Why the study?
Ticagrelor exhibits better pharmacokinetic profiles than clopidogrel but is more expensive, prompting a comparison of the cost-effectiveness and safety profiles of aspirin-clopidogrel versus aspirin-ticagrelor in ACS patients.
Does an aspirin-ticagrelor combination reduce major adverse cardiovascular events and improve cost-effectiveness compared to an aspirin-clopidogrel combination in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Does an aspirin-ticagrelor combination reduce major adverse cardiovascular events and improve cost-effectiveness compared to an aspirin-clopidogrel combination in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
In patients with acute coronary syndrome, aspirin-ticagrelor is a cost-effective strategy that significantly reduces MACE within the first 3 months compared to aspirin-clopidogrel, without a significant increase in major bleeding.
A-T may warrant consideration for ACS in similar settings; leaves open confirmation via RCTs on cost-effectiveness and safety.
Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using either an aspirin–clopidogrel (A–C) combination or aspirin–ticagrelor (A–T) combination has become the standard therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Ticagrelor shows better pharmacokinetic profiles but is more expensive. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness and safety profiles of A–C versus A–T in patients with ACS.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ACS patient at the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital between 2014 and 2016. ACS patients treated for the first time with A–T or A–C were included. Occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were used as effectiveness outcomes, while safety outcomes were measured based on the incidence of adverse drug reactions (major and minor bleeding, dyspnea, and hyperuricemia). Cost-effectiveness analysis was presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: Data records obtained from 123 ACS patients treated with A–C and 57 ACS patients treated with A–T were evaluated. Within the first three months, the MACE rate was 15.8% in the A–T group and 31.7% in the A–C group (RR: 0.498, 95% CI: 0.259–0.957, p=0.039). There was no statistically significant difference observed in the number of MACE between groups after 6, 9, and 12 months. The A–T group had a higher incidence of major bleeding (melena) than the A–C group (5.3% vs 1.62%, p=0.681), especially in geriatric patients. Minor bleeding was observed in three patients of the A–C group, but in none of the patients in the A–T group. The cost of ICER was IDR 279,438, indicating the additional cost needed for avoiding MACE within 3 months, if A–T was used.Conclusion: The aspirin–ticagrelor combination is a clinically superior and cost-effective option for MACE prevention among ACS patients, especially during the first three months of DAPT, with a slight but not significantly higher major bleeding risk when compared to the aspirin–clopidogrel combination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nafrialdi et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: