Table 2.

Results from the Ticagrelor Case Study^a

	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	Total	% of $\mathit{p}\mathrm{EVPIM}$
$p$INB	6	550	813	892	908	3168
$p\mathrm{EVPIM}$	1297	730	381	295	239	2941
Value of eliminating slow, low, and delayed implementation
A	0	463	133	48	0	644	21.9
B	0	266	249	247	239	1000	34.0
C	1297	0	0	0	0	1297	44.1
C1	1026	0	0	0	0	1026	34.9
C2	271	0	0	0	0	271	9.2
Value of eliminating regional implementation variation
D	26	504	232	208	167	1138	38.7
E	0	146	75	13	0	234	8.0
F	0	79	74	74	71	298	10.1
C1	1026	0	0	0	0	1026	34.9
C2a	190	0	0	0	0	190	6.5
C2b	55	0	0	0	0	55	1.9
Sensitivity analysis
Increased implementation level up to
Highest implementing region (D)	26	504	232	208	167	1138	38.7
Top 3 regions	13	446	215	187	126	989	33.6
Top 5 regions	9	418	198	171	99	896	30.5
Top 10 regions	3	282	162	132	68	647	22.0
Different assumptions on effect from increasing proportion receiving dual antiplatelet therapy
1) Same effect and INB as estimated from the PLATO trial						505
2) Double QALY gain and same cost as estimated form the PLATO trial						1066
3) Half the QALY gain and same cost as estimated from the PLATO trial						225
4) Zero QALY gain but same cost as estimated for the PLATO trial						−56

EVPIM, expected value of perfect implementation; PLATO, Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes.

^aData show incremental net benefit estimates (INBs) in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from eliminating slow (A), low (B), and delayed (C = C1 + C2) implementation, as well as the value of eliminating regional implementation variation (D).