Abstract P241: One-Year Cost-Effectiveness of Cytochrome P450 2C19 Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

Author(s):  
Scott L Charland ◽  
Barnabie C Agatep ◽  
Daniel C Malone ◽  
Eric J Stanek

OBJECTIVES: Cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) genotype has been shown to affect cardiovascular (CV) outcomes for clopidogrel but not prasugrel. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided vs. routine antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients. METHODS: We constructed a literature-based, decision analytic, Markov model (TreeAge 2009) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided aspirin plus either clopidogrel or prasugrel therapy vs. no genotyping. Post-initial ACS CV events were based on the TRITON-TIMI 38 study and related costs were derived primarily using 2007 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project DRGs for nonfatal MI and stroke, CV death, intracranial hemorrhage, other life-threatening bleed, and minor bleed. Additional costs and disease-state utilities were obtained from other published sources. All costs were adjusted to 2009 $US using the Consumer Price Index medical care component. The model allowed for clopidogrel/prasugrel discontinuation and aspirin monotherapy. Model sensitivity was assessed using 1-way and multi-way analysis of influential parameters. RESULTS: The base case model demonstrated that CYP2C19 genotype guided antiplatelet therapy yielded lower overall annual cost and greater efficacy vs. no genotyping ( Table ). The model was sensitive to (in declining order): clopidogrel cost/day ($1 to $5.78), prasugrel cost/day ($4.09 to $ 6.81), % CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers on clopidogrel (60% to 100%), CYP2C19 test cost ($60 to $250), and monthly CV event management cost. A threshold value for clopidogrel at <$2.14/day favored the no genotyping strategy. However, the genotyping strategy was dominant when clopidogrel cost =$1/day and a CYP2C19 test cost threshold of <$125 on 2-way analysis. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2C19 genotype-guided clopidogrel or prasugrel therapy is cost-effective for up to 1 year in ACS patients, and can remain a preferred strategy at a hypothetical generic clopidogrel cost of $1.00/day. Table Strategy1 Annual Cost Incremental Cost Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) Incremental QALY Cost/QALY Incremental Cost Effectiveness (ICER) CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided $ 3,211 0.7212 $ 4,452 No Gentoyping $ 3,331 $120 0.6767 - (0.0445) $ 4,921 (Dominated) 1Base case values:Drug wholesale acquisition cost/day: clopidogrel $4.62, prasugrel $5.45; Baseline post-ACS utility = 0.83; Monthly cost for post-CV event management = $351; CYP2C19 genotyping =$185; After genotyping: 80% of extensive metabolizers, 20% of intermediate metabolizers and 10% of poor metabolizers on clopidogrel; 80% on clopidogrel without genotyping; Willingness to pay = $200

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masakatsu Uchihara ◽  
Namiki Izumi ◽  
Osamu Noguchi ◽  
Yasuhiro Asahina ◽  
Nobuhiko Kanazawa ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sawsan Ibrahim AlMukdad ◽  
Hazem Elewa ◽  
Daoud Al-Badriyeh

Background: Patients having CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and receiving clopidogrel are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Ticagrelor is a more effective and expensive antiplatelet that is unaffected by the CYP2C19 polymorphism. The main aim of the current research is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness among CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy, universal ticagrelor, and universal clopidogrel after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A two-part simulation model, including a one-year decision-analytic model and a 20-year followup Markov model, was created to follow the use of (i) universal clopidogrel, (ii) universal ticagrelor, and (iii) genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy. Outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost/success) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR, cost/qualityadjusted life years [QALY]). Therapy success was defined as survival without myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, and no therapy discontinuation because of adverse events, i.e. major bleeding and dyspnea. The model was based on a multivariate analysis, and a sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: Against universal clopidogrel, genotype-guided therapy was cost-effective over the one-year duration (ICER, USD 6,102 /success), and dominant over the long-term. Genotype-guided therapy was dominant over universal ticagrelor over the one-year duration and cost-effective over the long term (ICUR, USD 1,383 /QALY). Universal clopidogrel was dominant over ticagrelor over the short term, and cost-effective over the long-term (ICUR, 10,616 /QALY). Conclusion: CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy appears to be the preferred antiplatelet strategy, followed by universal clopidogrel, and then universal ticagrelor for post-PCI patients in Qatar.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 112-113
Author(s):  
Jeonghoon Ahn ◽  
Eung Ju Kim ◽  
Kyungmi Oh ◽  
Justin Seung-Ho Yoo ◽  
Maria Koullick

Introduction:Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an open hole between the right and left upper chambers of the heart. It may increase the risk of stroke, so closure of the hole is considered a secondary prevention in patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. Recent evidence has been published on the effectiveness of PFO closure, including a publicly funded prospective study on the effectiveness of PFO closure for preventing recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack in selected Korean patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure using this recent evidence.Methods:Available clinical data from the aforementioned Korean prospective study and other recent multicenter trials funded by public bodies were used. The cost data were obtained from the current Korean National Health Insurance fee schedule. Utility data were extracted from local research on stroke patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a 20-year Markov model, was conducted using these data to compare PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulants alone.Results:The initial analysis showed that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy costs KRW 7.13 million (USD 6,547) more than oral anticoagulants alone but has a higher utility of 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, which corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 5.6 million (USD 5,142) per QALY. The implicit Korean ICER threshold is KRW 25 million (USD 22,955) for non-cancer drugs, so it seems that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy is cost effective in the Korean setting.Conclusions:Since this study used some transition probabilities from foreign sources, the results may not be completely transferable to the Korean setting. However, this is the best available evidence so far in Korea for the economic evaluation of the PFO closure procedure. Therefore, use of PFO closure in carefully selected patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke may benefit the public payer in Korea.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (13) ◽  
pp. 2489-2495 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Kassimis ◽  
Eleana F. Stavrou ◽  
Dimitrios Alexopoulos ◽  
Aglaia Athanassiadou

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document