Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2023 May;27(8):1–257. doi: 10.3310/MNJY9014

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies.

Jessica Harris, Koen B Pouwels, Thomas Johnson, Jonathan Sterne, Christalla Pithara, Kalaivani Mahadevan, Barney Reeves, Umberto Benedetto, Yoon Loke, Daniel Lasserson, Brett Doble, Noreen Hopewell-Kelly, Sabi Redwood, Sarah Wordsworth, Andrew Mumford, Chris Rogers, Maria Pufulete
PMCID: PMC10363958  PMID: 37435838

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy.

DESIGN

The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome.

DATA SOURCES

Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics.

INTERVENTIONS

Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

People who have a heart attack are treated with a stent to open up the blocked artery that caused the heart attack, with surgery to bypass the blocked artery or with medication only. Whatever the treatment, they are prescribed one or more antiplatelet drugs, either aspirin only or aspirin and an additional antiplatelet (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor), for 12 months after the heart attack. Antiplatelets are given to prevent another heart attack, but increase the risk of bleeding. We used a large general practice database and a database describing patients’ attendances and admissions to hospital to determine how many people bleed with different antiplatelet combinations. We found that, overall, up to 1 in 10 people taking antiplatelets (rising to 2 in 10 if also taking an anticoagulant such as warfarin or dabigatran) reported a bleed. Among patients treated with surgery or medication only, we compared aspirin only (which is a less potent therapy) with aspirin and clopidogrel (a more potent therapy). Among patients treated with stents, we compared aspirin and clopidogrel (less potent therapy) with aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor (more potent therapy). In all three populations, the more potent therapy increased the risk of bleeding by about one and a half times, but this was not offset by a reduced risk of having a subsequent heart attack. This may be explained by low adherence to the medication: between one-third and almost half of all patients did not adhere to their regimen, and non-adherence was generally higher among patients taking a more potent therapy. It may also be explained by bias inherent in the study, for example if the groups prescribed different antiplatelet regimens had different risks of having another heart attack. Nevertheless, the results show that doctors should be cautious about prescribing more potent antiplatelet therapy because it may increase serious bleeds without necessarily reducing the number of heart attacks.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Myocardial Infarction: Cardiac Rehabilitation and Prevention of Further Cardiovascular Disease. Clinical Guideline [CG172]. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg172/resources/guidance-mi-secondary-prevention-pdf (accessed 24 May 2021). [PubMed]
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Acute Coronary Syndromes. NICE Guideline [NG185]. London: NICE; 2020. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng185 (accessed 24 May 2021).
  3. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, Collet JP, Costa F, Jeppsson A, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2018;39:213–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419 doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010;31:2501–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq277 doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq277. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Tada T, Natsuaki M, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Byrne RA, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and long-term clinical outcome after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: landmark analyses from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5:381–91. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.967463 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.967463. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Main C, Palmer S, Griffin S, Jones L, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al. Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(40). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8400 doi: 10.3310/hta8400. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Terpening C. An appraisal of dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin for prevention of cardiovascular events. J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:51–6. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.070282 doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.070282. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Pilgrim T, Windecker S. Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Heart 2014;100:1750–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305399 doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305399. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Doble B, Pufulete M, Harris JM, Johnson T, Lasserson D, Reeves BC, Wordsworth S. Health-related quality of life impact of minor and major bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic literature review and patient preference elicitation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2018;16:191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1019-3 doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1019-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Czarny MJ, Nathan AS, Yeh RW, Mauri L. Adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a systematic review. Clin Cardiol 2014;37:505–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22289 doi: 10.1002/clc.22289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Cohen M. Expanding the recognition and assessment of bleeding events associated with antiplatelet therapy in primary care. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:149–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60823-9 doi: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60823-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Ben-Dor I, Torguson R, Scheinowitz M, Li Y, Delhaye C, Wakabayashi K, et al. Incidence, correlates, and clinical impact of nuisance bleeding after antiplatelet therapy for patients with drug-eluting stents. Am Heart J 2010;159:871–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2010.01.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Roy P, Bonello L, Torguson R, de Labriolle A, Lemesle G, Slottow TL, et al. Impact of ‘nuisance’ bleeding on clopidogrel compliance in patients undergoing intracoronary drug-eluting stent implantation. Am J Cardiol 2008;102:1614–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.07.063 doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.07.063. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Amin AP, Bachuwar A, Reid KJ, Chhatriwalla AK, Salisbury AC, Yeh RW, et al. Nuisance bleeding with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after acute myocardial infarction and its impact on health status. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:2130–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.044 doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S, Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? An initial review of current practice. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(62). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13620 doi: 10.3310/hta13620. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Heather EM, Payne K, Harrison M, Symmons DP. Including adverse drug events in economic evaluations of anti-tumour necrosis factor-α drugs for adult rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of economic decision analytic models. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:109–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0120-z doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0120-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res 2013;13:190–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106 doi: 10.1177/1468794112446106. [DOI]
  19. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016;26:1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Evans SC, Roberts MC, Keeley JW, Blossom JB, Amaro CM, Garcia AM, et al. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2015;15:160–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Smith KL, Ashburn S, Aminawung JA, Mann M, Ross JS. Physician clinical management strategies and reasoning: a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-176 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Taylor K, Ferreira DLS, West J, Yang T, Caputo M, Lawlor DA. Differences in pregnancy metabolic profiles and their determinants between white European and South Asian women: findings from the Born in Bradford cohort. Metabolites 2019;9:E190. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo9090190 doi: 10.3390/metabo9090190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Reeves BC, Wells GA, Waddington H. Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;89:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Pufulete M, Harris J, Sterne JAC, Johnson TW, Lasserson D, Mumford A, et al. Comprehensive ascertainment of bleeding in patients prescribed different combinations of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and triple therapy (TT) in the UK: study protocol for three population-based cohort studies emulating ‘target trials’ (the ADAPTT Study). BMJ Open 2019;9:e029388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029388 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, Forbes H, Mathur R, van Staa T, Smeeth L. Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol 2015;44:827–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv098 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics (accessed 24 May 2021).
  28. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM, Caixeta A, Eikelboom J, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011;123:2736–47. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies. In Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
  30. Reeves BC, Higgins JP, Ramsay C, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2013;4:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1068 doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1068. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Pontecorboli G, Grazzini G, Stolcova M, Calistri L, Acquafresca M, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, et al. Myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries following accidental nitrogen inhalation: diagnosis by cardiac magnetic resonance and coronary computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Med 2019;20:487–8. https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000000750 doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000750. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl JMed 2007;357:2001–15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0706482 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706482. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Held C, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045–57. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0904327 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904327. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Atkinson MD, Kennedy JI, John A, Lewis KE, Lyons RA, Brophy ST, DEMISTIFY Research Group. Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017;17:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0400-6 doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0400-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Bhaskaran K, Forbes HJ, Douglas I, Leon DA, Smeeth L. Representativeness and optimal use of body mass index (BMI) in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). BMJ Open 2013;3:e003389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003389 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Cole SR, Hernán MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004;75:45–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2003.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. D’Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::AID-SIM918>3.0.CO;2-B doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981015)17:19&#x0003c;2265::AID-SIM918&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-B. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies of causal effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 doi: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41. [DOI]
  39. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Khan NF, Perera R, Harper S, Rose PW. Adaptation and validation of the Charlson Index for Read/OXMIS coded databases. BMC Fam Pract 2010;11:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-1 doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Maringe C, Fowler H, Rachet B, Luque-Fernandez MA. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of population-based administrative health data for the assessment of cancer non-related comorbidities. PLOS One 2017;12:e0172814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172814 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Kaura A, Sterne JAC, Trickey A, Abbott S, Mulla A, Glampson B, et al. Invasive versus non-invasive management of older patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (SENIOR–NSTEMI): a cohort study based on routine clinical data. Lancet 2020;396:623–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30930-2 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30930-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, Angiolillo DJ, Byrne RA, Capodanno D, et al. Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2019;140:240–61. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040167 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable analysis of secondary pharmacoepidemiologic data. Epidemiology 2006;17:373–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000222026.42077.ee doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000222026.42077.ee. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Federspiel JJ, Anstrom KJ, Xian Y, McCoy LA, Effron MB, Faries DE, et al. Comparing inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable methods for the evaluation of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA Cardiol 2016;1:655–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1783 doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1783. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Peterson AM, Nau DP, Cramer JA, Benner J, Gwadry-Sridhar F, Nichol M. A checklist for medication compliance and persistence studies using retrospective databases. Value Health 2007;10:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00139.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00139.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Farmer AJ, Rodgers LR, Lonergan M, Shields B, Weedon MN, Donnelly L, et al. Adherence to oral glucose-lowering therapies and associations with 1-year HbA1c: a retrospective cohort analysis in a large primary care database. Diabetes Care 2016;39:258–63. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc15-1194 doi: 10.2337/dc15-1194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P, Normand SLT, Streiner DL, Austin PC, et al. Reader’s guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005;330:960–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7497.960 doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7497.960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Ismail N, Jordan KP, Kadam UT, Edwards JJ, Kinnaird T, Mamas MA. Bleeding after hospital discharge following acute coronary syndrome: incidence, types, timing, and predictors. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e013679. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.013679 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Zhao Y, Peng H, Li X, Qin Y, Cao F, Peng D, Liu J. Dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: is there an increase in bleeding risk? A meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2018;26:573–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivx374 doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivx374. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Agarwal N, Mahmoud AN, Patel NK, Jain A, Garg J, Mojadidi MK, et al. Meta-analysis of aspirin versus dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2018;121:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.022 doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Solo K, Lavi S, Kabali C, Levine GN, Kulik A, John-Baptiste AA, et al. Antithrombotic treatment after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2019;367:l5476. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5476 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Verma S, Goodman SG, Mehta SR, Latter DA, Ruel M, Gupta M, et al. Should dual antiplatelet therapy be used in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2015;15:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-015-0096-z doi: 10.1186/s12893-015-0096-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Danaei G, Rodríguez LA, Cantero OF, Logan R, Hernán MA. Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Stat Methods Med Res 2013;22:70–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280211403603 doi: 10.1177/0962280211403603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Hernán MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 2010;21:13–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Miettinen OS, Caro JJ. Principles of non-experimental assessment of excess risk, with special reference to adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:325–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90037-1 doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90037-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Harskamp RE, Williams JB, Hill RC, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure and clinical outcomes: toward a surrogate end point in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery? Am Heart J 2013;165:639–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2013.01.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.01.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Huber CA, Meyer MR, Steffel J, Blozik E, Reich O, Rosemann T. Post-myocardial infarction (MI) care: medication adherence for secondary prevention after MI in a large real-world population. Clin Ther 2019;41:107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Naderi SH, Bestwick JP, Wald DS. Adherence to drugs that prevent cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis on 376,162 patients. Am J Med 2012;125:882–7.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Shah ND, Dunlay SM, Ting HH, Montori VM, Thomas RJ, Wagie AE, Roger VL. Long-term medication adherence after myocardial infarction: experience of a community. Am J Med 2009;122:961.e7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.12.021 doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.12.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Fox KA, Mehta SR, Peters R, Zhao F, Lakkis N, Gersh BJ, Yusuf S, Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent ischemic Events trial. Benefits and risks of the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin in patients undergoing surgical revascularization for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent ischemic Events (CURE) trial. Circulation 2004;110:1202–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000140675.85342.1B doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000140675.85342.1B. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Tognoni G, Fox KK, Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001;345:494–502. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010746 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010746. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YP, Xie JX, Pan HC, Peto R, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1607–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67660-X doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67660-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, López-Sendón JL, Montalescot G, Theroux P, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1179–89. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050522 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa050522. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Fan ZG, Zhang WL, Xu B, Ji J, Tian NL, He SH. Comparisons between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Drug Des Devel Ther 2019;13:719–30. https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S196535 doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S196535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Guan W, Lu H, Yang K. Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2007–2017). Medicine 2018;97:e12978. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012978 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Schüpke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M, Mayer K, Bernlochner I, Wöhrle J, et al. Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1524–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1908973 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Bundhun PK, Huang F. Post percutaneous coronary interventional adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events observed with prasugrel versus clopidogrel: direct comparison through a meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2018;18:78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-018-0820-6 doi: 10.1186/s12872-018-0820-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Chen HB, Zhang XL, Liang HB, Liu XW, Zhang XY, Huang BY, Xiu J. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing risk of major adverse cardiac events and bleeding in patients with prasugrel versus clopidogrel. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:384–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.04.054 doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.04.054. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Bunmark W, Jinatongthai P, Vathesatogkit P, Thakkinstian A, Reid CM, Wongcharoen W, et al. Antithrombotic regimens in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention whom an anticoagulant is indicated: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2018;9:1322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01322 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. Fortuni F, Ferlini M, Leonardi S, Angelini F, Crimi G, Somaschini A, et al. Dual versus triple therapy in patients on oral anticoagulants and undergoing coronary stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2018;273:80–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Gargiulo G, Goette A, Tijssen J, Eckardt L, Lewalter T, Vranckx P, Valgimigli M. Safety and efficacy outcomes of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials. Eur Heart J 2019;40:3757–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz732 doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz732. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Haller PM, Sulzgruber P, Kaufmann C, Geelhoed B, Tamargo J, Wassmann S, et al. Bleeding and ischaemic outcomes in patients treated with dual or triple antithrombotic therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2019;5:226–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvz021 doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvz021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Khan SU, Osman M, Khan MU, Khan MS, Zhao D, Mamas MA, et al. dual versus triple therapy for atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:474–83. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-3763 doi: 10.7326/M19-3763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  76. Sullivan AE, Nanna MG, Rao SV, Cantrell S, Gibson M, Verheugt FWA, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials comparing double versus triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28535 doi: 10.1002/ccd.28535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Lopes RD, Hong H, Harskamp RE, Bhatt DL, Mehran R, Cannon CP, et al. Safety and efficacy of antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA Cardiol 2019;4:747–55. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880 doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. McDonald L, Sammon CJ, Samnaliev M, Ramagopalan S. Under-recording of hospital bleeding events in UK primary care: a linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics study. Clin Epidemiol 2018;10:1155–68. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S170304 doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S170304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  79. O’Brien EC, Holmes DN, Thomas LE, Fonarow GC, Allen LA, Gersh BJ, et al. Prognostic significance of nuisance bleeding in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2018;138:889–97. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031354 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031354. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Pettersen TR, Fridlund B, Bendz B, Nordrehaug JE, Rotevatn S, Schjøtt J, Norekvål TM, CONCARD Investigators. Challenges adhering to a medication regimen following first-time percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient perspective. Int J Nurs Stud 2018;88:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.07.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Zeymer U, Cully M, Hochadel M. Adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in real life. Results of the REAL-TICA registry. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2018;4:205–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvy018 doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvy018. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996;22:129–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129. [DOI]
  83. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  84. Kimble LP, Momary KM, Adewuyi M. A qualitative study of nuisance bleeding and medication-related beliefs with dual antiplatelet drug therapy. Heart Lung 2018;47:485–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.05.014 doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Mohammed S, Arabi A, El-Menyar A, Abdulkarim S, AlJundi A, Alqahtani A, et al. Impact of polypharmacy on adherence to evidence-based medication in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2016;14:388–93. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570161113666151030105805 doi: 10.2174/1570161113666151030105805. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Decker C, Garavalia L, Garavalia B, Spertus JA. Clopidogrel-taking behavior by drug-eluting stent patients: discontinuers versus continuers. Patient Prefer Adherence 2008;2:167–75. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S3443 doi: 10.2147/PPA.S3443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Astin F, Closs SJ, McLenachan J, Hunter S, Priestley C. The information needs of patients treated with primary angioplasty for heart attack: an exploratory study. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:325–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Berben L, Dobbels F, Engberg S, Hill MN, De Geest S. An ecological perspective on medication adherence. West J Nurs Res 2012;34:635–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945911434518 doi: 10.1177/0193945911434518. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  91. Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 2006;92:62–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2004.052787 doi: 10.1136/hrt.2004.052787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Ellis JJ, Eagle KA, Kline-Rogers EM, Erickson SR. Validation of the EQ-5D in patients with a history of acute coronary syndrome. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1209–16. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079905X56349 doi: 10.1185/030079905X56349. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  94. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Ara R, Brazier J, Peasgood T, Paisley S. The identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2017;35(Suppl. 1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0547-8 doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0547-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics 2018;27:7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 doi: 10.1002/hec.3564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  98. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschback J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005;43:203–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Amin AP, Wang TY, McCoy L, Bach RG, Effron MB, Peterson ED, Cohen DJ. Impact of bleeding on quality of life in patients on DAPT: insights from TRANSLATE-ACS. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.034 doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Boland A, Dwan K, Beale S, Fleeman N, et al. Prasugrel (Efient®) with percutaneous coronary intervention for treating acute coronary syndromes (review of TA182): systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(29). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19290 doi: 10.3310/hta19290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  102. Garg P, Galper BZ, Cohen DJ, Yeh RW, Mauri L. Balancing the risks of bleeding and stent thrombosis: a decision analytic model to compare durations of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. Am Heart J 2015;169:222–33.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2014.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.11.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Kazi DS, Garber AM, Shah RU, Dudley RA, Mell MW, Rhee C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:221–32. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-1999 doi: 10.7326/M13-1999. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Liew D, De Abreu Lourenço R, Adena M, Chim L, Aylward P. Cost-effectiveness of 12-month treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Clin Ther 2013;35:1110–17.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.06.015 doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Gupta N, Nayak R, Grisolano SW, Buckles DC, Tadros PN. Defining patients at high risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage after drug-eluting stent placement: a cost utility analysis. J Interv Cardiol 2010;23:179–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2010.00530.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2010.00530.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Schleinitz MD, Heidenreich PA. A cost-effectiveness analysis of combination antiplatelet therapy for high-risk acute coronary syndromes: clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:251–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-4-200502150-00007 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-4-200502150-00007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Latour-Pérez J, Navarro-Ruiz A, Ridao-López M, Cervera-Montes M. Using clopidogrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: a cost–utility analysis in Spain. Value Health 2004;7:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.71313.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.71313.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Jiang M, You JHS. CYP2C19 LOF and GOF-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2017;31:39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-016-6705-y doi: 10.1007/s10557-016-6705-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Wang Y, Yan BP, Liew D, Lee VWY. Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 *2 genotype-guided selection of clopidogrel or ticagrelor in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics J 2017;18:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1038/tpj.2016.94 doi: 10.1038/tpj.2016.94. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Jiang M, You JH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalized antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacogenomics 2016;17:701–13. https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2016-0008 doi: 10.2217/pgs-2016-0008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Naglie IG, Detsky AS. Treatment of chronic nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the elderly: a decision analysis. Med Decis Mak 1992;12:239–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9201200401 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9201200401. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. Thomson R, Parkin D, Eccles M, Sudlow M, Robinson A. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2000;355:956–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90012-6 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90012-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  113. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Mak 2006;26:410–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06290495 doi: 10.1177/0272989X06290495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health 2018;21:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Oremus M, Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K. Can the general public use vignettes to discriminate between Alzheimer’s disease health states? BMC Geriatr 2016;16:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0207-4 doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0207-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  116. Guest JF, Nanuwa K, Barden R. Utility values for specific hepatic encephalopathy health states elicited from the general public in the United Kingdom. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014;12:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-89 doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  117. Doyle S, Lloyd A, Walker M. Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008;62:374–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.03.019 doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.03.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Hall M, Laut K, Dondo TB, Alabas OA, Brogan RA, Gutacker N, et al. Patient and hospital determinants of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in England, 2003–2013. Heart 2016;102:313–19. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308616 doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  119. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972;7:118–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  120. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976;10:129–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(76)90036-7 doi: 10.1016/0038-0121(76)90036-7. [DOI]
  121. Mahoney EM, Wang K, Arnold SV, Proskorovsky I, Wiviott S, Antman E, 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;121:71–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.900704 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.900704. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Simeone JC, Molife C, Marrett E, Frech-Tamas F, Effron MB, Nordstrom BL, et al. 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. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2015;15:337–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-015-0147-y doi: 10.1007/s40256-015-0147-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Zhao YJ, Khoo AL, Lin L, Teng M, Wu TS, Chan MY, Lim BP. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ticagrelor and prasugrel for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Value Health Reg Issues 2016;9:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2015.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2015.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  124. Herbert A, Wijlaars L, Zylbersztejn A, Cromwell D, Hardelid P. Data resource profile: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC). Int J Epidemiol 2017;46:1093–1093i. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx015 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  125. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2018.
  126. Thorn JC, Turner E, Hounsome L, Walsh E, Donovan JL, Verne J, et al. Validation of the Hospital Episode Statistics outpatient dataset in England. PharmacoEconomics 2016;34:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0326-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0326-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. NHS Digital. HRG4 + 2017/18 Reference Costs Grouper. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-casemix-office/downloads-groupers-and-tools/costing-hrg4-2017-18-reference-costs-grouper (accessed 12 July 2022).
  128. NHS Improvement. Reference Costs 2017/18. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 24 May 2021).
  129. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Causal Inference: What If. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2020.
  130. Xu S, Ross C, Raebel MA, Shetterly S, Blanchette C, Smith D. Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health 2010;13:273–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00671.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  131. Başer O, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ, Yüce H, Given C. Longitudinal analysis of censored medical cost data. Health Econ 2006;15:513–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1087 doi: 10.1002/hec.1087. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Antiplatelet Treatment. London: NICE; 2020. URL: https://cks.nice.org.uk/antiplatelet-treatment#!scenario: 1 (accessed 24 May 2021).
  133. NHS Business Services Authority. Drug Tariff. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/pharmacies-gp-practices-and-appliance-contractors/drug-tariff (accessed 13 March 2020).
  134. Open Prescribing. Tariff and Concession Prices. URL: https://openprescribing.net/tariff/ (accessed 13 March 2020).
  135. Nikolic E, Janzon M, Hauch O, Wallentin L, Henriksson M, PLATO Health Economic Substudy Group. Cost-effectiveness of treating acute coronary syndrome patients with ticagrelor for 12 months: results from the PLATO study. Eur Heart J 2013;34:220–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehs149 doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs149. [DOI] [PubMed]
  136. Wein B, Coslovsky M, Jabbari R, Galatius S, Pfisterer M, Kaiser C. Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in contemporary Western European patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving drug-eluting stents: comparative cost-effectiveness analysis from the BASKET-PROVE cohorts. Int J Cardiol 2017;248:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.102 doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.07.102. [DOI] [PubMed]
  137. Dolk FCK, Pouwels KB, Smith DRM, Robotham JV, Smieszek T. Antibiotics in primary care in England: which antibiotics are prescribed and for which conditions? J Antimicrob Chemother 2018;73(Suppl. 2):ii2–ii10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx504 doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  138. Li L, Geraghty OC, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM, Oxford Vascular Study. Age-specific risks, severity, time course, and outcome of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment after vascular events: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017;390:490–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30770-5 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30770-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  139. Vansteelandt S. Asking too much of epidemiologic studies: the problem of collider bias and the obesity paradox. Epidemiology 2017;28:e47–e49. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000693 doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000693. [DOI] [PubMed]
  140. Isaacs AM, Bezchlibnyk YB, Dronyk J, Urbaneja G, Yong H, Hamilton MG. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic third ventricle colloid cyst resection: case series with a proposed grading system. Oper Neurosurg 2020;19:134–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opz409 doi: 10.1093/ons/opz409. [DOI] [PubMed]
  141. Wolf A, Dedman D, Campbell J, Booth H, Lunn D, Chapman J, Myles P. Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum. Int J Epidemiol 2019;48:1740–1740g. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz034 doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  142. Turk A, Boylan A, Locock L. A Researcher’s Guide to Patient and Public Involvement. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2017. URL: https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A-Researchers-Guide-to-PPI.pdf (accessed 24 May 2021).
  143. Coupland C, Hill T, Morriss R, Moore M, Arthur A, Hippisley-Cox J. Antidepressant use and risk of cardiovascular outcomes in people aged 20 to 64: cohort study using primary care database. BMJ 2016;352:i1350. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1350 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  144. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Development and validation of risk prediction equations to estimate future risk of blindness and lower limb amputation in patients with diabetes: cohort study. BMJ 2015;351:h5441. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5441 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  145. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Diabetes treatments and risk of amputation, blindness, severe kidney failure, hyperglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia: open cohort study in primary care. BMJ 2016;352:i1450. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1450 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  146. Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ 2015;351:h4901. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4901 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  147. Xian Y, Wu J, O’Brien EC, Fonarow GC, Olson DM, Schwamm LH, et al. Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-Centered Research into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study. BMJ 2015;351:h3786. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3786 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. National Institute for Health Research. Going the Extra Mile: Improving the Nation’s Health and Wellbeing through Public Involvement in Research. 2015. URL: www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/about-us/our-contribution-to-research/how-we-involve-patients-carers-and-the-public/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf (accessed 17 January 2022).
  149. Staniszewska S, Adebajo A, Barber R, Beresford P, Brady LM, Brett J, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impacts. Int J Consum Stud 2011;35:628–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01020.x doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01020.x. [DOI]
  150. Gibson A, Britten N, Lynch J. Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health 2012;16:531–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312438563 doi: 10.1177/1363459312438563. [DOI] [PubMed]
  151. Gibson A, Welsman J, Britten N. Evaluating patient and public involvement in health research: from theoretical model to practical workshop. Health Expect 2017;20:826–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12486 doi: 10.1111/hex.12486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  152. Admon AJ, Donnelly JP, Casey JD, Janz DR, Russell DW, Joffe AM, et al. Emulating a novel clinical trial using existing observational data. Predicting results of the PreVent study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019;16:998–1007. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201903-241OC doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201903-241OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  153. García-Albéniz X, Hsu J, Hernán MA. The value of explicitly emulating a target trial when using real world evidence: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Epidemiol 2017;32:495–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-017-0287-2 doi: 10.1007/s10654-017-0287-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  154. Puca AA, Carrizzo A, Spinelli C, Damato A, Ambrosio M, Villa F, et al. Single systemic transfer of a human gene associated with exceptional longevity halts the progression of atherosclerosis and inflammation in ApoE knockout mice through a CXCR4-mediated mechanism. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2487–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz459 doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  155. McEvoy MD, Gupta R, Koepke EJ, Feldheiser A, Michard F, Levett D, et al. Perioperative Quality Initiative consensus statement on postoperative blood pressure, risk and outcomes for elective surgery. Br J Anaesth 2019;122:575–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.019 doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  156. Tan JP, Cheng KKF, Siah RC. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of education on medication adherence for patients with hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes. J Adv Nurs 2019;75:2478–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14025 doi: 10.1111/jan.14025. [DOI] [PubMed]
  157. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Higgins JPT. Chapter 25: assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. In Higgins JPT, Thomas J, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2019. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 24 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch25 doi: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch25. [DOI]
  158. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Chapter 24: including non-randomized studies. In Higgins JPT, Thomas J, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2019. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 24 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch24 doi: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch24. [DOI]
  159. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper 172. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1999.
  160. Shah SV, Gage BF. Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2011;123:2562–70. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.985655 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.985655. [DOI] [PubMed]
  161. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Dorn N, Peterson K, Martin PA. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993;13:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9301300202 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9301300202. [DOI] [PubMed]
  162. Augustovski FA, Cantor SB, Thach CT, Spann SJ. Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:824–35. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00246.x doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00246.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  163. Freeman JV, Zhu RP, Owens DK, Garber AM, Hutton DW, Go AS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:1–11. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00289 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00289. [DOI] [PubMed]
  164. O’Brien CL, Gage BF. Costs and effectiveness of ximelagatran for stroke prophylaxis in chronic atrial fibrillation. JAMA 2005;293:699–706. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.6.699 doi: 10.1001/jama.293.6.699. [DOI] [PubMed]
  165. Schleinitz MD, Weiss JP, Owens DK. Clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of vascular events: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Med 2004;116:797–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.01.014 doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  166. Cohen DJ, Breall JA, Ho KK, Kuntz RE, Goldman L, Baim DS, Weinstein MC. Evaluating the potential cost-effectiveness of stenting as a treatment for symptomatic single-vessel coronary disease. Use of a decision-analytic model. Circulation 1994;89:1859–74. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.89.4.1859 doi: 10.1161/01.cir.89.4.1859. [DOI] [PubMed]
  167. Eckman MH, Levine HJ, Salem DN, Pauker SG. Making decisions about antithrombotic therapy in heart disease: decision analytic and cost-effectiveness issues. Chest 1998;114(Suppl. 5):699–714. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.114.5_Supplement.699S doi: 10.1378/chest.114.5_Supplement.699S. [DOI] [PubMed]
  168. Coleman CI, Limone BL. Cost-effectiveness of universal and platelet reactivity assay-driven antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol 2013;112:355–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.03.036 doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  169. Crespin DJ, Federspiel JJ, Biddle AK, Jonas DE, Rossi JS. Ticagrelor versus genotype-driven antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health 2011;14:483–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  170. Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Pletcher MJ, Tice JA. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women: a cost–utility analysis. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:290–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.3.290 doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.290. [DOI] [PubMed]
  171. Meenan RT, Saha S, Chou R, Swarztrauber K, Pyle Krages K, O’Keeffe-Rosetti MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of echocardiography to identify intracardiac thrombus among patients with first stroke or transient ischemic attack. Med Decis Making 2007;27:161–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06297388 doi: 10.1177/0272989X06297388. [DOI] [PubMed]
  172. Matcher DB, Samsa GP. Secondary and Tertiary Prevention of Stroke. Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Final Report – Phase 1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.

RESOURCES