검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords

Article

Split Viewer

Original Research Article

DTT 2024; 3(1): 51-61

Published online March 31, 2024 https://doi.org/10.58502/DTT.23.0026

Copyright © The Pharmaceutical Society of Korea.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Korea

Hae Sun Suh1,2,3 , Iyn-Hyang Lee4, Sukhyang Lee5, Hye-Young Kang6

1College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Regulatory Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
3Institute of Regulatory Innovation through Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
4College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Korea
5College of Pharmacy, Ajou University, Suwon,Korea
6College of Pharmacy, Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Yonsei University, Incheon, Korea

Correspondence to:Hae Sun Suh, haesun.suh@khu.ac.kr

Received: October 4, 2023; Revised: February 8, 2024; Accepted: February 20, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ((http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the cytochrome p450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model with a one-year time period employing a societal perspective. A cohort of 10,000 patients was assigned to each treatment alternative as follows: (1) selecting antiplatelet therapy between clopidogrel and prasugrel utilizing the genotype information of CYP2C19; (2) using clopidogrel without using genotype information; (3) using prasugrel without using genotype information. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per effectiveness ratio (ICER), where the effectiveness was defined as a death or cardiovascular event avoided, comparing genotype-guided therapy with the other two alternatives. The cardiovascular event was defined as any occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding. The secondary outcome measures were the incidence of each event for each alternative and the number needed to treat (NNT) with the genotype-guided therapy versus each of other alternatives. The treatment strategy of genotype-guided therapy was dominant when compared with using clopidogrel (ICER: −36,610,303 KRW, −33,282 USD) or prasugrel (ICER: −24,202,531 KRW, −22,002 USD) for all patients without considering the genotype. The NNT of the genotype-guided therapy versus clopidogrel and prasugrel for all patients was 26 and 12, respectively, for any occurrence of death and cardiovascular event. Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy in Korean patients.

Keywordsantiplatelet agents, acute coronary syndrome, pharmacogenetics, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic evaluation

In addition to aspirin, clopidogrel or prasugrel is recommended to administer with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolytic therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (Wiviott et al. 2007; Levine et al. 2011). Both clopidogrel and prasugrel are administered as a prodrug that is metabolized to an active metabolite by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes. Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine with a more potent antiplatelet agent and features faster onset and less dependency on CYP2C19 in converting to its active metabolite than clopidogrel does. Prasugrel maintains a higher concentration (~70%) of active metabolites with renal excretion (Mousa et al. 2010). The effects of clopidogrel are variable in patients and its resistance has been issued with related to genetic polymorphisms (Serebruany et al. 2005).

Several CYP isoenzymes mediate clopidogrel metabolism and among them CYP2C19 plays a major role in two oxidative steps of the biotransformation process (Kazui et al. 2010). More importantly, genetic variants of CYP2C19 contribute to variations in pharmacokinetics of clopidogrel. Several CYP2C19 alleles are known to lead to different metabolic phenotypes and can be classified into four types: ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, and poor metabolizers. For example, the conversion of clopidogrel to its active metabolite is extensively reduced in patients who carry the CYP2C19*2 allele, which leads to a poor metabolizer. Allele frequencies of these CYP2C19 alleles vary considerably by ethnicity. For example, the CYP2C19*2 allele has 27% frequency in Asians, 14% in Caucasians, and 18% in African Americans (Collet et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2009; Simon et al. 2009; Beitelshees et al. 2011). Frequency of the CYP2C19*3 allele, another poor-metabolizer type, is 9% in Asians but this type of allele is nonexistent in both Caucasians and African Americans. CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms are also associated with pharmacodynamics and clinical outcomes. For example, the CYP2C19*2 allele is associated with decreased response to clopidogrel treatment and increased occurrence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes when treated with clopidogrel (Mega et al. 2009a).

The FDA approved a label for clopidogrel with a boxed warning regarding the reduced effectiveness of clopideogrel with less enzyme activity of CYP2C19 to convert the drug into its active metabolite. Genetic testing might be considered to identify a patient at high risk for poor clinical outcome (Levine et al. 2011). When a patient predisposed to inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel is identified by genetic testing, treatment with an alternate P2Y12 inhibitor (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) might be considered (Holmes et al. 2010). Different from clopidogrel which shows different responses based on the genotype, prasugrel does not show different responses according to the genotype.

Although current and emerging evidence suggest that better targeted and more effective treatment strategy utilizing pharmacogenomic knowledge have the potential to produce significant gains in patients’ health, it might be difficult to manage patients based on these scientific findings due to the budget constraint and other issues in the healthcare system. As the FDA label includes the boxed warning about the relationship between the efficacy and pharmacogenetic characteristics of clopidogrel, it becomes necessary to evaluate whether genotype testing for all the patients would be a cost-effective strategy. Especially, evaluating the efficiency of utilizing genotype information should be performed for each ethnic group because the distribution of genotypes varies by ethnicity. In case of being cost effective, the result of economic evaluation could serve as a ground for establishing the reimbursement guideline.

Several cost-effectiveness studies have been published in various countries (Reese et al. 2012; Deiman et al. 2016; Fu et al. 2020; Narasimhalu et al. 2020; AlMukdad et al. 2021; Claassens et al. 2022). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy reflecting the characteristics of Asians when compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea.

Model overview

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing a decision-analytic model with one-year timeframe. Societal perspective was employed to examine the impact of adopting treatment strategy on our society. Target population was Korean patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who receive antiplatelet therapy following a scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was assigned to each of the three treatment alternatives: (1) drug selection of antiplatelet therapy (i.e., clopidogrel or prasugrel) based on the genotype information of CYP2C19; (2) clopidogrel for all patients without using genotype information; (3) prasugrel for all patients without using genotype information. The pharmacogenetic-based strategy involved genotyping for the CYP2C19*1, CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*3, CYP2C19*4, CYP2C19*5, CYP2C19*6, CYP2C19*7, CYP2C19*8, and CYP2C19*17 alleles. Under the treatment alternative 1, simulated patients determined to be carriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele according to genetic test were prescribed prasugrel. Noncarriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele were prescribed clopidogrel. Based on recent findings, it was assumed that genetic testing is able to identify genotypes correctly (that is, sensitivity and specificity are 100%) (Saracini et al. 2012). The decision tree was developed to simulate the natural history of patients with ACS receiving antiplatelet therapy following PCI (Fig. 1). Patients might experience one of the five cardiovascular events during the simulation period of one year: nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, bleeding defined as the major or minor Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) bleeding, all-cause death including cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death, or no event.

Figure 1.Decision tree to evaluate cost-effectiveness of using genotype information for selecting antiplatelet therapy.

Model parameters

1) Probability of clinical event

The decision model requires various probability parameters. First, proportion of Korean ACS patients who are carriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele was obtained from two Korean studies (Lee et al. 2009; Oh et al. 2012). Second, probabilities of each cardiovascular event were derived from published literature, separately for each type of ACS patients: those taking clopidogrel or prasugrel, respectively, regardless of having genetic variants); those without genetic variants and taking clopidogrel); and those carrying genetic variants and taking prasugrel. Probability of stroke and TIMI major or minor bleeding in patients carrying variant allele and receiving prasugrel were estimated using the hazard ratios of 1.73 and 1.01 for variant allele versus nonvariant, respectively (Lee et al. 2009; Mega et al. 2009a; 2009b; Jang et al. 2012; Oh et al. 2012). We extracted the parameters from several published studies based on following criteria in order (Table 1): (1) a study with meta-analysis and systematic review in Korean or Asian patients (Jang et al. 2012); (2) a large-scale clinical study with Korean or Asian patients (Lee et al. 2009; Choi et al. 2011; Oh et al. 2012); (3) a study with meta-analysis and systematic review with Caucasian patients (Mega et al. 2010); and (4) a large-scale clinical study with Caucasians (Mega et al. 2009a; 2009b).

Table 1 Model input parameters

ParameterBase valueReference
Probabilities
Proportion of carriers of genetic variants of CYP2C19 in Korean patients with coronary artery disease0.450Lee et al. (2009)
Oh et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients without genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.048Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.002Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- All-cause death0.007Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients with genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.066Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.001Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.045Mega et al. (2009b)
- All-cause death0.010Mega et al. (2009b)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.049Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.004Mega et al. (2009a)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a)
- All-cause death0.010Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.077Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.009Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.038Mega et al. (2009b)
- Cardiovascular death0.014Mega et al. (2009b)
Costs (KRW)
Genotyping CYP2C1963,000Severance Hospital (2009)
Clopidogrel 75 mg/day for one year (unit price: 1,164 KRW)424,860The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
Prasugrel 10 mg/day for one year (unit price: 2,298 KRW)838,770The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
PCI for one time3,272,820The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (2010)
Annual cost for nonfatal MI4,942,074
- Direct medical costs3,767,000The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2021)
- Direct non-medical costs436,000The Korea National Statistical Office (2020a, 2020b, 2020c)
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)739,074The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2005)
Annual cost for nonfatal stroke5,151,000
- Direct medical costs2,230,000
- Direct non-medical costs1,290,000
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,631,000
Annual cost for nonfatal bleeding per year5,073,265Ewen et al. (2009)
Annual cost for cardiovascular death2,778,374
- Direct medical costs870,699
- Direct non-medical costs369,409
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,538,265

CV, cardiovascular; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; KRW, Korean won. All costs are presented in 2020 currency Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW).


2) Resource use and costs

Three types of cost parameters were incorporated into the model: costs of receiving antiplatelet therapy, costs of undergoing PCI, and costs of treating each of the clinical events included in the model (Table 1). All costs consisted of direct medical and non-medical costs, and indirect costs. Direct medical costs consisted of insurance-covered and uncovered medical costs. Direct non-medical costs included transportation costs to visit hospitals and caregiver costs. Indirect costs consisted of loss of productivity due to absence from work during hospitalization and premature death. All costs were presented in 2020 Korean won (KRW; one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW) in accordance with the medical and transportation component of the Consumer Price Index and average daily wage provided by National Statistical Office (The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020a; 2020b; 2020c).

(1) Costs of antiplatelet therapy

Unlike the treatment alternatives of 2 and 3, individuals under the alternative 1 bears cost for genotyping in addition to drug therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel. Since the genotyping test related to antiplatelet therapy is not widely adopted in Korea, we depended the cost information for the test upon a single institution, which is one of the largest tertiary hospitals in Korea (Severance Hospital 2009). The costs of genotyping for CYP2C19 are reimbursed and taking the genotyping test does not cause a noticeable discomfort to the patients. Thus, we did not consider the discomfort occurred in patients due to this genotyping test. Annual drug therapy costs were estimated by summing up drug acquisition and dispensing costs, and direct and indirect costs of outpatient visits occurred to receive prescription. Drug acquisition costs for clopidogrel and prasugrel were based on the list drug prices by the National Health Insurance (The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2020). We chose the mode price for clopidogrel 75 mg among 57 marketed products including both branded and generic products. For prasugrel 10 mg, there was only one branded drug. We assumed patients would take clopidogrel 75 mg daily or prasugrel 10 mg daily for one year.

(2) Costs of PCI

Costs of percutaneous coronary intervention were extracted from a Governmental organization report (The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency 2010). We included unit cost for procedure, material costs, hospitalization costs, and costs for several tests needed for the procedure which were estimated from the national reimbursement database of Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA). We only considered one-time procedural costs and did not consider revascularization costs.

(3) Costs of treating cardiovascular events

We estimated annual insurance-covered medical costs per patient for hospitalization, ambulatory visit, and drug therapy associated with nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death using the National Health Insurance (NHI) Statistics data (The National Health Insurance Corporation; the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). We used the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) billing codes of I21-22 to identify myocardial infarction and I60-69 & G45 for stroke. For cardiovascular death, we assumed these patients used healthcare services related with hypertension (ICD-10 code: I10-15), ischemic heart disease (ICD-10 code: I20-25), and stroke (ICD-10 code: I60-69 and G45) before death. For nonfatal bleeding costs, we used data from a peer-reviewed publication (Ewen 2009) due to absence of data in the NHI Statistics. We applied purchasing power parity to accommodate the difference in price level between the United States of America and Korea (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2020).

Direct non-medical costs included transportation and caregiver’s costs related to inpatient and outpatient care. We estimated transportation costs by multiplying the average round-trip transportation cost (2,896 and 891 KRW for admission and outpatient visits, respectively) by the total annual number of admissions and ambulatory visits per patient having each event (The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005; The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). Reflecting severity of disease and family-oriented care culture in Korea, transportation costs for a caregiver were also considered for all hospital admissions and ambulatory visits for the cases of ischemic heart disease and stroke. In addition, assuming that patients would be taken care by one of the family members during hospitalization, caregiver’s cost was calculated as a product of the average daily wage rate and the annual total length-of-stay of hospitalizations per patient for each event based on the NHI data (The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021; The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020c).

Indirect costs consisted of loss of productivity due to absence from work during hospitalization and premature death. We estimated the costs of loss of productivity based on human capital approach from the age of 20 to 69 years who are the age groups involved in economic activities (Drummond et al. 2015). Productivity loss costs of absenteeism were computed as a product of the total length-of-stay for admissions per year and average ten-year age-specific daily wage rates. We assumed patients would lose one day for a work for each of an ambulatory visit. The length-of-stay for hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits were based on the NHI data for each event. Premature death costs were calculated as the expected value of an individual’s future earnings up to 69 years-old if the patient did not die due to cardiovascular disease. The average ten-year age-specific yearly wage rate, the average increase rate of wage, the rate of participation in economic activities, the unemployment rate, and the case-fatality rate were considered (The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020c; The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). We assumed patients would die in the middle age of ten-year age intervals.

Data analysis

The primary outcome was the incremental cost per effectiveness ratio (ICER) which was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in effectiveness between treatment alternatives. We presented the ICER with 95% confidence interval obtained by the Monte-Carlo simulation (Gold et al. 1996). The effectiveness measures were a death avoided and cardiovascular event avoided. The cardiovascular event was defined as any occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding. The secondary outcome was the incidence of each event for each treatment alternative. We also calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) with a specific alternative compared to another alternative to examine the number of patients to treat to avoid the occurrence of one event among death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. To calculate the NNT, the number of total events was estimated for each alternative. The NNT was the inverse of the differences of total events between alternatives divided by the number of simulated patients.

A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed, and results were shown in a tornado diagram. The lower limit of each parameter used in sensitivity analysis was –20% of the base-case value. To be parallel with this, the upper limit of each parameter was +20% of the base-case value for each parameter. The Microsoft Excel and TreeAge software were used for the analysis.

Genotype-guided therapy was expected to have the lowest probability of total events (5.06%) when compared with nongenotype-guided therapy of clopidogrel or prasugrel (9.13% and 13.7%, respectively) (Table 2). During the one-year period following PCI, using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy was predicted to lower total events of 389 cases from the simulated cohort of 10,000 patients as compared to using clopidogrel for all patients. The NNT of genotype-guided therapy versus clopidogrel therapy for all patients was 26, which means 26 patients need to undergo genotyping to avoid the occurrence of one cardiovascular event. Genotype-guided therapy versus prasugrel for all patients produced approximately 850 fewer total events and NNT of 12.

Table 2 Results of cost-effectiveness analysis and number needed to treat (NNT) of genotyping to avoid a clinical event

Treatment alternativeProbability (%)Annual cost per patient in KRW
MIStrokeBleedingDeathTotal
Using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy (①)2.790.281.760.425.242,709,114
Clopidogrel regardless of genotypes (②)4.910.042.820.989.134,132,063
Prasugrel regardless of genotypes (③)7.670.873.791.4113.74,766,918
NNT
① versus ②473129417925
① versus ③211294910112
ICERa
① versus ②−36,610,303
① versus ③−24,202,531

MI, myocardial infarction; KRW, Korean currency won in 2020 value (1,100 KRW = 1 US$); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NNT, number needed to treat.

aICER defined as cost difference divided by total events avoided.


When we examined results for each event, the probabilities of nonfatal myocardial infarction (2.79%), nonfatal bleeding (1.76%), and death (0.42%) were the lowest with the treatment strategy of using genotype information among three alternatives. On the other hand, the probability of stroke was the lowest when using clopidogrel for all patients (0.28%).

The expected annual cost per patient was the lowest with the treatment alternative of using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy (2,709,114 KRW) followed by using clopidogrel (4,132,063 KRW) and prasugrel (4,766,918 KRW) for all patients regardless of genotype information. This leads to annual cost saving of 34.4% and 43.2% if we replace nongenotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with genotype-guided therapy.

The incremental cost per cardiovascular event avoided of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel without considering genotype information was −36,610,303 KRW. The ICER of genotype-guided therapy versus using prasugrel regardless of genotypes was −24,202,531 (Table 2).

As shown in Fig. 2, the probability of myocardial infarction after taking clopidogrel and the cost of PCI were the most influential parameter to determine the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel without taking into account for genotypes. The ranges of ICER change from the base-case ICER value were −18% to 31% and −20% to 20%, respectively. The probability of bleeding after taking clopidogrel and the probability of noncarrier with reduced function of CYP2C19 allele were the third and fourth influential factor in determining the ICER of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel regardless of genotypes. However, the ICER values were still negative when the lower or upper limits of each parameter were used. The lower and upper limits of the rest of parameters changed the base-case ICER with less than 5%. Similar patterns were found when comparing genotype-guided therapy with using prasugrel without considering genotype information.

Figure 2.Tornado diagrams depicting results of sensitivity analyses of parameter impact on incremental cost per event avoided. MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. Dotted line represents the base-case result. KRW, Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW). Alternative 1: selecting antiplatelet therapy (i.e., clopidogrel or prasugrel) based on genotype information of CYP2C19. Alternative 2: clopidogrel therapy without using genotype information. Alternative 3: prasugrel therapy without using genotype information.

We performed the cost-effectiveness analysis of the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea with societal perspective. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the treatment strategy of selecting antiplatelet therapy utilizing the genotype information were −36,610,303 KRW (−33,282 USD) and −24,202,531 KRW (−22,002 USD) when compared with using clopidogrel and prasugrel for all patients without considering the genotype, respectively. The probability of myocardial infarction after taking clopidogrel or prasugrel played the key role in the cost-effectiveness results followed by the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention. Using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy was less costly and more effective when compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel for all patients. Genotype-guided therapy was a dominant treatment strategy versus other two alternatives.

Several cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit analyses were performed to examine the economic value of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome in different countries but not in Korea (Reese et al. 2012; Sorich et al. 2013; Kazi et al. 2014; Deiman et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2018; Fu et al. 2020; Limdi et al. 2020; Narasimhalu et al. 2020; AlMukdad et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2021; Claassens et al. 2022). Although there are several studies already done evaluating the cost-effectiveness, it is important to have economic evaluation for each country reflecting its own healthcare system and most importantly reflecting racial characteristics. We found similar results with previous evidence as genotype-guided therapy was cost-effective compared to the universal use of antiplatelet therapies in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Also, the drug costs and the efficacy of antiplatelet therapies were found to be common influential factors of the cost-effectiveness analyses. Because of the economic value of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patient with acute coronary syndrome, widening the use of this strategy to different patient population such as patients with peripheral arterial disease is under investigation as a randomized controlled trial with the study name of GENotype-guided antithrombotic treatment versus conventional clopidogrel therapy in Peripheral Arterial Disease (GENPAD) (Kranendonk et al. 2022).

Interestingly, we found that the genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in Korea was dominant whereas this strategy was cost-effective in other countries because of the lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than the willingness-to-pay threshold. This might be because numerous numbers of generic versions of clopidogrel with lower prices than the price level of prasugrel are currently on the market in Korea. In addition, genotyping for antiplatelet therapy is getting more accessible to patients and widely adopted in many hospitals.

To our knowledge, this study is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea using the real-world data. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of several limitations. First, we did not include the treatment strategy of using ticagrelor because it was not widely used at the time when we performed the analysis. Further studies are needed to include ticagrelor as the treatment strategy for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea. Second, we employed a relatively shorter time horizon but not a life-time span. This was because shorter time horizon was sufficient to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In this way, we lessened the uncertainty in efficacy measures by not incorporating extrapolation. Third, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis but not a cost-utility analysis. Cost-utility analysis is regarded as a gold standard of economic evaluation because it includes quality of life measures and enables decision making using a willingness-to-pay threshold derived for incremental costs per quality adjusted life years gained. However, since we had a dominant result for a genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with treatment strategy not considering genotypes in patients, decision can be made. Last but not the least, we used the bleeding costs incurred in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in another country due to the absence of Korean data.

Among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes was found to be a dominant strategy and a cost-effective strategy. Using patient-specific factors CYP2C19 genotype offers promise for actively adopting a personalized medicine approach to antiplatelet treatment regimens not only in clinical aspect but in economic aspect.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This research was supported by a grant (12182KFDA686) from the Korea Food and Drug Administration in 2012 and a grant (21153MFDS601) from Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in 2023. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Korean Food and Drug Administration.

  1. AlMukdad S, Elewa H, Arafa S, Al-Badriyeh D (2021) Short- and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy, universal clopidogrel, versus universal ticagrelor in post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients in Qatar. Int J Cardiol 331:27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.044
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Beitelshees AL, Horenstein RB, Vesely MR, Mehra MR, Shuldiner AR (2011) Pharmacogenetics and clopidogrel response in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89:455-459. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.316
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Choi CU, Rha SW, Oh DJ, Poddar KL, Na JO, Kim JW, Lim HE, Kim EJ, Park CG, Seo HS, Hong TJ, Park JS, Kim YJ, Hur SH, Seong IW, Chae JK, Cho MC, Bae JH, Choi DH, Jang YS, Chae IH, Kim HS, Kim CJ, Yoon JH, Ahn TH, Tahk SJ, Chung WS, Seung KB, Chae SC, Park SJ, Ahn YK, Jeong MH (2011) Standard versus high loading doses of clopidogrel in Asian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Am Heart J 161:373-382, e1-e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.031
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Claassens DMF, van Dorst PWM, Vos GJA, Bergmeijer TO, Hermanides RS, van't Hof AWJ, van der Harst P, Barbato E, Morisco C, Tjon Joe Gin RM, Asselbergs FW, Mosterd A, Herrman JR, Dewilde WJM, Postma MJ, Deneer VHM, Ten Berg JM, Boersma C (2022) Cost effectiveness of a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the POPular Genetics trial. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 22:195-206. doi: 10.1007/s40256-021-00496-4
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Collet JP, Hulot JS, Pena A, Villard E, Esteve JB, Silvain J, Payot L, Brugier D, Cayla G, Beygui F, Bensimon G, Funck-Brentano C, Montalescot G (2009) Cytochrome P450 2C19 polymorphism in young patients treated with clopidogrel after myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Lancet 373:309-317. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61845-0
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Deiman BA, Tonino PA, Kouhestani K, Schrover CE, Scharnhorst V, Dekker LR, Pijls NH (2016) Reduced number of cardiovascular events and increased cost-effectiveness by genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J 24:589-599. doi: 10.1007/s12471-016-0873-z
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  8. Ewen EF, Zhao L, Kolm P, Jurkovitz C, Fidan D, White HD, Gallo R, Weintraub WS (2009) Determining the in-hospital cost of bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol 22:266-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00431.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Fu Y, Zhang XY, Qin SB, Nie XY, Shi LW, Shao H, Liu J (2020) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 LOF-guided antiplatelet therapy in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics 21:33-42. doi: 10.2217/pgs-2019-0050
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  11. Holmes DR Jr, Dehmer GJ, Kaul S, Leifer D, O'Gara PT, Stein CM (2010) ACCF/AHA clopidogrel clinical alert: approaches to the FDA "boxed warning": a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on clinical expert consensus documents and the American Heart Association endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:321-341. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.013
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Jang JS, Cho KI, Jin HY, Seo JS, Yang TH, Kim DK, Kim DS, Seol SH, Kim DI, Kim BH, Park YH, Je HG, Jeong YH, Lee SW (2012) Meta-analysis of cytochrome P450 2C19 polymorphism and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among coronary artery disease patients of different ethnic groups treated with clopidogrel. Am J Cardiol 110:502-508. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.04.020
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Kazi DS, Garber AM, Shah RU, Dudley RA, Mell MW, Rhee C, Moshkevich S, Boothroyd DB, Owens DK, Hlatky MA (2014) Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med 160:221-232. doi: 10.7326/M13-1999
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Kazui M, Nishiya Y, Ishizuka T, Hagihara K, Farid NA, Okazaki O, Ikeda T, Kurihara A (2010) Identification of the human cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the two oxidative steps in the bioactivation of clopidogrel to its pharmacologically active metabolite. Drug Metab Dispos 38:92-99. doi: 10.1124/dmd.109.029132
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Kim JH, Tan DS, Chan MYY (2021) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndromes in Singapore. Pharmacogenomics J 21:243-250. doi: 10.1038/s41397-020-00204-6
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Kranendonk J, Willems LH, Vijver-Coppen RV, Coenen M, Adang E, Donders R, Zeebregts CJ, Deneer V, Reijnen M, Kramers C, Warlé MC (2022) CYP2C19 genotype-guided antithrombotic treatment versus conventional clopidogrel therapy in peripheral arterial disease: study design of a randomized controlled trial (GENPAD). Am Heart J 254:141-148. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2022.08.001
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Lee JM, Park S, Shin DJ, Choi D, Shim CY, Ko YG, Kim JS, Shin ES, Chang CW, Lee JE, Jang Y (2009) Relation of genetic polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450 gene with clopidogrel resistance after drug-eluting stent implantation in Koreans. Am J Cardiol 104:46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.045
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, Khot UN, Lange RA, Mauri L, Mehran R, Moussa ID, Mukherjee D, Nallamothu BK, Ting HH (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 124:e574-e651. Erratum in: (2012) Circulation 125:e412
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Limdi NA, Cavallari LH, Lee CR, Hillegass WB, Holmes AM, Skaar TC, Pisu M, Dillon C, Beitelshees AL, Empey PE, Duarte JD, Diaby V, Gong Y, Johnson JA, Graves J, Garbett S, Zhou Z, Peterson JF; Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network Pharmacogenetic Working Group (IGNITE-PGx) (2020) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data. Pharmacogenomics J 20:724-735. doi: 10.1038/s41397-020-0162-5
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Bliden K, Cannon CP, Danchin N, Giusti B, Gurbel P, Horne BD, Hulot JS, Kastrati A, Montalescot G, Neumann FJ, Shen L, Sibbing D, Steg PG, Trenk D, Wiviott SD, Sabatine MS (2010) Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. JAMA 304:1821-1830. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1543
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, Shen L, Hockett RD, Brandt JT, Walker JR, Antman EM, Macias W, Braunwald E, Sabatine MS (2009a) Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 360:354-362.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, Shen L, Hockett RD, Brandt JT, Walker JR, Antman EM, Macias WL, Braunwald E, Sabatine MS (2009b) Cytochrome P450 genetic polymorphisms and the response to prasugrel: relationship to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical outcomes. Circulation 119:2553-2560. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.851949
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Mousa SA, Jeske WP, Fareed J (2010) Antiplatelet therapy prasugrel: a novel platelet ADP P2Y12 receptor antagonist. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 16:170-176. doi: 10.1177/1076029609355589
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Narasimhalu K, Ang YK, Tan DSY, De Silva DA, Tan KB (2020) Cost effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in Asian ischemic stroke patients: ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel in patients with CYP2C19 loss of function mutations. Clin Drug Investig 40:1063-1070. doi: 10.1007/s40261-020-00970-y
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Oh IY, Park KW, Kang SH, Park JJ, Na SH, Kang HJ, Koo BK, Jeong YH, Hwang JY, Kwak CH, Park Y, Hwang SJ, Ko YG, Shin DJ, Jang Y, Kim HS (2012) Association of cytochrome P450 2C19*2 polymorphism with clopidogrel response variability and cardiovascular events in Koreans treated with drug-eluting stents. Heart 98:139-144. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2011.227272
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2020) Purchasing power parities for GDP and related indicators. OECD. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PPPGDP Accessed 20 December 2020.
  27. Reese ES, Daniel Mullins C, Beitelshees AL, Onukwugha E (2012) Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype screening for selection of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel. Pharmacotherapy 32:323-332. doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01048. Erratum in: (2012) Pharmacotherapy 32:581
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Saracini C, Vestrini A, Galora S, Armillis A, Abbate R, Giusti B (2012) Pharmacogenetics of clopidogrel: comparison between a standard and a rapid genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 16:500-503. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0259
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Malinin AI, Bhatt DL, Topol EJ (2005) Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.067
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Severance Hospital (2009) Laboratory medicine newsletter 09-39. Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital. https://www.kslm.org/main/main.html Accessed 14 March 2013.
  31. Simon T, Verstuyft C, Mary-Krause M, Quteineh L, Drouet E, Méneveau N, Steg PG, Ferrières J, Danchin N, Becquemont L; French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) Investigators (2009) Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 360:363-375. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808227
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Sorich MJ, Horowitz JD, Sorich W, Wiese MD, Pekarsky B, Karnon JD (2013) Cost-effectiveness of using CYP2C19 genotype to guide selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Australia. Pharmacogenomics 14:2013-2021. doi: 10.2217/pgs.13.164
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020) Drug prices. The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA030014050000&brdScn-BltNo=4&brdBltNo=1623&pageIndex=6&pageIndex2=6
  34. The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES Ⅲ). Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gwacheon.
  35. The Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) (2020a) Consumer price index in medical component. KOSIS. https://kosis.kr/search/search.do?query=%EB%AC%BC%EA%B0%80#none Accessed 15 November 2020.
  36. The Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) (2020b) Consumer price in transportation component. KOSIS. https://kosis.kr/search/search.do?query=%EB%AC%BC%EA%B0%80#none Accessed 15 November 2020.
  37. The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) (2010) Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (NA2009-015). NECA, Seoul.
  38. The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2021) National Health Insurance statistical yearbook. The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Seoul.
  39. Wang Y, Yan BP, Liew D, Lee VWY (2018) Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 *2 genotype-guided selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics J 18:113-120. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2016.94
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM; TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357:2001-2015. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706482
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Research Article

DTT 2024; 3(1): 51-61

Published online March 31, 2024 https://doi.org/10.58502/DTT.23.0026

Copyright © The Pharmaceutical Society of Korea.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Korea

Hae Sun Suh1,2,3 , Iyn-Hyang Lee4, Sukhyang Lee5, Hye-Young Kang6

1College of Pharmacy, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Regulatory Science, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
3Institute of Regulatory Innovation through Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
4College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Korea
5College of Pharmacy, Ajou University, Suwon,Korea
6College of Pharmacy, Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Yonsei University, Incheon, Korea

Correspondence to:Hae Sun Suh, haesun.suh@khu.ac.kr

Received: October 4, 2023; Revised: February 8, 2024; Accepted: February 20, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ((http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the cytochrome p450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model with a one-year time period employing a societal perspective. A cohort of 10,000 patients was assigned to each treatment alternative as follows: (1) selecting antiplatelet therapy between clopidogrel and prasugrel utilizing the genotype information of CYP2C19; (2) using clopidogrel without using genotype information; (3) using prasugrel without using genotype information. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per effectiveness ratio (ICER), where the effectiveness was defined as a death or cardiovascular event avoided, comparing genotype-guided therapy with the other two alternatives. The cardiovascular event was defined as any occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding. The secondary outcome measures were the incidence of each event for each alternative and the number needed to treat (NNT) with the genotype-guided therapy versus each of other alternatives. The treatment strategy of genotype-guided therapy was dominant when compared with using clopidogrel (ICER: −36,610,303 KRW, −33,282 USD) or prasugrel (ICER: −24,202,531 KRW, −22,002 USD) for all patients without considering the genotype. The NNT of the genotype-guided therapy versus clopidogrel and prasugrel for all patients was 26 and 12, respectively, for any occurrence of death and cardiovascular event. Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy in Korean patients.

Keywords: antiplatelet agents, acute coronary syndrome, pharmacogenetics, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic evaluation

Introduction

In addition to aspirin, clopidogrel or prasugrel is recommended to administer with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolytic therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (Wiviott et al. 2007; Levine et al. 2011). Both clopidogrel and prasugrel are administered as a prodrug that is metabolized to an active metabolite by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes. Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine with a more potent antiplatelet agent and features faster onset and less dependency on CYP2C19 in converting to its active metabolite than clopidogrel does. Prasugrel maintains a higher concentration (~70%) of active metabolites with renal excretion (Mousa et al. 2010). The effects of clopidogrel are variable in patients and its resistance has been issued with related to genetic polymorphisms (Serebruany et al. 2005).

Several CYP isoenzymes mediate clopidogrel metabolism and among them CYP2C19 plays a major role in two oxidative steps of the biotransformation process (Kazui et al. 2010). More importantly, genetic variants of CYP2C19 contribute to variations in pharmacokinetics of clopidogrel. Several CYP2C19 alleles are known to lead to different metabolic phenotypes and can be classified into four types: ultra-rapid, extensive, intermediate, and poor metabolizers. For example, the conversion of clopidogrel to its active metabolite is extensively reduced in patients who carry the CYP2C19*2 allele, which leads to a poor metabolizer. Allele frequencies of these CYP2C19 alleles vary considerably by ethnicity. For example, the CYP2C19*2 allele has 27% frequency in Asians, 14% in Caucasians, and 18% in African Americans (Collet et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2009; Simon et al. 2009; Beitelshees et al. 2011). Frequency of the CYP2C19*3 allele, another poor-metabolizer type, is 9% in Asians but this type of allele is nonexistent in both Caucasians and African Americans. CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms are also associated with pharmacodynamics and clinical outcomes. For example, the CYP2C19*2 allele is associated with decreased response to clopidogrel treatment and increased occurrence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes when treated with clopidogrel (Mega et al. 2009a).

The FDA approved a label for clopidogrel with a boxed warning regarding the reduced effectiveness of clopideogrel with less enzyme activity of CYP2C19 to convert the drug into its active metabolite. Genetic testing might be considered to identify a patient at high risk for poor clinical outcome (Levine et al. 2011). When a patient predisposed to inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel is identified by genetic testing, treatment with an alternate P2Y12 inhibitor (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) might be considered (Holmes et al. 2010). Different from clopidogrel which shows different responses based on the genotype, prasugrel does not show different responses according to the genotype.

Although current and emerging evidence suggest that better targeted and more effective treatment strategy utilizing pharmacogenomic knowledge have the potential to produce significant gains in patients’ health, it might be difficult to manage patients based on these scientific findings due to the budget constraint and other issues in the healthcare system. As the FDA label includes the boxed warning about the relationship between the efficacy and pharmacogenetic characteristics of clopidogrel, it becomes necessary to evaluate whether genotype testing for all the patients would be a cost-effective strategy. Especially, evaluating the efficiency of utilizing genotype information should be performed for each ethnic group because the distribution of genotypes varies by ethnicity. In case of being cost effective, the result of economic evaluation could serve as a ground for establishing the reimbursement guideline.

Several cost-effectiveness studies have been published in various countries (Reese et al. 2012; Deiman et al. 2016; Fu et al. 2020; Narasimhalu et al. 2020; AlMukdad et al. 2021; Claassens et al. 2022). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy reflecting the characteristics of Asians when compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea.

Materials and Methods

Model overview

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing a decision-analytic model with one-year timeframe. Societal perspective was employed to examine the impact of adopting treatment strategy on our society. Target population was Korean patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who receive antiplatelet therapy following a scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was assigned to each of the three treatment alternatives: (1) drug selection of antiplatelet therapy (i.e., clopidogrel or prasugrel) based on the genotype information of CYP2C19; (2) clopidogrel for all patients without using genotype information; (3) prasugrel for all patients without using genotype information. The pharmacogenetic-based strategy involved genotyping for the CYP2C19*1, CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*3, CYP2C19*4, CYP2C19*5, CYP2C19*6, CYP2C19*7, CYP2C19*8, and CYP2C19*17 alleles. Under the treatment alternative 1, simulated patients determined to be carriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele according to genetic test were prescribed prasugrel. Noncarriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele were prescribed clopidogrel. Based on recent findings, it was assumed that genetic testing is able to identify genotypes correctly (that is, sensitivity and specificity are 100%) (Saracini et al. 2012). The decision tree was developed to simulate the natural history of patients with ACS receiving antiplatelet therapy following PCI (Fig. 1). Patients might experience one of the five cardiovascular events during the simulation period of one year: nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, bleeding defined as the major or minor Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) bleeding, all-cause death including cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death, or no event.

Figure 1. Decision tree to evaluate cost-effectiveness of using genotype information for selecting antiplatelet therapy.

Model parameters

1) Probability of clinical event

The decision model requires various probability parameters. First, proportion of Korean ACS patients who are carriers of reduced function CYP2C19 allele was obtained from two Korean studies (Lee et al. 2009; Oh et al. 2012). Second, probabilities of each cardiovascular event were derived from published literature, separately for each type of ACS patients: those taking clopidogrel or prasugrel, respectively, regardless of having genetic variants); those without genetic variants and taking clopidogrel); and those carrying genetic variants and taking prasugrel. Probability of stroke and TIMI major or minor bleeding in patients carrying variant allele and receiving prasugrel were estimated using the hazard ratios of 1.73 and 1.01 for variant allele versus nonvariant, respectively (Lee et al. 2009; Mega et al. 2009a; 2009b; Jang et al. 2012; Oh et al. 2012). We extracted the parameters from several published studies based on following criteria in order (Table 1): (1) a study with meta-analysis and systematic review in Korean or Asian patients (Jang et al. 2012); (2) a large-scale clinical study with Korean or Asian patients (Lee et al. 2009; Choi et al. 2011; Oh et al. 2012); (3) a study with meta-analysis and systematic review with Caucasian patients (Mega et al. 2010); and (4) a large-scale clinical study with Caucasians (Mega et al. 2009a; 2009b).

Table 1 . Model input parameters.

ParameterBase valueReference
Probabilities
Proportion of carriers of genetic variants of CYP2C19 in Korean patients with coronary artery disease0.450Lee et al. (2009)
Oh et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients without genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.048Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.002Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- All-cause death0.007Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients with genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.066Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.001Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.045Mega et al. (2009b)
- All-cause death0.010Mega et al. (2009b)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.049Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.004Mega et al. (2009a)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a)
- All-cause death0.010Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.077Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.009Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.038Mega et al. (2009b)
- Cardiovascular death0.014Mega et al. (2009b)
Costs (KRW)
Genotyping CYP2C1963,000Severance Hospital (2009)
Clopidogrel 75 mg/day for one year (unit price: 1,164 KRW)424,860The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
Prasugrel 10 mg/day for one year (unit price: 2,298 KRW)838,770The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
PCI for one time3,272,820The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (2010)
Annual cost for nonfatal MI4,942,074
- Direct medical costs3,767,000The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2021)
- Direct non-medical costs436,000The Korea National Statistical Office (2020a, 2020b, 2020c)
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)739,074The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2005)
Annual cost for nonfatal stroke5,151,000
- Direct medical costs2,230,000
- Direct non-medical costs1,290,000
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,631,000
Annual cost for nonfatal bleeding per year5,073,265Ewen et al. (2009)
Annual cost for cardiovascular death2,778,374
- Direct medical costs870,699
- Direct non-medical costs369,409
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,538,265

CV, cardiovascular; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; KRW, Korean won. All costs are presented in 2020 currency Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW)..



2) Resource use and costs

Three types of cost parameters were incorporated into the model: costs of receiving antiplatelet therapy, costs of undergoing PCI, and costs of treating each of the clinical events included in the model (Table 1). All costs consisted of direct medical and non-medical costs, and indirect costs. Direct medical costs consisted of insurance-covered and uncovered medical costs. Direct non-medical costs included transportation costs to visit hospitals and caregiver costs. Indirect costs consisted of loss of productivity due to absence from work during hospitalization and premature death. All costs were presented in 2020 Korean won (KRW; one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW) in accordance with the medical and transportation component of the Consumer Price Index and average daily wage provided by National Statistical Office (The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020a; 2020b; 2020c).

(1) Costs of antiplatelet therapy

Unlike the treatment alternatives of 2 and 3, individuals under the alternative 1 bears cost for genotyping in addition to drug therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel. Since the genotyping test related to antiplatelet therapy is not widely adopted in Korea, we depended the cost information for the test upon a single institution, which is one of the largest tertiary hospitals in Korea (Severance Hospital 2009). The costs of genotyping for CYP2C19 are reimbursed and taking the genotyping test does not cause a noticeable discomfort to the patients. Thus, we did not consider the discomfort occurred in patients due to this genotyping test. Annual drug therapy costs were estimated by summing up drug acquisition and dispensing costs, and direct and indirect costs of outpatient visits occurred to receive prescription. Drug acquisition costs for clopidogrel and prasugrel were based on the list drug prices by the National Health Insurance (The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2020). We chose the mode price for clopidogrel 75 mg among 57 marketed products including both branded and generic products. For prasugrel 10 mg, there was only one branded drug. We assumed patients would take clopidogrel 75 mg daily or prasugrel 10 mg daily for one year.

(2) Costs of PCI

Costs of percutaneous coronary intervention were extracted from a Governmental organization report (The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency 2010). We included unit cost for procedure, material costs, hospitalization costs, and costs for several tests needed for the procedure which were estimated from the national reimbursement database of Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA). We only considered one-time procedural costs and did not consider revascularization costs.

(3) Costs of treating cardiovascular events

We estimated annual insurance-covered medical costs per patient for hospitalization, ambulatory visit, and drug therapy associated with nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death using the National Health Insurance (NHI) Statistics data (The National Health Insurance Corporation; the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). We used the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) billing codes of I21-22 to identify myocardial infarction and I60-69 & G45 for stroke. For cardiovascular death, we assumed these patients used healthcare services related with hypertension (ICD-10 code: I10-15), ischemic heart disease (ICD-10 code: I20-25), and stroke (ICD-10 code: I60-69 and G45) before death. For nonfatal bleeding costs, we used data from a peer-reviewed publication (Ewen 2009) due to absence of data in the NHI Statistics. We applied purchasing power parity to accommodate the difference in price level between the United States of America and Korea (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2020).

Direct non-medical costs included transportation and caregiver’s costs related to inpatient and outpatient care. We estimated transportation costs by multiplying the average round-trip transportation cost (2,896 and 891 KRW for admission and outpatient visits, respectively) by the total annual number of admissions and ambulatory visits per patient having each event (The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005; The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). Reflecting severity of disease and family-oriented care culture in Korea, transportation costs for a caregiver were also considered for all hospital admissions and ambulatory visits for the cases of ischemic heart disease and stroke. In addition, assuming that patients would be taken care by one of the family members during hospitalization, caregiver’s cost was calculated as a product of the average daily wage rate and the annual total length-of-stay of hospitalizations per patient for each event based on the NHI data (The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021; The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020c).

Indirect costs consisted of loss of productivity due to absence from work during hospitalization and premature death. We estimated the costs of loss of productivity based on human capital approach from the age of 20 to 69 years who are the age groups involved in economic activities (Drummond et al. 2015). Productivity loss costs of absenteeism were computed as a product of the total length-of-stay for admissions per year and average ten-year age-specific daily wage rates. We assumed patients would lose one day for a work for each of an ambulatory visit. The length-of-stay for hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits were based on the NHI data for each event. Premature death costs were calculated as the expected value of an individual’s future earnings up to 69 years-old if the patient did not die due to cardiovascular disease. The average ten-year age-specific yearly wage rate, the average increase rate of wage, the rate of participation in economic activities, the unemployment rate, and the case-fatality rate were considered (The Korean Statistical Information Service 2020c; The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service 2021). We assumed patients would die in the middle age of ten-year age intervals.

Data analysis

The primary outcome was the incremental cost per effectiveness ratio (ICER) which was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in effectiveness between treatment alternatives. We presented the ICER with 95% confidence interval obtained by the Monte-Carlo simulation (Gold et al. 1996). The effectiveness measures were a death avoided and cardiovascular event avoided. The cardiovascular event was defined as any occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and bleeding. The secondary outcome was the incidence of each event for each treatment alternative. We also calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) with a specific alternative compared to another alternative to examine the number of patients to treat to avoid the occurrence of one event among death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. To calculate the NNT, the number of total events was estimated for each alternative. The NNT was the inverse of the differences of total events between alternatives divided by the number of simulated patients.

A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed, and results were shown in a tornado diagram. The lower limit of each parameter used in sensitivity analysis was –20% of the base-case value. To be parallel with this, the upper limit of each parameter was +20% of the base-case value for each parameter. The Microsoft Excel and TreeAge software were used for the analysis.

Results

Genotype-guided therapy was expected to have the lowest probability of total events (5.06%) when compared with nongenotype-guided therapy of clopidogrel or prasugrel (9.13% and 13.7%, respectively) (Table 2). During the one-year period following PCI, using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy was predicted to lower total events of 389 cases from the simulated cohort of 10,000 patients as compared to using clopidogrel for all patients. The NNT of genotype-guided therapy versus clopidogrel therapy for all patients was 26, which means 26 patients need to undergo genotyping to avoid the occurrence of one cardiovascular event. Genotype-guided therapy versus prasugrel for all patients produced approximately 850 fewer total events and NNT of 12.

Table 2 . Results of cost-effectiveness analysis and number needed to treat (NNT) of genotyping to avoid a clinical event.

Treatment alternativeProbability (%)Annual cost per patient in KRW
MIStrokeBleedingDeathTotal
Using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy (①)2.790.281.760.425.242,709,114
Clopidogrel regardless of genotypes (②)4.910.042.820.989.134,132,063
Prasugrel regardless of genotypes (③)7.670.873.791.4113.74,766,918
NNT
① versus ②473129417925
① versus ③211294910112
ICERa
① versus ②−36,610,303
① versus ③−24,202,531

MI, myocardial infarction; KRW, Korean currency won in 2020 value (1,100 KRW = 1 US$); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NNT, number needed to treat..

aICER defined as cost difference divided by total events avoided..



When we examined results for each event, the probabilities of nonfatal myocardial infarction (2.79%), nonfatal bleeding (1.76%), and death (0.42%) were the lowest with the treatment strategy of using genotype information among three alternatives. On the other hand, the probability of stroke was the lowest when using clopidogrel for all patients (0.28%).

The expected annual cost per patient was the lowest with the treatment alternative of using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy (2,709,114 KRW) followed by using clopidogrel (4,132,063 KRW) and prasugrel (4,766,918 KRW) for all patients regardless of genotype information. This leads to annual cost saving of 34.4% and 43.2% if we replace nongenotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with genotype-guided therapy.

The incremental cost per cardiovascular event avoided of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel without considering genotype information was −36,610,303 KRW. The ICER of genotype-guided therapy versus using prasugrel regardless of genotypes was −24,202,531 (Table 2).

As shown in Fig. 2, the probability of myocardial infarction after taking clopidogrel and the cost of PCI were the most influential parameter to determine the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel without taking into account for genotypes. The ranges of ICER change from the base-case ICER value were −18% to 31% and −20% to 20%, respectively. The probability of bleeding after taking clopidogrel and the probability of noncarrier with reduced function of CYP2C19 allele were the third and fourth influential factor in determining the ICER of genotype-guided therapy versus using clopidogrel regardless of genotypes. However, the ICER values were still negative when the lower or upper limits of each parameter were used. The lower and upper limits of the rest of parameters changed the base-case ICER with less than 5%. Similar patterns were found when comparing genotype-guided therapy with using prasugrel without considering genotype information.

Figure 2. Tornado diagrams depicting results of sensitivity analyses of parameter impact on incremental cost per event avoided. MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. Dotted line represents the base-case result. KRW, Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW). Alternative 1: selecting antiplatelet therapy (i.e., clopidogrel or prasugrel) based on genotype information of CYP2C19. Alternative 2: clopidogrel therapy without using genotype information. Alternative 3: prasugrel therapy without using genotype information.

Discussion

We performed the cost-effectiveness analysis of the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea with societal perspective. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the treatment strategy of selecting antiplatelet therapy utilizing the genotype information were −36,610,303 KRW (−33,282 USD) and −24,202,531 KRW (−22,002 USD) when compared with using clopidogrel and prasugrel for all patients without considering the genotype, respectively. The probability of myocardial infarction after taking clopidogrel or prasugrel played the key role in the cost-effectiveness results followed by the cost of percutaneous coronary intervention. Using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy was less costly and more effective when compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel for all patients. Genotype-guided therapy was a dominant treatment strategy versus other two alternatives.

Several cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit analyses were performed to examine the economic value of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome in different countries but not in Korea (Reese et al. 2012; Sorich et al. 2013; Kazi et al. 2014; Deiman et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2018; Fu et al. 2020; Limdi et al. 2020; Narasimhalu et al. 2020; AlMukdad et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2021; Claassens et al. 2022). Although there are several studies already done evaluating the cost-effectiveness, it is important to have economic evaluation for each country reflecting its own healthcare system and most importantly reflecting racial characteristics. We found similar results with previous evidence as genotype-guided therapy was cost-effective compared to the universal use of antiplatelet therapies in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Also, the drug costs and the efficacy of antiplatelet therapies were found to be common influential factors of the cost-effectiveness analyses. Because of the economic value of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patient with acute coronary syndrome, widening the use of this strategy to different patient population such as patients with peripheral arterial disease is under investigation as a randomized controlled trial with the study name of GENotype-guided antithrombotic treatment versus conventional clopidogrel therapy in Peripheral Arterial Disease (GENPAD) (Kranendonk et al. 2022).

Interestingly, we found that the genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in Korea was dominant whereas this strategy was cost-effective in other countries because of the lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than the willingness-to-pay threshold. This might be because numerous numbers of generic versions of clopidogrel with lower prices than the price level of prasugrel are currently on the market in Korea. In addition, genotyping for antiplatelet therapy is getting more accessible to patients and widely adopted in many hospitals.

To our knowledge, this study is the first study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea using the real-world data. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of several limitations. First, we did not include the treatment strategy of using ticagrelor because it was not widely used at the time when we performed the analysis. Further studies are needed to include ticagrelor as the treatment strategy for antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Korea. Second, we employed a relatively shorter time horizon but not a life-time span. This was because shorter time horizon was sufficient to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In this way, we lessened the uncertainty in efficacy measures by not incorporating extrapolation. Third, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis but not a cost-utility analysis. Cost-utility analysis is regarded as a gold standard of economic evaluation because it includes quality of life measures and enables decision making using a willingness-to-pay threshold derived for incremental costs per quality adjusted life years gained. However, since we had a dominant result for a genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with treatment strategy not considering genotypes in patients, decision can be made. Last but not the least, we used the bleeding costs incurred in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in another country due to the absence of Korean data.

Among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with using clopidogrel or prasugrel without considering genotypes was found to be a dominant strategy and a cost-effective strategy. Using patient-specific factors CYP2C19 genotype offers promise for actively adopting a personalized medicine approach to antiplatelet treatment regimens not only in clinical aspect but in economic aspect.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant (12182KFDA686) from the Korea Food and Drug Administration in 2012 and a grant (21153MFDS601) from Ministry of Food and Drug Safety in 2023. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Korean Food and Drug Administration.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Decision tree to evaluate cost-effectiveness of using genotype information for selecting antiplatelet therapy.
Drug Targets and Therapeutics 2024; 3: 51-61https://doi.org/10.58502/DTT.23.0026

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Tornado diagrams depicting results of sensitivity analyses of parameter impact on incremental cost per event avoided. MI, myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. Dotted line represents the base-case result. KRW, Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW). Alternative 1: selecting antiplatelet therapy (i.e., clopidogrel or prasugrel) based on genotype information of CYP2C19. Alternative 2: clopidogrel therapy without using genotype information. Alternative 3: prasugrel therapy without using genotype information.
Drug Targets and Therapeutics 2024; 3: 51-61https://doi.org/10.58502/DTT.23.0026

Table 1 Model input parameters

ParameterBase valueReference
Probabilities
Proportion of carriers of genetic variants of CYP2C19 in Korean patients with coronary artery disease0.450Lee et al. (2009)
Oh et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients without genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.048Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.002Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a), Mega et al. (2010)
- All-cause death0.007Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients with genetic variants of CYP2C19 after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.066Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.001Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.045Mega et al. (2009b)
- All-cause death0.010Mega et al. (2009b)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking clopidogrel
- Nonfatal MI0.049Jang et al. (2012)
- Nonfatal stroke0.004Mega et al. (2009a)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.028Mega et al. (2009a)
- All-cause death0.010Jang et al. (2012)
Occurrence of CV events in patients regardless of genetic variants after taking prasugrel
- Nonfatal MI0.077Mega et al. (2009b)
- Nonfatal stroke0.009Mega et al. (2009b)
- Bleeding (TIMI major or minor)0.038Mega et al. (2009b)
- Cardiovascular death0.014Mega et al. (2009b)
Costs (KRW)
Genotyping CYP2C1963,000Severance Hospital (2009)
Clopidogrel 75 mg/day for one year (unit price: 1,164 KRW)424,860The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
Prasugrel 10 mg/day for one year (unit price: 2,298 KRW)838,770The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020)
PCI for one time3,272,820The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (2010)
Annual cost for nonfatal MI4,942,074
- Direct medical costs3,767,000The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2021)
- Direct non-medical costs436,000The Korea National Statistical Office (2020a, 2020b, 2020c)
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)739,074The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2005)
Annual cost for nonfatal stroke5,151,000
- Direct medical costs2,230,000
- Direct non-medical costs1,290,000
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,631,000
Annual cost for nonfatal bleeding per year5,073,265Ewen et al. (2009)
Annual cost for cardiovascular death2,778,374
- Direct medical costs870,699
- Direct non-medical costs369,409
- Indirect costs (productivity loss)1,538,265

CV, cardiovascular; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; KRW, Korean won. All costs are presented in 2020 currency Korean won (one US dollar approximately equals to 1,100 KRW).


Table 2 Results of cost-effectiveness analysis and number needed to treat (NNT) of genotyping to avoid a clinical event

Treatment alternativeProbability (%)Annual cost per patient in KRW
MIStrokeBleedingDeathTotal
Using genotype information to select antiplatelet therapy (①)2.790.281.760.425.242,709,114
Clopidogrel regardless of genotypes (②)4.910.042.820.989.134,132,063
Prasugrel regardless of genotypes (③)7.670.873.791.4113.74,766,918
NNT
① versus ②473129417925
① versus ③211294910112
ICERa
① versus ②−36,610,303
① versus ③−24,202,531

MI, myocardial infarction; KRW, Korean currency won in 2020 value (1,100 KRW = 1 US$); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NNT, number needed to treat.

aICER defined as cost difference divided by total events avoided.


References

  1. AlMukdad S, Elewa H, Arafa S, Al-Badriyeh D (2021) Short- and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP2C19 genotype-guided therapy, universal clopidogrel, versus universal ticagrelor in post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients in Qatar. Int J Cardiol 331:27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.01.044
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Beitelshees AL, Horenstein RB, Vesely MR, Mehra MR, Shuldiner AR (2011) Pharmacogenetics and clopidogrel response in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89:455-459. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.316
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  3. Choi CU, Rha SW, Oh DJ, Poddar KL, Na JO, Kim JW, Lim HE, Kim EJ, Park CG, Seo HS, Hong TJ, Park JS, Kim YJ, Hur SH, Seong IW, Chae JK, Cho MC, Bae JH, Choi DH, Jang YS, Chae IH, Kim HS, Kim CJ, Yoon JH, Ahn TH, Tahk SJ, Chung WS, Seung KB, Chae SC, Park SJ, Ahn YK, Jeong MH (2011) Standard versus high loading doses of clopidogrel in Asian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Am Heart J 161:373-382, e1-e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.031
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Claassens DMF, van Dorst PWM, Vos GJA, Bergmeijer TO, Hermanides RS, van't Hof AWJ, van der Harst P, Barbato E, Morisco C, Tjon Joe Gin RM, Asselbergs FW, Mosterd A, Herrman JR, Dewilde WJM, Postma MJ, Deneer VHM, Ten Berg JM, Boersma C (2022) Cost effectiveness of a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the POPular Genetics trial. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 22:195-206. doi: 10.1007/s40256-021-00496-4
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Collet JP, Hulot JS, Pena A, Villard E, Esteve JB, Silvain J, Payot L, Brugier D, Cayla G, Beygui F, Bensimon G, Funck-Brentano C, Montalescot G (2009) Cytochrome P450 2C19 polymorphism in young patients treated with clopidogrel after myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Lancet 373:309-317. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61845-0
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Deiman BA, Tonino PA, Kouhestani K, Schrover CE, Scharnhorst V, Dekker LR, Pijls NH (2016) Reduced number of cardiovascular events and increased cost-effectiveness by genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in the Netherlands. Neth Heart J 24:589-599. doi: 10.1007/s12471-016-0873-z
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  8. Ewen EF, Zhao L, Kolm P, Jurkovitz C, Fidan D, White HD, Gallo R, Weintraub WS (2009) Determining the in-hospital cost of bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol 22:266-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00431.x
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Fu Y, Zhang XY, Qin SB, Nie XY, Shi LW, Shao H, Liu J (2020) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 LOF-guided antiplatelet therapy in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics 21:33-42. doi: 10.2217/pgs-2019-0050
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (1996) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  11. Holmes DR Jr, Dehmer GJ, Kaul S, Leifer D, O'Gara PT, Stein CM (2010) ACCF/AHA clopidogrel clinical alert: approaches to the FDA "boxed warning": a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on clinical expert consensus documents and the American Heart Association endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:321-341. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.013
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Jang JS, Cho KI, Jin HY, Seo JS, Yang TH, Kim DK, Kim DS, Seol SH, Kim DI, Kim BH, Park YH, Je HG, Jeong YH, Lee SW (2012) Meta-analysis of cytochrome P450 2C19 polymorphism and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among coronary artery disease patients of different ethnic groups treated with clopidogrel. Am J Cardiol 110:502-508. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.04.020
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Kazi DS, Garber AM, Shah RU, Dudley RA, Mell MW, Rhee C, Moshkevich S, Boothroyd DB, Owens DK, Hlatky MA (2014) Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med 160:221-232. doi: 10.7326/M13-1999
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Kazui M, Nishiya Y, Ishizuka T, Hagihara K, Farid NA, Okazaki O, Ikeda T, Kurihara A (2010) Identification of the human cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the two oxidative steps in the bioactivation of clopidogrel to its pharmacologically active metabolite. Drug Metab Dispos 38:92-99. doi: 10.1124/dmd.109.029132
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Kim JH, Tan DS, Chan MYY (2021) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndromes in Singapore. Pharmacogenomics J 21:243-250. doi: 10.1038/s41397-020-00204-6
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Kranendonk J, Willems LH, Vijver-Coppen RV, Coenen M, Adang E, Donders R, Zeebregts CJ, Deneer V, Reijnen M, Kramers C, Warlé MC (2022) CYP2C19 genotype-guided antithrombotic treatment versus conventional clopidogrel therapy in peripheral arterial disease: study design of a randomized controlled trial (GENPAD). Am Heart J 254:141-148. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2022.08.001
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Lee JM, Park S, Shin DJ, Choi D, Shim CY, Ko YG, Kim JS, Shin ES, Chang CW, Lee JE, Jang Y (2009) Relation of genetic polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450 gene with clopidogrel resistance after drug-eluting stent implantation in Koreans. Am J Cardiol 104:46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.045
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, Khot UN, Lange RA, Mauri L, Mehran R, Moussa ID, Mukherjee D, Nallamothu BK, Ting HH (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 124:e574-e651. Erratum in: (2012) Circulation 125:e412
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Limdi NA, Cavallari LH, Lee CR, Hillegass WB, Holmes AM, Skaar TC, Pisu M, Dillon C, Beitelshees AL, Empey PE, Duarte JD, Diaby V, Gong Y, Johnson JA, Graves J, Garbett S, Zhou Z, Peterson JF; Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network Pharmacogenetic Working Group (IGNITE-PGx) (2020) Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data. Pharmacogenomics J 20:724-735. doi: 10.1038/s41397-020-0162-5
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Bliden K, Cannon CP, Danchin N, Giusti B, Gurbel P, Horne BD, Hulot JS, Kastrati A, Montalescot G, Neumann FJ, Shen L, Sibbing D, Steg PG, Trenk D, Wiviott SD, Sabatine MS (2010) Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. JAMA 304:1821-1830. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1543
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, Shen L, Hockett RD, Brandt JT, Walker JR, Antman EM, Macias W, Braunwald E, Sabatine MS (2009a) Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 360:354-362.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, Shen L, Hockett RD, Brandt JT, Walker JR, Antman EM, Macias WL, Braunwald E, Sabatine MS (2009b) Cytochrome P450 genetic polymorphisms and the response to prasugrel: relationship to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical outcomes. Circulation 119:2553-2560. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.851949
    Pubmed CrossRef
  23. Mousa SA, Jeske WP, Fareed J (2010) Antiplatelet therapy prasugrel: a novel platelet ADP P2Y12 receptor antagonist. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 16:170-176. doi: 10.1177/1076029609355589
    Pubmed CrossRef
  24. Narasimhalu K, Ang YK, Tan DSY, De Silva DA, Tan KB (2020) Cost effectiveness of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in Asian ischemic stroke patients: ticagrelor as an alternative to clopidogrel in patients with CYP2C19 loss of function mutations. Clin Drug Investig 40:1063-1070. doi: 10.1007/s40261-020-00970-y
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Oh IY, Park KW, Kang SH, Park JJ, Na SH, Kang HJ, Koo BK, Jeong YH, Hwang JY, Kwak CH, Park Y, Hwang SJ, Ko YG, Shin DJ, Jang Y, Kim HS (2012) Association of cytochrome P450 2C19*2 polymorphism with clopidogrel response variability and cardiovascular events in Koreans treated with drug-eluting stents. Heart 98:139-144. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2011.227272
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2020) Purchasing power parities for GDP and related indicators. OECD. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PPPGDP Accessed 20 December 2020.
  27. Reese ES, Daniel Mullins C, Beitelshees AL, Onukwugha E (2012) Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype screening for selection of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel. Pharmacotherapy 32:323-332. doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01048. Erratum in: (2012) Pharmacotherapy 32:581
    Pubmed CrossRef
  28. Saracini C, Vestrini A, Galora S, Armillis A, Abbate R, Giusti B (2012) Pharmacogenetics of clopidogrel: comparison between a standard and a rapid genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 16:500-503. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0259
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Malinin AI, Bhatt DL, Topol EJ (2005) Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:246-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.09.067
    Pubmed CrossRef
  30. Severance Hospital (2009) Laboratory medicine newsletter 09-39. Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital. https://www.kslm.org/main/main.html Accessed 14 March 2013.
  31. Simon T, Verstuyft C, Mary-Krause M, Quteineh L, Drouet E, Méneveau N, Steg PG, Ferrières J, Danchin N, Becquemont L; French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) Investigators (2009) Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 360:363-375. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808227
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Sorich MJ, Horowitz JD, Sorich W, Wiese MD, Pekarsky B, Karnon JD (2013) Cost-effectiveness of using CYP2C19 genotype to guide selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Australia. Pharmacogenomics 14:2013-2021. doi: 10.2217/pgs.13.164
    Pubmed CrossRef
  33. The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2020) Drug prices. The Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA030014050000&brdScn-BltNo=4&brdBltNo=1623&pageIndex=6&pageIndex2=6
  34. The Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES Ⅲ). Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Gwacheon.
  35. The Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) (2020a) Consumer price index in medical component. KOSIS. https://kosis.kr/search/search.do?query=%EB%AC%BC%EA%B0%80#none Accessed 15 November 2020.
  36. The Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) (2020b) Consumer price in transportation component. KOSIS. https://kosis.kr/search/search.do?query=%EB%AC%BC%EA%B0%80#none Accessed 15 November 2020.
  37. The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) (2010) Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (NA2009-015). NECA, Seoul.
  38. The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (2021) National Health Insurance statistical yearbook. The National Health Insurance Corporation; Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Seoul.
  39. Wang Y, Yan BP, Liew D, Lee VWY (2018) Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 *2 genotype-guided selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics J 18:113-120. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2016.94
    Pubmed CrossRef
  40. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM; TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357:2001-2015. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706482
    Pubmed CrossRef

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on :

  • line