Key result
Ticagrelor is a cost-effective treatment for acute coronary syndromes compared with branded clopidogrel in Thailand with an ICER of 60,055 THB/QALY, but is not cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel.
Why the study?
Does ticagrelor improve cost-effectiveness compared to generic and branded clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Thailand?
Does ticagrelor improve cost-effectiveness compared to generic and branded clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Thailand?
Effect estimate: 60,055 THB/QALY (vs branded clopidogrel)
Ticagrelor is a cost-effective treatment for acute coronary syndromes compared with branded clopidogrel, but not generic clopidogrel, within the Thai healthcare context.
May favor generic clopidogrel over ticagrelor in Thailand; leaves open cost-effectiveness amid varying generic pricing.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and ASA versus generic and branded clopidogrel and ASA in patients with ACS based on a Thai cost database. METHODS: A one-year decision tree and a long-term Markov model were constructed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). For the first year, data from PLATO (NCT00391872) were used to estimate the rate of cardiovascular events, resource use, and QALYs. For year 2 onwards, clinical effectiveness was estimated conditional on individual health states that occurred during the first year. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with ticagrelor was 292,504 ($9,476) and 60,055 ($1,946) THB($)/QALY compared with generic and branded clopidogrel, respectively. The probability of ticagrelor being cost-effective was above 99% at a threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY compared with branded clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: This health economic analysis provides cost effectiveness data for ticagrelor compared with both generic and branded clopidogrel in Thailand. Based on this analysis, it appears that ticagrelor is an economically valuable treatment for ACS compared with branded clopidogrel within the Thai context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamwong et al. (2014) studied Acute coronary syndromes. Ticagrelor vs. Generic and branded clopidogrel was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (60,055 THB/QALY (vs branded clopidogrel)). Ticagrelor is a cost-effective treatment for acute coronary syndromes compared with branded clopidogrel in Thailand with an ICER of 60,055 THB/QALY, but is not cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: