Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, 4401 Wornall Rd, Kansas City, MO 64111, USA.
Circulation. 2010 Jan 5;121(1):71-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.900704. Epub 2009 Dec 21.
In patients with acute coronary syndromes and planned percutaneous coronary intervention, the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38) demonstrated that treatment with prasugrel versus clopidogrel was associated with reduced rates of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke and an increased risk of major bleeding. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel versus clopidogrel from the perspective of the US healthcare system by using data from TRITON-TIMI 38.
Detailed resource use data were prospectively collected for all patients recruited from 8 countries (United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, and France; n=3373 prasugrel, n=3332 clopidogrel). Hospitalization costs were estimated on the basis of diagnosis-related group and in-hospital complications. Cardiovascular medication costs were estimated by using net wholesale prices (clopidogrel=$4.62/d; prasugrel=$5.45/d). Life expectancy was estimated from in-trial cardiovascular and bleeding events with the use of statistical models of long-term survival from a similar population from the Saskatchewan Health Database. Over a median follow-up of 14.7 months, average total costs (including study drug) were $221 per patient lower with prasugrel (95% confidence interval, -759 to 299), largely because of a lower rate of rehospitalization involving percutaneous coronary intervention. Prasugrel was associated with life expectancy gains of 0.102 years (95% confidence interval, 0.030 to 0.180), primarily because of the decreased rate of nonfatal MI. Thus, compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel was an economically dominant treatment strategy. If a hypothetical generic cost for clopidogrel of $1/d is used, the incremental net cost with prasugrel was $996 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9727 per life-year gained.
Among acute coronary syndrome patients with planned percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment with prasugrel versus clopidogrel for up to 15 months is an economically attractive treatment strategy.
clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00097591.
在计划接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性冠状动脉综合征患者中,TRITON-TIMI 38 试验评估了通过普拉格雷优化血小板抑制治疗改善治疗结果的效果,结果表明,与氯吡格雷相比,普拉格雷治疗可降低心血管死亡、心肌梗死或中风的发生率,并增加大出血的风险。我们使用 TRITON-TIMI 38 试验的数据,从美国医疗保健系统的角度评估了普拉格雷与氯吡格雷的成本效益。
从 8 个国家(美国、澳大利亚、加拿大、德国、意大利、西班牙、英国和法国)招募的所有患者均前瞻性收集详细的资源使用数据(普拉格雷组 3373 例,氯吡格雷组 3332 例)。根据疾病诊断相关组和住院并发症估算住院费用。心血管药物费用根据净批发价格估算(氯吡格雷为 4.62 美元/天;普拉格雷为 5.45 美元/天)。使用萨斯喀彻温省健康数据库中类似人群的长期生存统计模型,根据试验期间心血管和出血事件估算预期寿命。中位随访 14.7 个月时,普拉格雷组每位患者的平均总费用(包括研究药物)降低 221 美元(95%置信区间:-759 至 299),这主要是由于接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的再住院率较低。普拉格雷与预期寿命增加 0.102 年(95%置信区间:0.030 至 0.180)相关,这主要是由于非致死性心肌梗死发生率降低。因此,与氯吡格雷相比,普拉格雷是一种具有成本效益的治疗策略。如果假设氯吡格雷的通用成本为 1 美元/天,则使用普拉格雷的增量净成本为每位患者 996 美元,增量成本效益比为每获得 1 个生命年 9727 美元。
在计划接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性冠状动脉综合征患者中,普拉格雷治疗 15 个月以内是一种具有吸引力的经济治疗策略。
clinicaltrials.gov。唯一标识符:NCT00097591。