• Ulrike Theidel, Christian Asseburg, Evangelos Giannitsis, and Hugo Katus.
• Herescon Gmbh, Königsworther Str. 2 30167 Hannover, Germany. theidel@herescon.com [corrected]
• Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Jun 1; 102 (6): 447-58.

AbstractThe aim of this health economic analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel within the German health care system. A two-part decision model was adapted to compare treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in a low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) cohort (≤150 mg) for all ACS patients and subtypes NSTEMI/IA and STEMI. A decision-tree approach was chosen for the first year after initial hospitalization based on trial observations from a subgroup of the PLATO study. Subsequent years were estimated by a Markov model. Following a macro-costing approach, costs were based on official tariffs and published literature. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. One-year treatment with ticagrelor is associated with an estimated 0.1796 life-years gained (LYG) and gained 0.1570 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively, over the lifetime horizon. Overall average cost with ticagrelor is estimated to be EUR 11,815 vs. EUR 11,387 with generic clopidogrel over a lifetime horizon. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was EUR 2,385 per LYG (EUR 2,728 per QALY). Comparing ticagrelor with Plavix(®) or the lowest priced generic clopidogrel, ICER ranges from dominant to EUR 3,118 per LYG (EUR 3,567 per QALY). These findings are robust under various additional sensitivity analyses. Hence, 12 months of ACS treatment using ticagrelor/ASA instead of clopidogrel/ASA may offer a cost-effective therapeutic option, even when the generic price for clopidogrel is employed.

42 keywords...

hide…