Key result
Ticagrelor plus aspirin was cost-effective compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin over 5-year and lifetime horizons, with a 53.5% chance of being dominant and overall cost-savings of HK$2,878 per patient.
Why the study?
The long-term cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus generic clopidogrel plus aspirin in acute coronary syndrome patients from a Hong Kong public hospital perspective needed evaluation.
Is ticagrelor plus aspirin cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel plus aspirin in acute coronary syndrome patients in Hong Kong?
Is ticagrelor plus aspirin cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel plus aspirin in acute coronary syndrome patients in Hong Kong?
Ticagrelor plus aspirin is a cost-effective and potentially cost-saving strategy compared to generic clopidogrel plus aspirin for ACS patients in Hong Kong over a lifetime horizon.
May support modeled lifetime cost savings with ticagrelor in Hong Kong ACS; leaves open real-world confirmation before practice change.
This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor plus aspirin versus generic clopidogrel plus aspirin in acute coronary syndrome patients in Hong Kong (HK) from a public hospital’s perspective. The study has adapted a previously developed two-component prediction model. The first component is a simple decision tree corresponding to the first year. Afterwards events in the second year onwards were estimated using a state-transition Markov model incorporating the potential of recurrent events such as myocardial infarction and strokes that could lead to death for estimating the long-term economic and health outcomes measured as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs). Kaplan Meier survival analysis was employed to determine the risk of events. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the probability of ticagrelor being cost-effective. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was used to estimate the willingness-to-pay of patients. The use of ticagrelor led to improved clinical outcomes by gaining additional life-years and QALYS over 5-year and lifetime time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was above 1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita only for the 1-year results. By replacing clopidogrel with ticagrelor for life-time, the incremental drug costs were offset by the substantial reduction in other direct costs, leading to an overall cost-savings of HK 2,878 per patient. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ticagrelor has 53.5% chance of being dominant and 34.7% being cost-effective at a threshold of 1 GDP per capita for Hong Kong. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve also showed that the willingness-to-pay for ticagrelor was 90% at 1 GDP per capita. Ticagrelor plus aspirin appeared to be cost-effective over 5-year and life-time projection periods compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2020) studied Acute coronary syndrome. Ticagrelor plus aspirin vs. Generic clopidogrel plus aspirin was evaluated on Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Ticagrelor plus aspirin was cost-effective compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin over 5-year and lifetime horizons, with a 53.5% chance of being dominant and overall cost-savings of HK$2,878 per patient.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: