of novel cancer drugs approved over the past 11 years are used with a curative intent or provide a survival benefit in the palliative care setting. However, the monthly cost for agents not providing these benefits was higher, indicating a disconnect between efficacy and cost.

Objectives: This study was conducted to compare health and cost outcomes utilizing either Ticagrelor versus Plavix in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, and impact of generic Clopidogrel used in Hong Kong. MethOds: A decision analytic model was used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of treating ACS patients for one year with Ticagrelor plus aspirin strategy compared with Plavix (or generic Clopidogrel) plus aspirin strategy from Hong Kong health care provider perspective. To estimate discounted (3%) lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The health states in the model included patient in ACS without event, myocardial infarction (MI), and death from vascular cause. The model simulates a cohort of 45-year-old patients with ACS, and Markov cycle is one year. The time horizon was lifetime (85 years old). Event rates were adopted from the PLATO study, and the ACS registry in the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) in Hong Kong. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. Results: Compared with the Plavix (or generic Clopidogrel) treatment strategy, the Ticagrelor treatment strategy for ACS, STEMI, and UA / NSTEMI patients were associated with

This study presents a limitation regarding the subjectivity inherent to costs determination based on answers given by the HP. Moreover values may be underestimated due to lack of information regarding fixed costs.