Pharmacogenomics
Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome
Kazi D, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):221-232-232
Kazi D, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):221-232-232
Perception of the usefulness of drug/gene pairs and barriers for pharmacogenomics in Latin America
Quinones L, et al. Curr Drug Metab 2014 Feb
Quinones L, et al. Curr Drug Metab 2014 Feb
Pharmacogenetics in the community pharmacy: Thienopyridine selection post-coronary artery stent placement
Kisor DF, et al. J Pharm Pract 2014 Feb
Kisor DF, et al. J Pharm Pract 2014 Feb
Pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing in children
Hamberg AK & Wadelius M Pharmacogenomics 2014 Feb;15(3):361-74
Hamberg AK & Wadelius M Pharmacogenomics 2014 Feb;15(3):361-74
Original Research | 18 February 2014
Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype-Guided and Dual Antiplatelet Therapies in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MSc, MS; Alan M. Garber, MD, PhD; Rashmee U. Shah, MD, MS; R. Adams Dudley, MD, MBA; Matthew W. Mell, MD; Ceron Rhee, MBA; Solomon Moshkevich, MBA; Derek B. Boothroyd, PhD; Douglas K. Owens, MD; and Mark A. Hlatky, MD
Background: The choice of antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopidogrel, patients with some genotypes may not respond to clopidogrel, and low-cost generic formulations of clopidogrel are available.
Objective: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
Design: Decision-analytic model.
Data Sources: Published literature, Medicare claims, and life tables.
Target Population: Patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.
Time Horizon: Lifetime.
Perspective: Societal.
Intervention: Five strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel.
Outcome Measures: Direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
Results of Base-Case Analysis: The clopidogrel strategy produced $179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy ($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).
Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Stronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.
Limitation: No randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.
Conclusion: Genotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may be an economically reasonable alternative in some settings.
Primary Funding Sources: American Heart Association, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Stanford University, and University of California San Francisco.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario