Annals of internal medicine · 2014
Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kazi Dhruv S, Garber Alan M, Shah Rashmee U, Dudley R Adams, Mell Matthew W, Rhee Ceron, Moshkevich Solomon, Boothroyd Derek B, Owens Douglas K, Hlatky Mark A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The choice of antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopidogrel, patients with some genotypes may not respond to clopidogrel, and low-cost generic formulations of clopidogrel are available.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
DESIGN: Decision-analytic model.
DATA SOURCES: Published literature, Medicare claims, and life tables.
TARGET POPULATION: Patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: Societal.
INTERVENTION: Five strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years(QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The clopidogrel strategy produced$179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Stronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.
LIMITATION: No randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.
CONCLUSION: Genotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reasonable alternative in some settings.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
DESIGN: Decision-analytic model.
DATA SOURCES: Published literature, Medicare claims, and life tables.
TARGET POPULATION: Patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: Societal.
INTERVENTION: Five strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years(QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The clopidogrel strategy produced$179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Stronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.
LIMITATION: No randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.
CONCLUSION: Genotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reasonable alternative in some settings.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acute Coronary SyndromeAdenosineAllelesAryl Hydrocarbon HydroxylasesClopidogrelCoronary ThrombosisCost-Benefit AnalysisCytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Decision Support TechniquesDirect Service CostsDrug Therapy, CombinationDrugs, GenericGenotypeHemorrhageHumansPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPiperazinesPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPolymorphism, GeneticPrasugrel HydrochlorideQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk FactorsThiophenesTicagrelorTiclopidine