Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey

Does individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The potential benefits of individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy over standard antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been established. Therefore, we pooled evidence from available clinical trials to assess the effectiveness by comparing the two regimens in patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

We queried two electronic databases, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL, from their inception to April 20, 2021 for published randomized controlled trials in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, using either genetic testing or platelet function testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The results from trials were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Eleven eligible studies consisting of 18,465 patients undergoing PCI were included. Pooled results indicated that guided antiplatelet therapy, compared to standard therapy, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·62–0·99), P = 0·04], MI [RR 0·73, 95% CI (0·56–0.96), P = 0·03], ST [RR 0·66, 95% CI (0·47–0.94), P = 0·02], stroke [RR 0·71, 95% CI (0·50–1.00), P = 0·05], and minor bleeding [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·66–0.91), P = 0·003].

Conclusions

Individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the incidence of MACE, MI, ST, stroke, and minor bleeding in adult patients when compared with standard antiplatelet therapy. Our findings support the implementation of genetic and platelet function testing to select the most beneficial antiplatelet agent.

•

Benefits of individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy over standard antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been established.

•

Guided therapy, consisting of either genetic testing or platelet function testing, can identify patients with this genetic variation allowing clinicians to provide modified and alternative treatment strategies and prescribe optimal antiplatelet agents.

•

Individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy reduced the incidence of MACE, MI, ST, stroke, and minor bleeding in adult patients when compared with standard antiplatelet therapy.

•

Can be more cost-effective than medication cost for every stroke, in-stent thrombosis, or MI case that needs hospitalization requiring more imaging and tests which can increase the total cost of treatment.

A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation Studies of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.

Ticagrelor Utilization in Patients With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes in Romania

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) represents a major tool of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) management. The real-world usage of potent P2Y12 inhibitors within DAPT in middle-income countries is poorly described.

STUDY QUESTION

To assess the factors that influence P2Y12 inhibitor choice at discharge in invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients, without an indication for oral anticoagulation, treated across Romania.

STUDY DESIGN

The Romanian National NSTE-ACS Registry allows the consecutive enrollment of NSTE-ACS patients admitted in 11 (of 24) interventional centers reimbursed from public funds.

MEASURES AND OUTCOMES

NSTE-ACS patients that received DAPT at discharge were identified. Deceased patients, those with an indication for oral anticoagulation or not receiving DAPT at discharge, were excluded. P2Y12 inhibitor choice was analyzed based on demographic, clinical, and invasive management characteristics.

RESULTS

One thousand fifty (63 ± 10 years, 73% male) of 1418 patients enrolled between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed. The P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment rate was 90%. Obstructive coronary artery disease was found in 95.3% of patients. 84.6% underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Single vessel PCI was reported in 84% of PCI patients. The clopidogrel usage rate was 49.6%, ticagrelor 50.0%, and prasugrel 0.4%. Overall, higher ticagrelor usage was associated with: non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (P 0.035), age below 65 (P < 0.001), prior treatment with ticagrelor (P < 0.001), PCI during admission (P < 0.001), and its full 12-month reimbursement (since November 2017). Reimbursement increased the use of ticagrelor from 23.7% in 2016-2017 to 56.9% in 2018-2019 (P < 0.001). In PCI patients, ticagrelor use was associated with PCI with stenting (P 0.016) and multivessel PCI (0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment, and single vessel PCI are the standards of care in invasively managed NSTE-ACS patients in Romania. Besides the clinical and invasive characteristics that favor its use, the full reimbursement of ticagrelor introduced in November 2017 doubled its yearly usage.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective.

METHODS

The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report.

METHODS

We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES).

RESULTS

Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of deaths globally, with greatest premature mortality in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many of these countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have significant budget constraints. The need for current evidence on which interventions offer good value for money to stem this CVD epidemic motivates this study.

Methods

In this systematic review, we included studies reporting full economic evaluations of individual and population-based interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic), for primary and secondary prevention of CVD among adults in LMIC. Several medical (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and economic (EconLit, NHS EED) databases and grey literature were searched. Screening of studies and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Drummond’s checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality rating scale were used in the quality appraisal for all studies used to inform this evidence synthesis.

Results

From a pool of 4059 records, 94 full texts were read and 50 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, were retained for our narrative synthesis. Most of the studies were from middle-income countries and predominantly of high quality. The majority were modelled evaluations, and there was significant heterogeneity in methods. Primary prevention studies dominated secondary prevention. Most of the economic evaluations were performed for pharmacological interventions focusing on blood pressure, cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet aggregants. The greatest majority were cost-effective. Compared to individual-based interventions, population-based interventions were few and mostly targeted reduction in sodium intake and tobacco control strategies. These were very cost-effective with many being cost-saving.

Conclusions

This evidence synthesis provides a contemporary update on interventions that offer good value for money in LMICs. Population-based interventions especially those targeting reduction in salt intake and tobacco control are very cost-effective in LMICs with potential to generate economic gains that can be reinvested to improve health and/or other sectors. While this evidence is relevant for policy across these regions, decision makers should additionally take into account other multi-sectoral perspectives, including considerations in budget impact, fairness, affordability and implementation while setting priorities for resource allocation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0108-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Viewpoint: “Underutilisation of novel antiplatelet agents – myths, generics, and economics”

Two oral antiplatelet agents have been recently introduced for acute coronary syndromes indication providing alternatives for dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. In fact, worldwide prasugrel has been on the market for four years, and ticagrelor for over two years. Despite declared benefits over clopidogrel, including hypothetical cost saving advantages, in real life, the clinical utilisation of both agents is small. Generic clopidogrel, and price differences are claimed as major obstacles to prevent broader prasugrel and ticagrelor use. However, these economic difficulties are barely supported by available evidence, and served mostly to protect questionable management spending, as an exuse to explain why in reality cardiologists are so sceptical about both novel agents, and to convince the sharehoders that their money is not wasted, misleading the owners with regard to future success. Importantly, brand Plavix® is used worldwide 5–10 times more often than new agents, despite heavy generic competition. The future of prasugrel outside Japan, where much lower reasonable dose will be used is not impressive due to lack of further outcome studies, negative results of the latest trials, and less than four years left before patent expiration. The fate of ticagrelor will depend on verification of deaths numbers in the ongoing United States Department of Justice PLATO investigation, and confirmation of the mortality benefit in the PEGASUS TIMI-54 trial.

Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in contemporary Western European patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving drug-eluting stents: Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis from the BASKET-PROVE cohorts

BACKGROUND

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was only evaluated using TRITON-TIMI 38 event rates. A comparative analysis of both drugs in contemporary European ACS patients is lacking.

METHODS

To address this issue, cardiac and bleeding events of 2 "sister" multicenter stent trials, BASKET-PROVE (BP) I with clopidogrel and BPII with prasugrel (for 12months each) were used in a hybrid analysis. Medication costs were 2015 sales prices, event costs modelled for Denmark (DNK), Germany (GER) and Switzerland (SUI) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) by EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

RESULTS

In BPI and II, 1012 and 985 ACS-patients received drug eluting stents, respectively, followed-up for 2years. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel-treated patients had no more major cardiac events (5.2% vs. 6.4%, p=0.422) nor cardiac deaths (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.255), but more major bleedings (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p<0.001) and altogether no difference in QALYs (-0.027 (95%CI: -0.064/0.011)). Prasugrel caused higher total expenditures per patient: 1116.3 (DNK), 1063.5 (GER) and 880.8 (SUI) EURO, respectively. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness was negative for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel with ratios of -45,907 (DNK), -39,909 (GER) and -33,435 (SUI) EURO/QALY gained, making clopidogrel an economically dominant strategy, even after accounting for the non-randomized comparison.

CONCLUSION

Findings of this contemporary European ACS-cohort showed markedly lower cardiac event rates than TRITON-TIMI 38 and no significant difference in 2-year QALYs between prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients. At current drug prices, clopidogrel use resulted in an economically dominant treatment strategy in Western European patients.

Prasugrel (Efient®) with percutaneous coronary intervention for treating acute coronary syndromes (review of TA182): systematic review and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are life-threatening conditions associated with acute myocardial ischaemia. There are three main types of ACS: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina (UA). One treatment for ACS is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus adjunctive treatment with antiplatelet drugs. Dual therapy antiplatelet treatment [aspirin plus either prasugrel (Efient(®), Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd UK/Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), clopidogrel or ticagrelor (Brilique(®), AstraZeneca)] is standard in UK clinical practice. Prasugrel is the focus of this review.

OBJECTIVES

The remit is to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel within its licensed indication for the treatment of ACS with PCI and is a review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisal TA182.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched from database inception to June 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to August 2013 for economic evaluations comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in ACS patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes included non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular (CV) events, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Cost-effectiveness outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. An independent economic model assessed four mutually exclusive subgroups: ACS patients treated with PCI for STEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus and ACS patients treated with PCI for UA or NSTEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

No new RCTs were identified beyond that reported in TA182. TRITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38) compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in ACS patients scheduled for PCI. No relevant economic evaluations were identified. Our analyses focused on a key subgroup of patients: those aged < 75 years who weighed > 60 kg (no previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack). For the primary composite end point (death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) statistically significantly fewer events occurred in the prasugrel arm (8.3%) than in the clopidogrel arm (11%). No statistically significant difference in major bleeding events was noted. However, there was a significant difference in favour of clopidogrel when major and minor bleeding events were combined (3.0 vs. 3.9%). No conclusions could be drawn regarding HRQoL. The results of sensitivity analyses confirmed that it is likely that, for all four ACS subgroups, within 5-10 years prasugrel is a cost-effective treatment option compared with clopidogrel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. At the full 40-year time horizon, all estimates are < £10,000 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. The long-term modelling exercise is vulnerable to major assumptions about the continuation of early health outcome gains.

CONCLUSION

A key strength of the review is that it demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel using the generic price of clopidogrel. Although the report demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at a threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained, the long-term modelling is vulnerable to major assumptions regarding long-term gains. Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. Well-audited data are needed from a long-term UK clinical registry on defined ACS patient groups treated with PCI who receive prasugrel, ticagrelor and clopidogrel.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005047.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: observations from prasugrel users and matched clopidogrel users

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare costs between clopidogrel and prasugrel over 30-day and 365-day periods after discharge from the hospital or emergency room (ER) in patients treated with prasugrel who were hospitalized or had an ER visit for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was based on claims from January 2009-July 2012 in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database. Clopidogrel patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 to prasugrel-treated patients. Lin's frequentist cost history method for censored data and Bayesian zero-inflated gamma regression models were used to analyze healthcare costs.

RESULTS

The clopidogrel/prasugrel matched-cohort included 10,963 well-matched pairs of patients. Lin's frequentist analysis showed that outpatient visit costs were significantly lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel after 30 days of follow-up. At 30 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization costs and showed very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause and ACS-related outpatient visit costs. At 365 days, Bayesian data analysis showed strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for all-cause outpatient visit costs and very strong evidence that clopidogrel was superior to prasugrel for ACS-related outpatient visit costs. Point estimates of the all-cause and ACS-related ER visit costs at 30 days and 365 days were similar, but statistical results were inconclusive because of the large variability in this outcome variable.

CONCLUSION

Based on retrospective observational data in a real-world setting, all-cause and ACS-related hospitalization and outpatient visit costs were lower for clopidogrel than prasugrel over 30 days after discharge from a hospitalization or ER visit associated with ACS in patients treated with prasugrel. At 365 days the difference in all-cause and ACS-related outpatient costs remained, but there was little evidence of a difference in either all-cause or ACS-related hospitalization costs.

Cost effectiveness of treatments for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents the most common subset of cardiovascular heart diseases and relates to high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide and, consequently, to both the direct and indirect costs to the health system and society. Given the rising healthcare costs combined with budgetary constraints, health care systems and decision makers are faced with challenging decisions and the need to choose alternative treatments that not only improve patient quantity and quality of life but are also economically attractive.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the published literature and to identify studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of different treatments for patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) ACS.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library until October 2013, with no limit on publication date.

STUDY SELECTION

The search was conducted using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, limiting articles to those published in the English language and those reporting results of economic evaluations [i.e. cost-effectiveness (CEA), cost-utility (CUA) cost-minimisation (CMA) cost-consequence (CCA) and cost-benefit (CBA) analyses] of the different treatment therapies used for managing patients presenting with NSTE-ACS. Publications such as editorials, letters to the editor, posters, expert opinions, reviews, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS

All studies included were assessed for their methodological quality using the British Medical Journal checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were included, presenting a wide variation in terms of methodological approaches and settings, thus resulting in different ranges of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each treatment evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the present systematic review suggests that the majority of the available treatments represent either cost-saving or cost-effective options for NSTE-ACS patients. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of the available treatments was found to be dependent on various factors, particularly the risk profile of patients and the cost of treatment, and hence there is a need to take these into consideration when making decisions and choices.