The High Bleeding Risk Patient with Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract Background The COMPASS trial demonstrated that a combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin improved cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in high-risk patients with either peripheral artery disease (PAD) or stable coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with aspirin alone, at the price of increased bleeding. A previous analysis of the REACH Registry reported an eligibility rate of 52.9% within a population with stable vascular disease. However, most of cardiologists actually treat patients with stable CAD, rather than PAD. Data regarding eligibility to COMPASS in CAD patients from real life practice are scarce. Purpose We aimed to describe the proportion of patients eligible to COMPASS within the CLARIFY Registry. Additionally, we aimed to describe their management and outcomes, comparing patients excluded from the trial (COMPASS Excluded), patients eligible for the trial (COMPASS Eligible), and patients who did not meet the “enrichment criteria” for enrolment (COMPASS Not Included). Methods We used the CLARIFY Registry, an international observational registry of more than 30.000 patients with stable CAD. In accordance with COMPASS exclusion criteria, patients with a REACH bleeding risk score >10, heart failure (HF), severe renal insufficiency, need for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), or anticoagulant (AC) therapy were excluded. Then, COMPASS inclusion criteria were applied: CAD patients had to be 65 years or more, or, if younger, have documented atherosclerosis (PAD or revascularization involving at least two vascular beds) or at least two enrichment criteria (current smoker, diabetes mellitus, GFR <60 mL/min, or non lacunar ischemic stroke).The ischemic outcome was a composite of CV death, MI, or stroke and bleeding outcome was a composite of bleeding leading to either admission or transfusion, or haemorrhagic stroke. Results Among 15.185 patients with comprehensive data allowing precise assessment of eligibility, 43.1% (n=6.540) had at least one exclusion criteria (COMPASS-Excluded), 23.1% (n=3.503) did not have enrichment criteria (COMPASS-Not Included) and 33.9% (n=5.142) were eligible. The vast majority of excluded patients were excluded due to high bleeding risk (62.7% needing DAPT, and 52.7% for high REACH bleeding risk score). The rates (100 patients/year) of ischemic and bleeding outcome were 2.3 [2.1–2.5] and 0.5 [0.4–0.6] respectively for COMPASS-Eligible, 3.0 [2.8–3.2] and 0.6 [0.5–0.7] for COMPASS-Excluded and 1.2 [1.0–1.4] and 0.2 [0.2–0.3] for COMPASS-Not Included. Ischemic and bleeding events Conclusion In a large contemporary registry of stable CAD patients, approximately one of three patients was potentially eligible for adjunction of low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin. This group is at particularly high risk of ischemic outcome. Patients with exclusion criteria for COMPASS had the worse ischemic and bleeding outcomes and represent a group in need of improved therapy. Acknowledgement/Funding None

Download Full-text

Cost-utility of ticagrelor plus aspirin in diabetic patients with stable coronary artery disease

European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy ◽

10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaa082 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bin Wu ◽

Lizheng Shi

Keyword(s):

Coronary Artery Disease ◽

Coronary Artery ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Diabetic Patients ◽

Clinical Benefits ◽

History Of ◽

Artery Disease

Abstract Aims Ticagrelor plus aspirin could reduce the risks of major adverse cardiac events in diabetic patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCD), and yet it also increases bleeding risk. This study would compare the cost and effectiveness of aspirin and ticagrelor plus aspirin therapies in diabetic patients with SCD from a US healthcare sector perspective. Methods and results A state-transition Markov model was developed to project probabilities of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, bleeding, and death with and without ticagrelor among all diabetic patients with SCD as the overall population, and those with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a sub-population. Model inputs were extracted from published sources. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured. The clinical benefits and bleeding risk of ticagrelor added to aspirin were translated into additional 0.08 QALYs at incremental costs of $19 580 in the overall population, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $260 032/QALY. In the sub-population with an additional 0.43 QALYs at an incremental cost of $20 189, the ICUR was $46 426/QALY. Two-way sensitivity showed the clinical benefits of ticagrelor plus aspirin was counterbalanced by its risk of major bleeding. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were generally robust except the all-cause death reduction. Conclusion The results indicated that ticagrelor plus aspirin is likely to be a cost-effective option in the diabetic patients with a history of PCI. Diabetes management can be improved by carefully prescribing ticagrelor to individuals with low risk of bleeding and high risk of ischaemic events.

Download Full-text