Literature DB >> 23631863

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

Craig I Coleman1, Brendan L Limone.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23631863     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.03.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  5 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 *2 genotype-guided selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Y Wang; B P Yan; D Liew; V W Y Lee
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 3.550

2.  Current Concepts in the Clinical Utility of Platelet Reactivity Testing.

Authors:  Jean-Philippe Collet
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2013-08

3.  Health Economic Analysis of Antiplatelet Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Context of Five Eastern Asian Countries.

Authors:  Bin Wu; Ruoyan Gai Tobe; Yuchen Liu; Ben He
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.859

4.  Impact of a high-fat meal on assessment of clopidogrel-induced platelet inhibition in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Paul P Dobesh; Jamela F Urban; Scott W Shurmur; Julie H Oestreich
Journal:  Thromb J       Date:  2015-01-23

Review 5.  The Role of CYP450 Drug Metabolism in Precision Cardio-Oncology.

Authors:  Olubadewa A Fatunde; Sherry-Ann Brown
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 5.923

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.