Literature DB >> 10147007

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B versus conventional amphotericin B in organ or bone marrow transplant recipients with systemic mycoses.

U Persson1, G R Tennvall, S Andersson, G Tyden, B Wettermark.   

Abstract

Economic appraisal of pharmaceuticals is becoming increasingly important. In a retrospective study of patient records from 58 organ or bone marrow-transplanted patients with systemic mycoses, the cost-effectiveness of treatment with a liposomal amphotericin B formulation was compared with that of conventional amphotericin B. Treatment with liposomal amphotericin B results in fewer adverse reactions, increased life expectancy and higher costs than treatment with conventional amphotericin B. Pricing liposomal amphotericin B at about SKE6000 per patient treatment day will result in an additional cost per life-year gained of about SEK150 000 relative to that using conventional amphotericin B for patients receiving kidney, kidney and pancreas, or pancreas transplants. For liver and bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio was about SEK195 000 and SEK150 000 per life-year gained. Compared with alternative use of resources in society and health care, use of liposomal amphotericin B rather than conventional amphotericin treatment can be considered cost-effective at the price assumed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 10147007     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199202060-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  10 in total

1.  Discounting of health benefits in the pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapies: an issue for debate?

Authors:  D Coyle; K Tolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Pancreatic transplantation using enteric exocrine diversion: the Stockholm experience with 117 cases.

Authors:  G Tydén; A Tibell; J Bolinder; J Ostman; C G Groth
Journal:  Clin Transpl       Date:  1990

3.  Allogeneic bone marrow transplantations at Huddinge Hospital and strategies to improve survival.

Authors:  O Ringdén; J Aschan; L Boström; G Dahllöf; J Tollemar; T Paulin; G Gahrton; C G Groth; S Klaesson; R Lindquist
Journal:  Clin Transpl       Date:  1990

4.  Hepatic transplantation in Europe. First Report of the European Liver Transplant Registry.

Authors:  H Bismuth; D Castaing; B G Ericzon; J B Otte; K Rolles; B Ringe; M Sloof
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1987-09-19       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease.

Authors:  M C Weinstein; W B Stason
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 21.981

6.  Opportunities for improving the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment.

Authors:  W B Stason
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1986-12-31       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Efficacy of amphotericin B encapsulated in liposomes (AmBisome) in the treatment of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients.

Authors:  O Ringdén; F Meunier; J Tollemar; P Ricci; S Tura; E Kuse; M A Viviani; N C Gorin; J Klastersky; P Fenaux
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 5.790

8.  Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome): safety data from a phase II/III clinical trial.

Authors:  F Meunier; H G Prentice; O Ringdén
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 5.790

9.  Treatment of hepatosplenic candidiasis with liposomal-amphotericin B.

Authors:  G Lopez-Berestein; G P Bodey; L S Frankel; K Mehta
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A randomized trial of cyclosporine and prednisolone versus cyclosporine, azathioprine, and prednisolone in primary cadaveric renal transplantation.

Authors:  A Lindholm; D Albrechtsen; G Tufveson; I Karlberg; N H Persson; C G Groth
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.939

  10 in total
  9 in total

Review 1.  The cost of treating systemic fungal infections.

Authors:  R van Gool
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 9.546

2.  High technology drugs for cancer: the decision process for adding to a formulary.

Authors:  J L Glennie; D M Woloschuk; K W Hall
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Costs, innovation and efficiency in anti-infective therapy.

Authors:  J L Bootman; R J Milne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Economic evaluation of intravenous itraconazole for presumed systemic fungal infections in neutropenic patients in Korea.

Authors:  K Moeremans; L Annemans; Ji-So Ryu; Kang-Won Choe; Wan-Shik Shine
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.490

Review 5.  Liposomal amphotericin B. Therapeutic use in the management of fungal infections and visceral leishmaniasis.

Authors:  A J Coukell; R N Brogden
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 6.  Lipid formulations of amphotericin B. Less toxicity but at what economic cost?

Authors:  J Tollemar; O Ringdén
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Economic aspects of treatment for fungal infections in cancer patients.

Authors:  K Torfs
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.267

8.  An economic evaluation of voriconazole versus amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Canada.

Authors:  Coleman Rotstein; Michel Laverdière; Anne Marciniak; Farzad Ali
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 9.  Economic evaluations of treatments for systemic fungal infections: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Simon Dixon; Emma McKeen; Margaret Tabberer; Suzy Paisley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.