Viewpoint: “Underutilisation of novel antiplatelet agents – myths, generics, and economics”

Summary

Two oral antiplatelet agents have been recently introduced for acute coronary syndromes indication providing alternatives for dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. In fact, worldwide prasugrel has been on the market for four years, and ticagrelor for over two years. Despite declared benefits over clopidogrel, including hypothetical cost saving advantages, in real life, the clinical utilisation of both agents is small. Generic clopidogrel, and price differences are claimed as major obstacles to prevent broader prasugrel and ticagrelor use. However, these economic difficulties are barely supported by available evidence, and served mostly to protect questionable management spending, as an exuse to explain why in reality cardiologists are so sceptical about both novel agents, and to convince the sharehoders that their money is not wasted, misleading the owners with regard to future success. Importantly, brand Plavix® is used worldwide 5–10 times more often than new agents, despite heavy generic competition. The future of prasugrel outside Japan, where much lower reasonable dose will be used is not impressive due to lack of further outcome studies, negative results of the latest trials, and less than four years left before patent expiration. The fate of ticagrelor will depend on verification of deaths numbers in the ongoing United States Department of Justice PLATO investigation, and confirmation of the mortality benefit in the PEGASUS TIMI-54 trial.

Keywords

Ticagrelor - prasugrel - clopidogrel - generics - clinical utilisation

• References

• 1 Davies A, Bakhai A, Schmitt C. et al. Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey. J Med Econ 2013; 16: 510-521.
• 2 Mahoney EM, Wang K, Arnold SV. et al. Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. TRITON-TIMI 38. Circulation 2010; 121: 71-79.
• 3 Mauskopf JA, Graham JB, Bae JP. et al. Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel in a US managed care population. J Med Econ 2012; 15: 166-174.
• 4 Gasche D, Ulle T, Meier B. et al. Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2013; 143: w13851.
• 5 Liew D, De Abreu Lourenço R, Adena M. et al. Cost-effectiveness of 12-month treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Clin Ther 2013; 35: 1110-1117.
• 6 Chin CT, Mellstrom C, Chua TS. et al. Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis of ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes based on the PLATO trial: a Singapore healthcare perspective. Singapore Med J 2013; 54: 169-175.
• 7 Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH. et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
• 8 Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A. et al. the PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
• 9 Serebruany VL, Atar D. Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials - Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO?. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 412-414.
• 10 Verheugt FW. Outcomes of positive randomized controlled clinical trials: double-blind or double vision?. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 410-411.
• 11 Herper M. The Truly Staggering Cost Of Inventing New Drugs. Forbes. 2/10/2012.
• 12 Roe MT, Armstrong PW, Fox KA. et.al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1297-1309.
• 13 Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M. et al. A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2159-2164.
• 14 Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Dudek D. et al. ACCOAST Investigators. Pretreat-ment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 999-1010.
• 15 Sandhu A, Seth M, Dixon S. et al. Contemporary use of prasugrel in clinical practice: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 06: 293-298.
• 16 Serebruany V, Atar D. Prasugrel: the real-life perspective. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 06: 253-254.
• 17 The FDA ticagrelor Secondary Review. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM220192.pdf Assessed July 21, 2013
• 18 The FDA Ticagrelor Review of Complete Response. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022433Orig1s000TOC.cfm Assessed July 21, 2013
• 19 Serebruany VL. Paradoxical excess mortality. in the PLATO trial should be independently verified. Thromb Haemost 2011 105. 752-759.
• 20 Prasugrel Secondary Review. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/09/briefing/2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm Assessed July 21, 2013
• 21 Huber K, Schrör K. High on-treatment platelet reactivity-why should we be concerned?. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 789-791.
• 22 Höchtl T, Tentzeris I, Schrör K. et al. Antiplatelet function variability in clopidogrel-treated patients: need for new antiplatelet agents. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2012; 26: 2-10.