Key result
Over a patient's lifetime, ticagrelor is highly cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel in Switzerland, with an ICER of CHF 1,536 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Is ticagrelor cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel as add-on therapy to ASA in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Is ticagrelor cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel as add-on therapy to ASA in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Effect estimate: ICER CHF 1,536 per QALY
In a Swiss healthcare setting, ticagrelor is highly cost-effective over a lifetime and cost-saving over the first five years compared to generic clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Supports ticagrelor preference in Swiss ACS care; extends cost-effectiveness evidence to lifetime horizon in a high-income European setting.
QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel as add-on therapy to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), from a Swiss perspective. METHODS: Based on the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, one-year mean healthcare costs per patient treated with ticagrelor or generic clopidogrel were analysed from a payer perspective in 2011. A two-part decision-analytic model estimated treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years and the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel in patients with ACS up to a lifetime at a discount of 2.5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, treatment with ticagrelor generates an additional 0.1694 QALYs and 0.1999 life years at a cost of CHF 260 compared with generic clopidogrel. This results in an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of CHF 1,536 per QALY and CHF 1,301 per life year gained. Ticagrelor dominated generic clopidogrel over the five-year and one-year periods with treatment generating cost savings of CHF 224 and 372 while gaining 0.0461 and 0.0051 QALYs and moreover 0.0517 and 0.0062 life years, respectively. Univariate sensitivity analyses confirmed the dominant position of ticagrelor in the first five years and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a high probability of cost-effectiveness over a lifetime. CONCLUSION: During the first five years after ACS, treatment with ticagrelor dominates generic clopidogrel in Switzerland. Over a patient's lifetime, ticagrelor is highly cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel, proven by ICERs significantly below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gasche et al. (2013) studied acute coronary syndrome. Ticagrelor vs. Generic clopidogrel was evaluated on Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (ICER CHF 1,536 per QALY). Over a patient's lifetime, ticagrelor is highly cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel in Switzerland, with an ICER of CHF 1,536 per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: