Cost-Effectiveness of Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results From the HOST-EXAM Study

Role of Cyp2c19 Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Identification of a reliable discriminatory test to accurately stratify patient responses to antiplatelet therapy following coronary revascularization has become increasingly desirable to optimize therapeutic efficacy and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

The expansion of platelet function testing to include genotype assessment has been an evolutionary journey, initially fraught with confounding results. However, more recent and rigorous data analysis suggests that genotype testing- guided, tailored antiplatelet therapy may hold promise in optimizing treatment of patients after coronary intervention. Current evidence increasingly supports the use of genotype guided CYP2C19 testing to better match the post coronary intervention patient with the most efficacious and least risky antiplatelet inhibitor. The risk stratification of poor, intermediate, and good metabolizers of these drugs with such testing promises to yield clinical dividends in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost control, in this growing patient population.

Monotherapy with P2Y12-inhibitors after dual antiplatelet therapy: Filling gaps in evidence

BACKGROUND

Whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12-I) is superior to aspirin following DAPT discontinuation post-PCI remains to be established.

METHODS

We updated our prior network meta-analysis where P2Y12-I and aspirin had been compared with DAPT or directly with each other. The focus is specifically on the available direct evidence, now consisting of the three head-to-head comparisons of P2Y12-I and aspirin in event-free PCI patients after DAPT. We include a Trial Sequential Analysis of the direct evidence based on meta-analytical literature.

RESULTS

The main finding reveals a 39% significantly lower risk of myocardial infarction with P2Y12-I (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.78, p = 0.0001, I2 = 0%) with no difference in bleeding. Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrates clinically meaningful evidence for a reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction with P2Y12-I that is also supported by statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Accruing data highlight that P2Y12-I following DAPT discontinuation after PCI is associated with lower risk for MI and a similar risk for bleeding as compared with ASA. In light of potential limitations to the widespread adoption of life-long P2Y12-I treatment, clinicians should consider identifying selected patients who are expected to derive the highest benefit.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intravascular Imaging-Guided Complex PCI: Prespecified Analysis of RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial

BACKGROUND

Although clinical benefits of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with complex coronary artery lesions have been observed in previous trials, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is uncertain.

METHODS

RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance vs Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was conducted in Korea between May 2018 and May 2021. This prespecified cost-effectiveness substudy was conducted using Markov model that simulated 3 states: (1) post-PCI, (2) spontaneous myocardial infarction, and (3) death. A simulated cohort was derived from the intention-to-treat population, and input parameters were extracted from either the trial data or previous publications. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using time horizon of 3 years (within trial) and lifetime. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), an indicator of incremental cost on additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, in intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. The current analysis was performed using the Korean health care sector perspective with reporting the results in US dollar (1200 Korean Won, ₩=1 dollar, $). Willingness to pay threshold was $35 000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

A total of 1639 patients were included in the trial. During 3-year follow-up, medical costs ($8661 versus $7236; incremental cost, $1426) and QALY (2.34 versus 2.31; incremental QALY, 0.025) were both higher in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 040 per QALY gained within trial data. Conversely, lifetime simulation showed total cumulative medical cost was reversed between the 2 groups ($40 455 versus $49 519; incremental cost, -$9063) with consistently higher QALY (8.24 versus 7.89; incremental QALY, 0.910) in intravascular imaging-guided PCI than angiography-guided PCI, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Consistently, 70% of probabilistic iterations showed cost-effectiveness of intravascular imaging-guided PCI in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The current cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that imaging-guided PCI is more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI by reducing medical cost and increasing quality-of-life in complex coronary artery lesions in long-term follow-up.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023.

Intervention

Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials.

Results

The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.