Cost-effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention


    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

AimsClopidogrel 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.Methods and resultsWe 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.ConclusionTicagrelor is cost-effective compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel for patients who have undergone a PCI.

    loading  Loading Related Articles