Cost–effectiveness of CYP2C19 LOF-guided antiplatelet therapy in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of CYP2C19 loss-of-function(LOF) allele-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with the universal use of clopidogrel or ticagrelor among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: A two-part cost–effectiveness model comprising of a 1-year decision tree and a long-term Markov model was utilized to simulate outcomes of three treatment strategies: universal use of clopidogrel (75 mg daily) or universal use of ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily for all patients and CYP2C19 LOF-guided therapy (LOF allele carriers receiving ticagrelor, LOF allele noncarriers receiving clopidogrel). Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, direct medical costs and incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs). ICERs less than one-time gross domestic product per capita in China 59,660 yuan/QALY were considered cost–effective. Results: Base-case analysis showed ‘universal ticagrelor use’ was cost–effective for an ICER of 33,875 yuan per QALY gained compared with ‘universal clopidogrel use’ of which gained a 1.6932 QALYs at lowest life-long cost of 2450 yuan. CYP2C19 LOF-guided therapy had an effectiveness of 1.6975 QALYs at a cost of 2812 yuan, for an ICER of 84,118 yuan per QALY gained relative to ‘universal clopidogrel use’. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that base-case results were significantly affected by five factors: the risk ratio of ‘non-fatal myocardial infarction’, ‘non-fatal stroke’ and ‘cardiovascular death’ in ticagrelor versus clopidogrel and the annual costs of clopidogrel and ticagrelor. According to the results of Monte Carlo simulation, when willing to pay is about 32,000 yuan, patients willing to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor are approximately equal. Conclusion: Optimal antiplatelet treatment is affected by lots of factors. The results of our study demonstrated that ‘universal ticagrelor use’ was cost–effective compared with ‘universal clopidogrel use’ for Chinese acute coronary syndrome patients with percutaneous coronary intervention.