Abstract
Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The advances of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy over several years time have resulted in improved in cardiac outcomes, but with increased health care costs. Multiple cost-effectiveness studies have been performed to evaluate the use of available antiplatelet agents and anticoagulation in the setting of both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Early on, the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) proved to be economically attractive in the management of ACS; however, the introduction of P2Y12 receptor antagonists limited their use to a bail out agents in complex interventions. Generic clopidogrel is probably still an economically attractive P2Y12 receptor antagonist choice, especially in low-risk ACS, while both ticagrelor and prasugrel present an economically attractive alternative option, especially in high-risk ACS and patients at risk for stent thrombosis. While enoxaparin presents an economically dominant alternative to heparin in NSTE-ACS, its role in STEMI in the contemporary era is unclear. During percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), bivalirudin monotherapy was shown to be an economically dominant alternative to the combination of heparin and GPI in ACS. However, new studies may suggest that using heparin monotherapy may offer an attractive alternative. The comparative and cost effectiveness of different combinations of antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy will be the focus of future expected clinical and economic assessments.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Man DL, Zipes DP, Libby P, Bonow R, editors. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: a textbook of cardiovascular disease, 10th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2014.
Writing Group M, Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46–215 (PubMed PMID: 20019324).
Kolansky DM. Acute coronary syndromes: morbidity, mortality, and pharmacoeconomic burden. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(2 Suppl):S36–41.
Taylor MJ, Scuffham PA, McCollam PL, Newby DE. Acute coronary syndromes in Europe: 1-year costs and outcomes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(3):495–503.
Bagai A, Dangas GD, Stone GW, Granger CB. Reperfusion strategies in acute coronary syndromes. Circ Res. 2014;114(12):1918–28.
Mark DB, Hlatky MA. Medical economics and the assessment of value in cardiovascular medicine: part I. Circulation. 2002;106(4):516–20.
Wright JC, Weinstein MC. Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions—standardizing data on outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(6):380–6.
Gilder SS. London letter. Can Med Assoc J. 1971;104(6):473–81 (PubMed PMID: 20311761. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1930908).
Simoens S. How to assess the value of medicines? Front Pharmacol. 2010;1:1–9. Art ID 115. (English).
Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):437–52.
Boersma E. Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs. Thrombolysis G. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(7):779–88.
Huynh T, Perron S, O’Loughlin J, Joseph L, Labrecque M, Tu JV, et al. Comparison of primary percutaneous coronary intervention and fibrinolytic therapy in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: bayesian hierarchical meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Circulation. 2009;119(24):3101–9.
Machecourt J, Bonnefoy E, Vanzetto G, Motreff P, Marliere S, Leizorovicz A, et al. Primary angioplasty is cost-minimizing compared with pre-hospital thrombolysis for patients within 60 min of a percutaneous coronary intervention center: the Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) cost-efficacy sub-study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(4):515–24.
Aasa M, Henriksson M, Dellborg M, Grip L, Herlitz J, Levin LA, et al. Cost and health outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolysis in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Results of the Swedish Early Decision reperfusion Study (SWEDES) trial. Am Heart J. 2010;160(2):322–8.
Grines CL, Schreiber T. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the deception of delay. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(16):1696–7.
Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, Kontny F, Stahle E, Swahn E. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease. Lancet. 2000;356(9223):9–16.
Janzon M, Levin LA, Swahn E. Cost-effectiveness of an invasive strategy in unstable coronary artery disease; results from the FRISC II invasive trial. The Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2002;23(1):31–40.
Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, Vicari R, Frey MJ, Lakkis N, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(25):1879–87.
Mahoney EM, Jurkovitz CT, Chu H, Becker ER, Culler S, Kosinski AS, et al. Cost and cost-effectiveness of an early invasive vs conservative strategy for the treatment of unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2002;288(15):1851–8.
The ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1988;2(8607):349–60.
The RESTORE (Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and REstenosis) Invistigators. Effects of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade with tirofiban on adverse cardiac events in patients with unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction undergoing coronary angioplasty. The RESTORE Investigators. Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and REstenosis. Circulation. 1997;96(5):1445–53.
Weintraub WS, Culler S, Boccuzzi SJ, Cook JR, Kosinski AS, Cohen DJ, et al. Economic impact of GPIIB/IIIA blockade after high-risk angioplasty: results from the RESTORE trial. Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and Restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(4):1061–6.
The PURSUIT (Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy) Trial Investigators. Inhibition of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The PURSUIT Trial Investigators. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in unstable angina: receptor suppression using integrilin therapy. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(7):436–43.
Mark DB, Harrington RA, Lincoff AM, Califf RM, Nelson CL, Tsiatis AA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with eptifibatide in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2000;101(4):366–71.
Rupprecht HJ, Darius H, Borkowski U, Voigtlander T, Nowak B, Genth S, et al. Comparison of antiplatelet effects of aspirin, ticlopidine, or their combination after stent implantation. Circulation. 1998;97(11):1046–52.
Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, Bertrand ME, Lewis BS, Natarajan MK, et al. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet. 2001;358(9281):527–33.
Mahoney EM, Mehta S, Yuan Y, Jackson J, Chen R, Gabriel S, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of early and sustained clopidogrel therapy for up to 1 year in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after presenting with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. Am Heart J. 2006;151(1):219–27.
Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001–15.
Mahoney EM, Wang K, Arnold SV, Proskorovsky I, Wiviott S, Antman E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction TRITON-TIMI 38. Circulation. 2010;121(1):71–9.
Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Held C, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1045–57.
Nikolic E, Janzon M, Hauch O, Wallentin L, Henriksson M, Group PHES. Cost-effectiveness of treating acute coronary syndrome patients with ticagrelor for 12 months: results from the PLATO study. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(3):220–8.
Theroux P, Ouimet H, McCans J, Latour JG, Joly P, Levy G, et al. Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(17):1105–11.
Oler A, Whooley MA, Oler J, Grady D. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1996;276(10):811–5.
Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AG, Fromell GJ, Goodman S, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(7):447–52.
Mark DB, Cowper PA, Berkowitz SD, Davidson-Ray L, DeLong ER, Turpie AG, et al. Economic assessment of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients: results from the ESSENCE randomized trial. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events [unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction]. Circulation. 1998;97(17):1702–7.
Antman EM, Morrow DA, McCabe CH, Murphy SA, Ruda M, Sadowski Z, et al. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin with fibrinolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(14):1477–88.
Marcoff L, Zhang Z, Zhang W, Ewen E, Jurkovitz C, Leguet P, et al. Cost effectiveness of enoxaparin in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(14):1271–9.
Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes I, Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, et al. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(14):1464–76 (PubMed PMID: 16537663).
Sculpher MJ, Lozano-Ortega G, Sambrook J, Palmer S, Ormanidhi O, Bakhai A, et al. Fondaparinux versus Enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: short-term cost and long-term cost-effectiveness using data from the Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators (OASIS-5) trial. Am Heart J. 2009;157(5):845–52.
Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, Granger CB, et al. Effects of fondaparinux on mortality and reinfarction in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the OASIS-6 randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;295(13):1519–30.
Stone GW, White HD, Ohman EM, Bertrand ME, Lincoff AM, McLaurin BT, et al. Bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) Trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9565):907–19.
Pinto DS, Stone GW, Shi C, Dunn ES, Reynolds MR, York M, et al. Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(22):1758–68.
Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, Brodie BR, Dudek D, et al. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2218–30.
Schwenkglenks M, Toward TJ, Plent S, Szucs TD, Blackman DJ, Baumbach A. Cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Heart. 2012;98(7):544–51.
Shahzad A, Kemp I, Mars C, Wilson K, Roome C, Cooper R, et al. Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9957):1849–58.
Han Y, Guo J, Zheng Y, Zang H, Su X, Wang Y, Chen S, et al. Bivalirudin vs heparin with or without tirofiban during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: the BRIGHT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(13):1336–46.
Cavender MA, Sabatine MS. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;384(9943):599–606.
Cassese S, Byrne RA, Laugwitz KL, Schunkert H, Berger PB, Kastrati A. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2014. doi:10.4244/EIJY14M08_01.
Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Driscoll-Shempp P, Cutlip DE, Steg PG, et al. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(23):2155–66.
Funding source
The time spent by Dr. Weintraub overseeing and guiding Dr. Fanari writing the manuscript was funded by an Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant number U54-GM104941 (PI: Binder-Macleod).
Conflict of interest disclosure statements
Dr. Weintraub is a consultant to, and has had previous grant funding from, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Lilly and Daiichi- Sankyo. Drs. Fanari and Weiss report no potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this review.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fanari, Z., Weiss, S. & Weintraub, W.S. Cost Effectiveness of Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy in the Setting of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Current Perspective and Literature Review. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 15, 415–427 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-015-0131-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-015-0131-6