Response to Letter of Li et al.: How to select antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, according to platelet function testing or pharmacogenomic testing?

2018 ◽  
Vol 271 ◽  
pp. 30
Author(s):  
Roberta De Rosa ◽  
Tullio Palmerini ◽  
Federico Piscione
2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (02) ◽  
pp. 290-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Lenk ◽  
Niels Straub ◽  
Andreas Beivers ◽  
Daniel Aradi ◽  
Dirk Sibbing

SummaryAlthough some observational studies reported that the measured level of P2Y12-inhibition is predictive for thrombotic events, the clinical and economic benefit of incorporating PFT to personalize P2Y12-receptor directed antiplatelet treatment is unknown. Here, we assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of selecting P2Y12-inhibitors based on platelet function testing (PFT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing PCI. A decision model was developed to analyse the health economic effects of different strategies. PFT-guided treatment was compared with the three options of general clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor treatment. In the PFT arm, low responders to clopidogrel received prasugrel, while normal responders carried on with clopidogrel. The associated endpoints in the model were cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis and major bleeding. With a simulated cohort of 10,000 patients treated for one year, there were 93 less events in the PFT arm compared to general clopidogrel. In prasugrel and ticagrelor arms, 110 and 86 events were prevented compared to clopidogrel treatment, respectively. The total expected costs (including event costs, drug costs and PFT costs) for generic clopidogrel therapy were US$ 1,059/patient. In the PFT arm, total costs were US$ 1,494, while in the prasugrel and ticagrelor branches they were US$ 3,102 and US$ 3,771, respectively. The incrementalcost- effectiveness-ratio (ICER) was US$ 46,770 for PFT-guided therapy, US$ 185,783 for prasugrel and US$ 315,360 for ticagrelor. In this model-based analysis, a PFT-guided therapy may have fewer adverse outcomes than general treatment with clopidogrel and may be more cost-effective than prasugrel or ticagrelor treatment in ACS patients undergoing PCI.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 347-347
Author(s):  
Jure Samardzic ◽  
Bosko Skoric ◽  
Miroslav Krpan ◽  
Marijan Pasalic ◽  
Mate Petricevic ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1061-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dániel Aradi ◽  
Adrienn Tornyos ◽  
Tünde Pintér ◽  
András Vorobcsuk ◽  
Attila Kónyi ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie S. Oliphant ◽  
Brian J. Trevarrow ◽  
Paul P. Dobesh

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is standard therapy following acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite the use of potent antiplatelet agents, vascular events continue to occur. Lack of response to clopidogrel therapy has been widely investigated using various methods of platelet function testing. These studies have consistently found an association between poor clopidogrel response and an increased risk of vascular events. Strategies to overcome this problem include higher clopidogrel doses or the use of an alternative P2Y12 agent. To date, the majority of studies investigating tailored antiplatelet therapy have failed to show any reduction in clinical events likely due to the low-risk population studied. Despite this lack of benefit from altering therapy, platelet function testing may be done in certain patient populations. Patients at high risk of deleterious outcomes from stent thrombosis may be an appropriate patient population for platelet function testing to ensure adequate response to therapy. In addition, emerging data suggests a potential role for platelet function testing to assess for bleeding risk. The purpose of this article is to review the key studies demonstrating response variability to clopidogrel therapy, strategies to overcome variability, and practical considerations for the clinician.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document