Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor
Creators: name: Jingsong Lu
name: Molife, Cliff
name: Frech-Tamas, Feride
name: DeKoven, Mitch
name: Effron, Mark B.
name: Karkare, Swapna
name: Yajun Zhu
name: Larmore, Cynthia
name: McCollam, Patrick
name: Marrett, Elizabeth
name: Vetrovec, George W.
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2015
Subjects: subject: Computational Biology
subject: 60506 Virology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Science Policy
subject: Marine Biology
subject: Biological Sciences
subject: Immunology
subject: FOS: Clinical medicine
subject: FOS: Clinical medicine
subject: Ecology
subject: Medicine

description: 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 ($36,011 vs $37,247, <i>p</i> = 0.21), 30-days post-discharge ($2007 vs $2522, p = 0.48), 90-days post-discharge ($4564 vs $5242, <i>p</i> = 0.49), and aggregate of the index hospitalization through 90-day follow-up ($40,576 vs $42,494, <i>p</i> = 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.