Literature DB >> 22453194

A risk-benefit assessment of prasugrel, clopidogrel, and genotype-guided therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

G F Guzauskas1, D A Hughes, S M Bradley, D L Veenstra.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of prasugrel, clopidogrel, and a CYP2C19 genotype-guided drug selection strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We used decision-analytic techniques to model the risks and benefits of alternative antiplatelet strategies. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Prasugrel demonstrated little difference in net benefit as compared with clopidogrel (+0.02 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); 95% confidence range (CR), -0.23 to 0.21). The genotype-guided strategy had a 93% probability of greater net benefit as compared with clopidogrel (+0.05 QALYs; 95% CR, -0.02 to 0.11), and 66% probability of greater net benefit as compared with prasugrel (+0.03 QALYs; 95% CR, -0.13 to 0.24). Prasugrel and clopidogrel differ in their risk-benefit profiles but appear to offer similar net benefit on average. Use of patient-specific factors such as CYP2C19 genotype offers promise for developing a personalized medicine approach to antiplatelet treatment regimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22453194     DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.303

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  9 in total

1.  In vitro study of the variable effects of proton pump inhibitors on voriconazole.

Authors:  Krista L Niece; Natalie K Boyd; Kevin S Akers
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of 30-month vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin after drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Minghuan Jiang; Joyce H S You
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 2.882

3.  Using models to predict the future: what to do when the data run out?

Authors:  S G Pauker; F R Goss
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  The value of routine pharmacogenomic screening-Are we there yet? A perspective on the costs and benefits of routine screening-shouldn't everyone have this done?

Authors:  D L Veenstra
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Application of personalized medicine to chronic disease: a feasibility assessment.

Authors:  Ruslan Dorfman; Zayna Khayat; Tammy Sieminowski; Brian Golden; Renee Lyons
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2013-12-18

6.  Scientific challenges and implementation barriers to translation of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice.

Authors:  Y W Francis Lam
Journal:  ISRN Pharmacol       Date:  2013-02-28

7.  Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  J Pink; M Pirmohamed; D A Hughes
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 6.875

8.  Cost-utility analysis of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with moderate-to-high risk acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Vardhaman Patel; Fang-Ju Lin; Olaitan Ojo; Sapna Rao; Shengsheng Yu; Lin Zhan; Daniel R Touchette
Journal:  Pharm Pract (Granada)       Date:  2014-09-04

9.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

Authors:  Minghuan Jiang; Pengchao Li; Joyce Hoi-Sze You; Xinglong Zheng; Jizhao Deng; Mingyue Zhao; Liuxin Feng; Yu Fang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.