Objective:
To show that prasugrel (pras) was non-inferior to ticagrelor (ticag) in terms of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) based upon 30- and 90-day all-cause rehospitalization rates among patients (pts) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods:
This retrospective study used anonymized hospital data from the IMS Patient-Centric Data Warehouse to identify ACS-PCI pts aged ≥18 years with ≥1 in-hospital claim for pras or ticag between 8/1/11-4/30/13. Three cohorts were predefined and analyzed: ACS-PCI (primary cohort), ACS-PCI without prior TIA or stroke (label cohort), and ACS-PCI pts without prior TIA or stroke and if age ≥75 years required evidence of diabetes or prior MI (core cohort). The McNemar’s test was used to evaluate adjusted outcome differences between propensity matched (PM) groups. P-value for non-inferiority (p-NI) test was obtained through a one-sided Z test by comparing log (RR) with log(1.2), a predefined margin.
Results:
Among 16,098 eligible pts, 13,134 (82%) received pras and 2,964 (18%) received ticag. Compared to ticag pts, pras pts were younger, more likely men, and less likely to have cardiovascular or bleeding risk factors (P<0.05). Of the total population, 1,375 (8.54%) and 2,374 (14.75%) were rehospitalized for any reason within 30 and 90 days post discharge, respectively. After PM adjustment, pras was non-inferior to ticag for 30- and 90-day all-cause rehospitalization rates in all 3 cohorts (p-NI < 0.01). Data are summarized in Table 1. All-cause rehospitalization for the label and core cohorts showed non-inferiority and a significantly lower 90-day rehospitalization rate with pras compared with ticag (Table).
Conclusions:
All-cause rehospitalizations at 30-and 90-days post discharge in ACS-PCI pts were non-inferior with pras vs. ticag in all 3 cohorts. Pras was associated with significantly lower risk for 90-day all-cause rehospitalizations compared with ticag in the label and core cohorts, which are the majority of pts receiving pras. Although there appears to be inherent bias and unmeasured confounders related to use of pras vs. ticag, these data show reductions in HCRU with pras compared with ticag in the real-world setting at 30- and 90-days post-discharge.
Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention When Treating Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Mexican National Institute of Cardiology “Ignacio Chávez”