Cliff Molife

“Real‐World” comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States

The 30‐day clinical outcomes with prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared using a US payer database in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor

Abstract Objective: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and healthcare costs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. Methods: Hospital charge master data were used to identify ACS-PCI patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 in-hospital claim for prasugrel or ticagrelor between August 1, 2011–April 30, 2013. Treatment groups were propensity matched for baseline and index hospitalization characteristics. HCRU and costs were assessed through 90-days post-discharge. Costs were determined based on hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios and adjusted to 2013 US dollars. Results: Before matching, ticagrelor patients were older, more-often female, and had increased cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel patients. Propensity-matched length of index hospital stay (4.7 vs 4.9 days, p = 0.23) and risk for all-cause [30-day: relative risk (RR) = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.73–1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.80–1.0, and CV-related (30-day: RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.59–1.0; 90-day: RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.73–1.1) re-hospitalizations did not significantly differ between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. Compared to ticagrelor, the propensity-matched risk of re-hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) (30-day: RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21–0.75; 90-day: RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34–0.81) and an outpatient medical encounter for dyspnea (30-day: RR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33–0.74; 90-day: RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.46–0.80) were significantly lower for prasugrel patients, with no significant differences in bleeding encounters between groups (30-day: RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.54–1.40; 90-day: RR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.71–1.50). Matched total healthcare costs were not significantly different between groups during the index hospitalization (

Combination Therapy Patterns and Predictors of ADHD in Commercially Insured and Medicaid Populations

36,011 vs

Healthcare utilization and costs of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder initiating atomoxetine versus extended-release guanfacine

37,247, p = 0.21), 30-days post-discharge (

The Budget Impact of Including Necitumumab on the Formulary for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: U.S. Commercial Payer and Medicare Perspectives

2007 vs

AMCP partnership forum: Driving new advances in dyslipidemia management

2522, p = 0.48), 90-days post-discharge (

Adherence and Persistence with Prasugrel Following Acute Coronary Syndrome with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

4564 vs

One-Year Post-Discharge Resource Utilization and Treatment Patterns of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Managed with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Treated with Ticagrelor or Prasugrel

5242, p = 0.49), and aggregate of the index hospitalization through 90-day follow-up (

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database

40,576 vs

P3.01-19 Sequencing of Ramucirumab+Docetaxel Post-Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients

42,494, p = 0.09) timeframes. Conclusions: Re-hospitalization for MI and outpatient encounters for dyspnea were lower in prasugrel treated than in ticagrelor treated ACS-PCI patients up to 90-days post-index hospitalization discharge, with no difference in bleeding encounters or healthcare costs between the two populations. This data supports the utility of prasugrel in routine clinical practice. These findings should be considered within limitations of observational research.