No abstract

Significant and distinct differences in AD treatment approach exist among physicians surveyed. Most pediatricians and allergists use formula change as a management strategy in some patients, whereas dermatologists favor a pharmacologic approach. This diversity may result from inadequate evidence for a standard approach. Consistent methods for managing AD are needed.

BackgroundPrasugrel is recommended over clopidogrel in poor/intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), reducing the risk of ischemic events. CYP2C19 genetic testing can guide antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of genotype-guided treatment, compared with prasugrel or generic clopidogrel treatment without genotyping, from the US healthcare provider’s perspective.MethodsA decision model was developed to project lifetime economic and humanistic burden associated with clinical outcomes (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke and major bleeding) for the three strategies in patients with ACS. Probabilities, costs and age-adjusted quality of life were identified through systematic literature review. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated for the treatment strategies, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness outcome. Relative risk of developing myocardial infarction and stroke between patients with and without variant CYP2C19 when receiving clopidogrel were estimated to be 1.34 and 3.66, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsClopidogrel cost USD19,147 and provided 10.03 QALYs versus prasugrel (USD21,425, 10.04 QALYs) and genotype-guided therapy (USD19,231, 10.05 QALYs). The ICUR of genotype-guided therapy compared with clopidogrel was USD4,200. Genotype-guided therapy provided more QALYs at lower costs compared with prasugrel. Results were sensitive to the cost of clopidogrel and relative risk of myocardial infarction and stroke between CYP2C19 variant vs. non-variant. Net monetary benefit curves showed that genotype-guided therapy had at least 70% likelihood of being the most cost-effective alternative at a willingness-to-pay of USD100,000/QALY. In comparison with clopidogrel, prasugrel therapy was more cost-effective with <21% certainty at willingness-to-pay of >USD170,000/QALY.ConclusionsOur modeling analyses suggest that genotype-guided therapy is a cost-effective strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing planned percutaneous coronary intervention.

No abstract