eptifibatide is the considered dominant alternative. The incremental net benefit of its use exceeds €10,000 for both perspectives. Results proved stable in probabilistic sensitivity analysis as well as under the different extrapolation scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Eptifibatide is likely to be dominant strategy with 77.7 and 96.7% of the simulations leading to QALYs gained and generating cost savings from both the hospital and the third-party payer perspective. Eptifibatide offsets its additional treatment costs by avoiding costly repeat procedures and leads to positive QALY gains by preventing cardiovascular events lending themselves to transient or permanent lower quality of life. The method used to extrapolate the short-term risks did not impact on results, mainly due to similar clinical risk profiles between the two treatment groups in the long term.

Long-term results following switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The usage of platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors improves the outcome during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects after a planned switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during PCI.

HYPOTHESIS

A switch from the general use of abciximab to eptifibatide as a GP IIb/IIIa in connection with PCI would not have any negative effects on long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

To reduce costs, a general switch from abciximab to eptifibatide was instituted in 2004 in 2 university hospitals in Sweden. All patients treated 6 months before and 6 months after the switch were followed for 30 months. During the study period, 1038 patients underwent PCI and received a GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, 481 (46%) before the switch (Group A) and 557 (54%) after the switch (Group B). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization (percutaneous or surgical); secondary endpoints were the individual components of this composite. A separate analysis was performed on patients treated for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina, and diabetes, respectively. Data were collected from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the groups in the primary endpoint (29.7% in Group A vs 29.3% in Group B; P = 0.48) or in any of the secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

A switch from the general usage of abciximab to eptifibatide as a GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor in connection with PCI did not seem to have any negative effects on long-term clinical outcomes.

Switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Treatment with glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduce ischemic complications and improve outcome. Of the GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors abciximab is better documented than eptifibatide, but the former is more expensive. The aim of this study was to monitor a switch from abciximab to eptifibatide with respect to clinical outcome up to six months after PCI.

METHODS

All consecutive patients that six months before and six months after a switch from abciximab to eptifibatide received GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors during and after de novo PCIs were followed for six months with respect to clinical outcome.

RESULTS

310 patients received abciximab and 350 eptifibatide. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. 55% of the patients underwent PCI for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 41% for unstable coronary artery disease. There were trends for lower mortality among abciximab-treated than among the eptifibatide-treated patients during in-hospital stay (0.6% vs 2.0%:NS) as well as during the six month follow up (2.3% vs 3.7%:NS). The combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeated revascularisation and serious bleeding occurred in 14.9% in the abciximab group vs 16.8% in the eptifibatide group (NS).

CONCLUSION

The study could not demonstrate any significant deterioration of clinical results after a switch from abciximab to eptifibatide as routine GPIIb/IIIa inhibition during PCI. With respect to the limited number of patients a clinical significant difference between the two GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors cannot, however, be excluded.

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, therapeutic, and exploratory trial to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blocker (Clotinab) in high-risk patients with percutaneous coronary intervention

PURPOSE

This study was designed as a multicenter, randomized, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Clotinab. We expected to obtain same results as with ReoPro in improving ischemic cardiac complications in high-risk patients who were about to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients of 19-80 years of age with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who were about to undergo PCI were enrolled. After screening and confirmation of eligibility, patients were randomly assigned to different groups. Clotinab was given to 84 patients (58.7+/-10.6 years, M:F=68:16)and ReoPro(59.0+/-10.5 years, M:F=30:10) was given to 40 patients before PCI. The primary efficacy endpoint was the onset of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) within 30 days from day 1. The tolerability endpoints were assessed based on bleeding, thrombocytopenia, change in Hb/Hct, human antichimetric antibody development, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The number of Clotinab patients experiencing MACE was 0 out of 76 per protocol (PP) patients. The MACE rate was 0%, and its 95% exact CI was [0.00-4.74%]. A major bleeding event developed in 3 patients in the ReoPro group. The probability of MACE onset in Clotinab was estimated to be less than 5%. There was no clinically significant result in tolerability variables.

CONCLUSION

Clotinab is an effective and safe medicine in preventing ischemic cardiac complications for high-risk patients who will receive PCI.

Comparison of patient outcomes with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes and glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitor use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who received bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in a real-world setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

University-affiliated medical center.

PATIENTS

One thousand seventy-five adult patients who underwent PCI and received either bivalirudin (539 patients) or UFH (536 patients) from April 1, 2003-April 1, 2004.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient data on demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, and reports of radiologic examinations, cardiac catheterizations, and discharge summaries were obtained. Outcomes evaluated included rates of in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and length of stay (LOS), as well as Randomized Evaluation of PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE-2) and Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) bleeding categorization. Bivalirudin use was associated with a significant reduction in TIMI major (5.0% vs 9.7%, p=0.003), REPLACE-2 major (5.4% vs 12.9%, p<0.001), and TIMI minor (1.7% vs 6%, p<0.001) bleeding complications compared with UFH use. Significantly fewer patients in the bivalirudin group received glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors (27.3% vs 62.7%, p<0.001). Patients receiving bivalirudin had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions after catheterization (10.7% [40/375] vs 18.0% [51/284], p=0.007). No differences were noted in mortality and revascularization rates between groups. A shortened LOS was observed in the bivalirudin group.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world analysis that included high-risk patients provides further evidence that bivalirudin is an attractive alternative to UFH because of a decrease in bleeding events without compromising efficacy.

Resource Use in Decompensated Heart Failure by Disease Progression Categories

The purpose of this study was to quantify the total hospital resource use for decompensated heart failure according to disease progression categories. Clinical and cost information was obtained from an electronic data repository and chart review. During the 1-year period from June 2002 to June 2003, qualified patients were categorized based on disease progression as (1) new onset, (2) known heart failure, or (3) readmission. The primary outcome variables were total hospital resource use and resource use by services. Analysis of variance, Scheffé analysis for pairwise comparisons, and chi-square analysis were performed to determine differences among groups. Total hospitalization costs are similar whether it is a new diagnosis of heart failure, known diagnosis, or readmission. Among the 3 categories, 5 services contained statistically significant differences in costs (P<.05): echocardiography, electrophysiology, neurodiagnostic, nuclear cardiology, and pharmacy. Careful analysis of hospital resource use by services for heart failure patients provides opportunities for institutional cost containment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antithrombotic Therapy in Nonurgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three treatment approaches during nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy, unfractionated heparin (UFH) with eptifibatide, and UFH with abciximab.

DESIGN

Literature-based decision model from an institutional perspective.

DATA SOURCE

Patient data from the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 study and three other randomized controlled trials that included UFH and routine GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor (eptifibatide or abciximab) therapy. All included studies were comparable based on patient population, procedural techniques, and general treatment approaches.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included patient populations undergoing contemporary nonurgent PCI to identify probabilities of success or complications (myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, thrombocytopenia, and major or minor bleeding at 30 days). Costs were assigned to each outcome by incorporating diagnosis-related group-- and/or Current Procedural Terminology--associated costs, institutional drug acquisition costs, and unit replacement costs of platelets and red blood cells. In the base-case analysis, the use of bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy dominated the UFH and planned GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor approach: UFH with eptifibatide was 74 US dollars more expensive and 1.2% less effective, and UFH with abciximab was 777 US dollars more expensive and 2.3% less effective. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model results were robust, but also revealed that bivalirudin lost its cost-effectiveness, resulting in UFH with eptifibatide becoming more cost-effective, when two or more vials of bivalirudin were necessary in greater than 27% of cases or when the use of provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy exceeded 20%.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicates that bivalirudin with provisional GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor therapy is the most cost-effective antithrombotic treatment strategy in nonurgent PCI when its use and dosing are consistent with the REPLACE-2 trial.