Key result
CYP2C19-guided cilostazol or ticagrelor proves cost-effective versus conventional therapy at under ~$3427 per QALY.
Why the study?
The study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor versus conventional clopidogrel and aspirin in China.
Does CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor improve cost-effectiveness compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack?
Does CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor improve cost-effectiveness compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack?
Effect estimate: ICER 3327.40 USD/QALY (cilostazol) and 3426.92 USD/QALY (ticagrelor)
CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol or ticagrelor is highly cost-effective compared to conventional clopidogrel and aspirin for acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA in China.
Supports cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided cilostazol or ticagrelor in China; leaves open prospective trials before practice change.
AIMS: The study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel, compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. METHODS: A 90-day decision tree and 30-year Markov model were employed to assess the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of personalized antiplatelet therapy for patients with minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack, compared to conventional antiplatelet therapy in the Chinese healthcare system. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The data sources included clinical trials, published literature, official documents and local prices. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to confirm the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The base-case analysis indicated that the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet strategy was cost-effective, and cilostazol group and ticagrelor group yielded an ICER of 3327.40 US dollars (USD)/QALY and 3426.92 USD/QALY, respectively, which were less than threshold. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust, where the most sensitive parameter was the disability distribution in the modified Rankin scale 3-5. The probabilistic analysis showed that the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with either cilostazol or ticagrelor was 100% cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel appeared to be more cost-effective than conventional antiplatelet therapy for acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack patients over 30 years in China.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2023) studied acute minor ischemic stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (cilostazol and ticagrelor) vs. conventional antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel and aspirin) was evaluated on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ICER 3327.40 USD/QALY (cilostazol) and 3426.92 USD/QALY (ticagrelor)). CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol or ticagrelor was cost-effective compared to conventional therapy, yielding ICERs of 3327.40 and 3426.92 USD/QALY, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: