BACKGROUND: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) has demonstrated similar efficacy to conventional amphotericin B for antifungal treatment in patients with febrile neutropenia; however, it is not without toxicities and is associated with a high acquisition cost. Despite this high cost, LAmB has been shown to have a pharmacoeconomic advantage over less expensive agents. Voriconazole is a potential alternative for empirical antifungal treatment of febrile neutropenia. The objective of this study was to assess the economic outcomes of voriconazole versus LAmB in patients with fever and neutropenia. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed from a hospital perspective based on a 2-year (2002-2003) review of outcomes and prescribing practices in febrile neutropenic patients at a tertiary care medical centre. Literature reports and expert opinion were used to further populate the model. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation enhanced the robustness of the model through variation of all probabilities and costs that populated the model. RESULTS: Sixty-three cases were evaluated in the retrospective review. Thirty-two were initially given voriconazole and 31 were given LAmB. Patient demographic data were similar in each group. In the base case, patients initially given voriconazole displayed a 27% reduction in overall treatment cost over patients initially given LAmB (14,950 vs 20,591 $US). Sensitivity analysis determined that the cost advantage in the voriconazole arm was maintained over a wide range of costs and probabilities. Variance in the cost of nephrotoxicity and medication cost did not significantly alter results. Monte Carlo simulation determined the voriconazole arm to be the optimal path in 65% of cases. CONCLUSION: The decision model indicated that use of voriconazole as the preferred antifungal agent in adult haematology patients with febrile neutropenia should result in lower overall treatment costs relative to LAmB.
BACKGROUND: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) has demonstrated similar efficacy to conventional amphotericin B for antifungal treatment in patients with febrile neutropenia; however, it is not without toxicities and is associated with a high acquisition cost. Despite this high cost, LAmB has been shown to have a pharmacoeconomic advantage over less expensive agents. Voriconazole is a potential alternative for empirical antifungal treatment of febrile neutropenia. The objective of this study was to assess the economic outcomes of voriconazole versus LAmB in patients with fever and neutropenia. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed from a hospital perspective based on a 2-year (2002-2003) review of outcomes and prescribing practices in febrile neutropenicpatients at a tertiary care medical centre. Literature reports and expert opinion were used to further populate the model. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation enhanced the robustness of the model through variation of all probabilities and costs that populated the model. RESULTS: Sixty-three cases were evaluated in the retrospective review. Thirty-two were initially given voriconazole and 31 were given LAmB. Patient demographic data were similar in each group. In the base case, patients initially given voriconazole displayed a 27% reduction in overall treatment cost over patients initially given LAmB (14,950 vs 20,591 $US). Sensitivity analysis determined that the cost advantage in the voriconazole arm was maintained over a wide range of costs and probabilities. Variance in the cost of nephrotoxicity and medication cost did not significantly alter results. Monte Carlo simulation determined the voriconazole arm to be the optimal path in 65% of cases. CONCLUSION: The decision model indicated that use of voriconazole as the preferred antifungal agent in adult haematology patients with febrile neutropenia should result in lower overall treatment costs relative to LAmB.
Authors: John R Wingard; Craig A Wood; Elizabeth Sullivan; Marc L Berger; William C Gerth; Edward C Mansley Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Melissa D Johnson; Michael Kleinberg; Larry Danziger; Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner Journal: Expert Opin Pharmacother Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.889
Authors: B E de Pauw; C A Sable; T J Walsh; R J Lupinacci; M R Bourque; B A Wise; B-Y Nguyen; M J DiNubile; H Teppler Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Thomas J Walsh; Peter Pappas; Drew J Winston; Hillard M Lazarus; Finn Petersen; John Raffalli; Saul Yanovich; Patrick Stiff; Richard Greenberg; Gerald Donowitz; Mindy Schuster; Annette Reboli; John Wingard; Carola Arndt; John Reinhardt; Susan Hadley; Robert Finberg; Michél Laverdière; John Perfect; Gary Garber; Giuseppe Fioritoni; Eli Anaissie; Jeanette Lee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephan Harbarth; John P Burke; James F Lloyd; R Scott Evans; Stanley L Pestotnik; Matthew H Samore Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2002-12-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: T J Walsh; R W Finberg; C Arndt; J Hiemenz; C Schwartz; D Bodensteiner; P Pappas; N Seibel; R N Greenberg; S Dummer; M Schuster; J S Holcenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart J Turner; Esin Senol; Ates Kara; Daoud Al-Badriyeh; Ener C Dinleyici; David Cm Kong Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 3.090