INTRODUCTION: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) remain a clinical concern in hematological patients with prolonged neutropenia because they are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In a recent randomized trial, prophylaxis with posaconazole was associated with fewer IFI and related deaths relative to a fluconazole or itraconazole (Flu/Itra) control group (p < 0.001). In the current study, a cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate the economic value of posaconazole as an alternative to Flu/Itra when used to prevent IFI in this patient population. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed using clinical and economic data from randomized comparative trials, the economic literature, and from expert opinion. The data were then used to estimate the incremental cost per life year saved with oral posaconazole prophylaxis relative to Flu/Itra from the Canadian provincial health care system perspective. The base case results were then tested with a sensitivity analysis which evaluated extremes in the incidence of IFI as well as variations in their cost of management. RESULTS: Prophylaxis with posaconazole provides increased efficacy and an overall cost savings of approximately $Can4,259 per patient. Despite variations in the base case parameters, the sensitivity analysis suggested stability in the primary findings. Posaconazole was associated with an overall cost savings (range = $Can1,765 to $Can4,505) in all of the scenarios evaluated. Optimal cost effectiveness was obtained because the drug was able to avoid the more resource intensive Aspergillus infections. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with posaconazole in cancer patients with prolonged neutropenia is not only cost effective but also cost saving. The economic benefits were due to the drug's ability to reduce the incidence of high cost fungal infections, particularly Aspergillus species.
INTRODUCTION:Invasive fungal infections (IFI) remain a clinical concern in hematological patients with prolonged neutropenia because they are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In a recent randomized trial, prophylaxis with posaconazole was associated with fewer IFI and related deaths relative to a fluconazole or itraconazole (Flu/Itra) control group (p < 0.001). In the current study, a cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate the economic value of posaconazole as an alternative to Flu/Itra when used to prevent IFI in this patient population. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed using clinical and economic data from randomized comparative trials, the economic literature, and from expert opinion. The data were then used to estimate the incremental cost per life year saved with oral posaconazole prophylaxis relative to Flu/Itra from the Canadian provincial health care system perspective. The base case results were then tested with a sensitivity analysis which evaluated extremes in the incidence of IFI as well as variations in their cost of management. RESULTS: Prophylaxis with posaconazole provides increased efficacy and an overall cost savings of approximately $Can4,259 per patient. Despite variations in the base case parameters, the sensitivity analysis suggested stability in the primary findings. Posaconazole was associated with an overall cost savings (range = $Can1,765 to $Can4,505) in all of the scenarios evaluated. Optimal cost effectiveness was obtained because the drug was able to avoid the more resource intensive Aspergillus infections. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with posaconazole in cancerpatients with prolonged neutropenia is not only cost effective but also cost saving. The economic benefits were due to the drug's ability to reduce the incidence of high cost fungal infections, particularly Aspergillus species.
Authors: Thomas J Walsh; Elias J Anaissie; David W Denning; Raoul Herbrecht; Dimitrios P Kontoyiannis; Kieren A Marr; Vicki A Morrison; Brahm H Segal; William J Steinbach; David A Stevens; Jo-Anne van Burik; John R Wingard; Thomas F Patterson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M Nucci; I Biasoli; T Akiti; F Silveira; C Solza; G Barreiros; N Spector; A Derossi; W Pulcheri Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: C O Morrissey; P G Bardy; M A Slavin; M R Ananda-Rajah; S C Chen; S W Kirsa; D S Ritchie; A Upton Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Eric J Bow; Michel Laverdière; Nathalie Lussier; Coleman Rotstein; Mary S Cheang; Stratis Ioannou Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amy K O'Sullivan; Ankur Pandya; George Papadopoulos; David Thompson; Amelia Langston; John Perfect; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Value Health Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sapha Barkati; Simon F Dufresne; Sylvie Bélanger; Barbara Vadnais; Julie Bergeron; Annie Claude Labbé; Michel Laverdière Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2014-05-07
Authors: Josephine Mauskopf; Costel Chirila; Jon Graham; Iris D Gersten; Helen Leather; Richard T Maziarz; Lindsey R Baden; Javier Bolaños-Meade; Janice M Y Brown; Thomas J Walsh; Mary H Horowitz; Joanne Kurtzberg; Kieren A Marr; John R Wingard Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Ann T MacIntyre; Alex Hirst; Radha Duttagupta; Desiree Hollemon; David K Hong; Timothy A Blauwkamp Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 2.561