Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CYP2C19 genotype can guide DAPT selection, prescribing ticagrelor or prasugrel for loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers (genotype-guided escalation). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are traditionally grounded in clinical trial data. We conduct a CEA using real-world data using a 1-year decision-analytic model comparing primary strategies: universal empiric clopidogrel (base case), universal ticagrelor, and genotype-guided escalation. We also explore secondary strategies commonly implemented in practice, wherein all patients are prescribed ticagrelor for 30 days post PCI. After 30 days, all patients are switched to clopidogrel irrespective of genotype (nonguided de-escalation) or to clopidogrel only if patients do not harbor an LOF allele (genotype-guided de-escalation). Compared with universal clopidogrel, both universal ticagrelor and genotype-guided escalation were superior with improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY’s). Only genotype-guided escalation was cost-effective ($42,365/QALY) and demonstrated the highest probability of being cost-effective across conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. In the secondary analysis, compared with the nonguided de-escalation strategy, although genotype-guided de-escalation and universal ticagrelor were more effective, with ICER of$188,680/QALY and $678,215/QALY, respectively, they were not cost-effective. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing is cost-effective compared with either universal clopidogrel or universal ticagrelor using real-world implementation data. The secondary analysis suggests genotype-guided and nonguided de-escalation may be viable strategies, needing further evaluation

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 1st through 3rd line sequential targeted therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the United States

PURPOSE: Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) was captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. RESULTS: The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of$175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third line therapy. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50% reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy