|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Clopidogrel has, for long time, been accepted as the standard treatment for patients who have undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of prasugrel—and more recently, ticagrelor—has introduced a decision-making problem for clinicians and governments worldwide: to use the cheaper clopidogrel or the more effective, and also more expensive prasugrel or ticagrelor. We aim to give helpful contributions to this debate by analysing the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor compared with each other.We modified a previously developed Markov model of cardiac disease progression. In the model, we followed up cohorts of patients who have recently had a PCI until 100 years or death. Possible events are revascularization, bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, and death. Our analysis shows that ticagrelor is cost-effective in 77% of simulations at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7700 compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor was also cost-effective against prasugrel at a cost-effectiveness ratio of €7800. Given a Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of €70 000, both comparisons appear to be clearly cost-effective in favour of ticagrelor.Ticagrelor is cost-effective compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel for patients who have undergone a PCI.