Cynthia Larmore

“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 (

Increased healthcare resource utilization in higher disease activity levels in initiators of TNF inhibitors among US rheumatoid arthritis patients

36,011 vs

Treatment Patterns of Newly Diagnosed Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients from a Commercially Insured Population

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

Examination of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Association with TNF-Inhibitor Treatment Response: Results from a US Observational Cohort Study

2007 vs

Medication adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review

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

Disease Activity in Biologic Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Initiating Tnf Inhibitors

4564 vs

DIFFERENTIAL USE BETWEEN PRASUGREL AND TICAGRELOR IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME UNDERGOING PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION IN ROUTINE PRACTICE

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

Abstract 340: Thirty-day Repeat Hospitalizations for Patients Treated with Prasugrel Compared to Ticagrelor following Acute Coronary Syndrome: Findings from a Large Hospital Charge Master Database

40,576 vs

Abstract 249: Economic Outcomes for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Managed with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Receiving Prasugrel or Ticagrelor: A Retrospective US Hospital Database Analysis

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.