• Justyna Pawęska, Tomasz Macioch, Piotr Perkowski, Andrzej Budaj, and Maciej Niewada.
• HealthQuest Sp.z o.o. Sp.k., Warsaw, Poland. tomasz.macioch@healthquest.pl.
• Kardiol Pol. 2014 Jan 1; 72 (9): 823-30.

BackgroundTicagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist designed to reduce clinical thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor has been proven to significantly reduce the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding in patients who have an ACS with or without ST-segment elevation (STEMI and NSTEMI) or unstable angina (UA).AimTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness and healthcare costs associated with secondary prevention of ACS using ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients after STEMI, NSTEMI and UA.MethodsAn economic model based on results from the PLATO trial was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-year therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The structure of the model consisted of two parts, i.e. the decision tree with one-year PLATO results and the Markov model with lifelong estimations, which exceeded PLATO follow-up data. The model was adjusted to Polish settings with country-specific data on death rates in the general population and direct medical costs calculated from the public payer's perspective. Costs were derived from the National Health Fund (NHF) and the Ministry of Health and presented in PLN 2013 values. Annual mean costs of second and subsequent years after stroke or MI were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty of assumed parameters was tested in scenarios and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The adopted model allowed the estimation of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for life years gained (LYG) and an incremental cost-utility ratio for quality adjusted life years (QALY).ResultsTotal direct medical costs to the public payer at a one year horizon were 2,905 PLN higher with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel. However, mean healthcare costs at a one year horizon (excluding drug costs and concomitant drugs) were 690 PLN higher for patients treated with clopidogrel. In a lifetime horizon, results indicated that ticagrelor was the more cost-effective option compared to generic clopidogrel, with an incremental cost per LYG estimated at 21,566 PLN and an incremental costper QALY estimated at 24,965 PLN.ConclusionsIn a lifetime horizon, which should be used when comparing technologies with different impacts on mortality, cost-effectiveness evaluation resulted in more favourable economic outcomes for ticagrelor than for generic clopidogrel, with the cost per QALY well below the recommended willingness to pay threshold in Poland (24,965 PLN vs. 111,381 PLN).

49 keywords...

hide…