Viewpoint: "Underutilisation of novel antiplatelet agents - Myths, generics, and economics"

Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Volumn 112, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 4-9

  Serebruany, Victor L ^a   Fortmann, Seith D ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical utilisation; Clopidogrel; Generics; Prasugrel; Ticagrelor

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; ATORVASTATIN; CLOPIDOGREL; ESOMEPRAZOLE; OMEPRAZOLE; PANTOPRAZOLE; PRASUGREL; PRAVASTATIN; ROSUVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN; TICAGRELOR; ADENOSINE; PIPERAZINE DERIVATIVE; THIOPHENE DERIVATIVE; TICLOPIDINE;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MARKET; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COMBINATION; DRUG UTILIZATION; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; JAPAN; MARKETING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ADENOSINE; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; DRUG UTILIZATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JAPAN; MARKETING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PIPERAZINES; PLATELET AGGREGATION INHIBITORS; THIOPHENES; TICLOPIDINE;

EID: 84903795897     PISSN: 03406245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-10-0862     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Davies A, Bakhai A, Schmitt C, et al. Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey. J Med Econ 2013; 16: 510-521.
2. Mahoney EM, Wang K, Arnold SV, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. TRITON-TIMI 38. Circulation 2010; 121: 71-79.
3. Mauskopf JA, Graham JB, Bae JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel in a US managed care population. J Med Econ 2012; 15: 166-174.
4. Gasche D, Ulle T, Meier B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2013; 143: w13851.
5. Liew D, De Abreu Lourenço R, Adena M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 12-month treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Clin Ther 2013; 35: 1110-1117.
6. Chin CT, Mellstrom C, Chua TS, et al. Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes based on the PLATO trial: a Singapore healthcare perspective. Singapore Med J 2013; 54: 169-175.
7. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
8. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al.; the PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
9. Serebruany VL, Atar D. Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials-Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO? Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 412-414.
10. Verheugt FW. Outcomes of positive randomized controlled clinical trials: double-blind or double vision? Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 410-411.
11. Herper M. The Truly Staggering Cost Of Inventing New Drugs. Forbes 02/10/2012.
12. Roe MT, Armstrong PW, Fox KA, et. al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1297-1309.
13. Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M, et al. A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2159-2164.
14. Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Dudek D, et al.; ACCOAST Investigators. Pretreatment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 999-1010.
15. Sandhu A, Seth M, Dixon S, et al. Contemporary use of prasugrel in clinical practice: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 6: 293-298.
16. Serebruany V, Atar D. Prasugrel: the real-life perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 6: 253-254.
17. The FDA ticagrelor Secondary Review. Available at http://www.fda.gov/down loads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ UCM220192.pdf. Assessed July 21, 2013.
18. The FDA Ticagrelor Review of Complete Response. Available at: http://www.ac cessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022433Orig1s000TOC.cfm. Assessed July 21, 2013.
19. Serebruany VL. Paradoxical excess morHYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/21384079"tality in the PLATO trial should be independently verified. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 752-759.
20. Prasugrel Secondary Review. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ ac/09HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/09/brief ing/2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm"/HYPERLINK "http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/ dockets/ac/09/briefing/2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm"briefing/ 2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm. Assessed July 21, 2013.
21. Huber K, Schrör K. High on-treatment platelet reactivity-why should we be concerned? Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 789-791.
22. Höchtl T, Tentzeris I, Schrör K, et al. Antiplatelet function variability in clopidogrel-treated patients: need for new antiplatelet agents. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2012; 26: 2-10.