BACKGROUND: Acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) patients are at high risk of suffering from invasive fungal infections (IFI). Posaconazole demonstrated higher efficacy than standard azole agents (SAA) in the prophylaxis of IFI in this population. The authors estimated the cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus SAA in France. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed to compare posaconazole with SAA with the results of a published clinical trial. Clinical events were modelled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from results of the clinical trial and from a dedicated survey on the costs of treating IFI using a retrospective chart review design. RESULTS: IFI treatment costs were estimated using medical files from 50 AML patients from six French centres, with a proven and probable IFI, who had been followed-up for 298 days on average. Direct costs directly related to IFI were estimated at €51,033, including extra costs of index hospitalisation, costs of antifungal therapy and additional hospitalisations related to IFI treatment. The model indicated that the healthcare costs for the posaconazole strategy were €5,223 (€2,697 for prophylaxis and €2,526 for IFI management), which was €859 less than the €6,083 in costs with SAA (€469 for prophylaxis and €5614 for IFI management). A sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 80% probability that prophylaxis using the posaconazole strategy would be superior. CONCLUSION: The findings from this analysis suggest that posaconazole use is a clinically and economically dominant strategy in the prophylaxis of IFI in AML patients, given the usual limits of economic models and the uncertainty of costs estimates.
BACKGROUND: Acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) patients are at high risk of suffering from invasive fungal infections (IFI). Posaconazole demonstrated higher efficacy than standard azole agents (SAA) in the prophylaxis of IFI in this population. The authors estimated the cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus SAA in France. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed to compare posaconazole with SAA with the results of a published clinical trial. Clinical events were modelled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from results of the clinical trial and from a dedicated survey on the costs of treating IFI using a retrospective chart review design. RESULTS: IFI treatment costs were estimated using medical files from 50 AMLpatients from six French centres, with a proven and probable IFI, who had been followed-up for 298 days on average. Direct costs directly related to IFI were estimated at €51,033, including extra costs of index hospitalisation, costs of antifungal therapy and additional hospitalisations related to IFI treatment. The model indicated that the healthcare costs for the posaconazole strategy were €5,223 (€2,697 for prophylaxis and €2,526 for IFI management), which was €859 less than the €6,083 in costs with SAA (€469 for prophylaxis and €5614 for IFI management). A sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 80% probability that prophylaxis using the posaconazole strategy would be superior. CONCLUSION: The findings from this analysis suggest that posaconazole use is a clinically and economically dominant strategy in the prophylaxis of IFI in AMLpatients, given the usual limits of economic models and the uncertainty of costs estimates.
Authors: Changcheng Shi; Jian Ye; Yaping Xie; Rong Dong; Weizhong Jin; Linling Wang; Yingying Fang; Qiyuan Shan; Nengming Lin Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-17