OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelorpatients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.
Authors: Nathaniel A Erskine; Molly E Waring; David D McManus; Darleen Lessard; Catarina I Kiefe; Robert J Goldberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 5.128