Cost-effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention

Aims Clopidogrel has, for long time, been accepted as the standard treatment for patients who have undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of prasugrel-and more recently, ticagrelor-has introduced a decision-making problem for clinicians and governments worldwide: to use the cheaper clopidogrel or the more effective, and also more expensive prasugrel or ticagrelor. We aim to give helpful contributions to this debate by analysing the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor compared with each other. Methods and results We modified a previously developed Markov model of cardiac disease progression. In the model, we followed up cohorts of patients who have recently had a PCI until 100 years or death. Possible events are revascularization, bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, and death. Our analysis shows that ticagrelor is cost-effective in 77% of simulations at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)7700 compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor was also cost-effective against prasugrel at a cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)7800. Given a Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of E70 000, both comparisons appear to be clearly cost-effective in favour of ticagrelor. Conclusion Ticagrelor is cost-effective compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel for patients who have undergone a PCI.