OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of voriconazole compared with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (CAB) using data from a recently reported randomized comparative trial in patients with various underlying immunosuppressive conditions. This trial demonstrated the superiority of voriconazole in terms of clinical response, survival and safety when used as primary therapy for invasive aspergillosis. METHODS: A decision analytic model was designed using an expert panel and populated primarily with efficacy and resource utilization data collected prospectively during the clinical trial. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the health care system and all costs are reported in 2002 US dollars. RESULTS: Average total treatment costs per patient were 10% lower in the voriconazole arm ($30 664) than in the CAB arm ($34 144), resulting from reduced consumption of hospital resources and fewer changes in antifungal therapy. In the base case analysis, voriconazole provided an average saving of $3481 per treated patient, resulted in a lower cost per survivor ($43 310 versus $58 971) and a lower cost per successfully treated patient ($58 100 versus $108 124) compared with CAB. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost savings observed were maintained over a wide range of alternative values for both unit costs and resource utilization, including length of hospital stay, time spent in intensive care units, bed day costs and the cost of lipid formulations of amphotericin B. CONCLUSION: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of voriconazole because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of voriconazole compared with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (CAB) using data from a recently reported randomized comparative trial in patients with various underlying immunosuppressive conditions. This trial demonstrated the superiority of voriconazole in terms of clinical response, survival and safety when used as primary therapy for invasive aspergillosis. METHODS: A decision analytic model was designed using an expert panel and populated primarily with efficacy and resource utilization data collected prospectively during the clinical trial. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the health care system and all costs are reported in 2002 US dollars. RESULTS: Average total treatment costs per patient were 10% lower in the voriconazole arm ($30 664) than in the CAB arm ($34 144), resulting from reduced consumption of hospital resources and fewer changes in antifungal therapy. In the base case analysis, voriconazole provided an average saving of $3481 per treated patient, resulted in a lower cost per survivor ($43 310 versus $58 971) and a lower cost per successfully treated patient ($58 100 versus $108 124) compared with CAB. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost savings observed were maintained over a wide range of alternative values for both unit costs and resource utilization, including length of hospital stay, time spent in intensive care units, bed day costs and the cost of lipid formulations of amphotericin B. CONCLUSION: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of voriconazole because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.
Authors: Michelle R Ananda-Rajah; Allen Cheng; C Orla Morrissey; Tim Spelman; Michael Dooley; A Munro Neville; Monica Slavin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Santiago Grau; Rafael de la Cámara; Francisco J Sabater; Isidro Jarque; Enric Carreras; Miguel A Casado; Miguel A Sanz Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Katie Falloon; Praveen R Juvvadi; Amber D Richards; José M Vargas-Muñiz; Hilary Renshaw; William J Steinbach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240