Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of voriconazole vs. liposomal amphotericin B in empiric treatment of invasive fungal infections in Turkey

BMC Infectious Diseases

David CM Kong²  Ener C Dinleyici⁶  Daoud Al-Badriyeh¹  Ates Kara⁴  Esin Senol⁵  Stuart J Turner³ 

[1] College of Pharmacy, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar;Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University (Parkville Campus), 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia;Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA;Department of Pediatric Infectious Disease, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey;Department of Infectious Disease, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey;Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Intensive Care and Pediatric Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir 26480, Turkey

关键词: Empiric therapy;    Invasive fungal infection;    Economic evaluation;    Liposomal amphotericin B;    Voriconazole;    Antifungal agents;   

Others  :  1138276
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2334-13-560

 received in 2013-07-30, accepted in 2013-11-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with considerable expense and mortality on healthcare systems. There is a need to provide evidence of both clinical efficacy and value for money with any health technology. The current pharmacoeconomic evaluation investigated the use of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) and voriconazole for the empiric treatment of IFI in the Turkish setting.

Methods

Decision analytic modelling was used to create a pathway for patient treatment with a 5-point composite outcome measure. The data was obtained from a major non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled study, with an expert panel of clinicians in Turkey providing transition probabilities and cost not available in the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the inputs from the clinical trial and the expert panel.

Results

As per the base case analysis, voriconazole was preferred by Turkish Lira (TL) 2,523 per patient treated and TL2,520 per surviving patient. LAmB was the preferred alternative by TL5,362 per successfully treated patient. Removing fever resolution as part of the composite outcome measure resulted in voriconazole being the preferred alternative per successfully treated patient. Univariate sensitivity analysis highlighted that increasing the duration of voriconazole by >1.2 days or decreasing LAmB by >1.0 days changes the result. Monte Carlo Simulation resulted in 69.4% of simulations favouring voriconazole per patient treated.

Conclusion

There is a strong likelihood that voriconazole is economically more favourable than LAmB in the empiric treatment of IFI in Turkey.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Turner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rüping M, Vehreschild J, Cornely O: Patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections: when and how to treat. Drugs 2008, 68(14):1941-1962.
• [2]Slavin M, Fastenau J, Sukarom I, Mavros P, Crowley S, Gerth W: Burden of hospitalization of patients with Candida and Aspergillus infections in Australia. Int J Infect Dis 2004, 8:111-120.
• [3]Walsh T, Pappas P, Winston D, Lazarus H, Petersen F, Raffali J, Yanovich S, Stiff P, Greenberg R, Donowitz G, et al.: Voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med 2002, 346(4):225-234.
• [4]Maertens J, Marchetti O, Herbrecht R, Cornely O, Fluckiger U, Frere P, Gachot B, Heinz W, Lass-Florl C, Ribaud P, et al.: European guidelines for antifungal management in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: summary of the ECIL 3-2009 update. Bone Marrow Transplant 2011, 46(5):709-718.
• [5]Freifeld A, Bow E, Sepkowitz K, Boeckh M, Ito J, Mullen C, Raad I, Rolston K, Young J, Wingard J: Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2011, 52(4):e56-93.
• [6]Kubiak D, Bryar J, McDonnell A, Delgado-Flores J, Mui E, Baden L, Marty F: Evaluation of caspofungin or micafungin as empiric antifungal therapy in adult patients with persistent febrile neutropenia: a retrospective, observational, sequential cohort analysis. Clin Ther 2010, 32(4):637-648.
• [7]Walsh T, Teppler H, Donowitz G, Maertens J, Baden L, Dmoszynska A, Cornely O, Bourque M, Lupinacci R, Sable C, et al.: Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2004, 351(14):1391-1402.
• [8]Brielmaier B, Casabar E, Kurtzeborn C, McKinnon P, Ritchie D: Early clinical experience with anidulafungin at a large tertiary care medical center. Pharmacotherapy 2007, 28(1):64-73.
• [9]Jeu L, Placenti F, Lyakhovetskiy A, Fung H: Voriconazole. Clin Ther 2003, 25(5):1321-1381.
• [10]Al-Badriyeh D, Liew D, Stewart K, Kong D: Cost-effectiveness evaluation of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as empirical therapy for febrile neutropenia in Australia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009, 63(1):197-208.
• [11]Collins C, Stuntebeck E, DePestel D, Stevenson J: Pharmacoeconomic analysis of liposomal amphotericin B versus voriconazole for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia. Clin Drug Invest 2007, 27(4):233-241.
• [12]Shehab N, DePestel D, Mackler E, Collins C, Welch K, Erba H: Institutional experience with voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B as empiric therapy for febrile neutropenia. Pharmacotherapy 2007, 27(7):970-979.
• [13]Wingard J, Leather H, Wood C, Gerth W, Lupinacci R, Berger M, Mansley E: Pharmacoeconomic analysis of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy for neutropenic fever. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007, 64(6):637-643.
• [14]Turner S, Chen S, Slavin M, Kong D: Pharmacoeconomics of empirical antifungal use in febrile neutropenic hematological malignancy and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013, 13(2):227-235.
• [15]Republic of Turkey-social security institution http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/en?CSRT=16458562213556365941 webcite
• [16]Bruynesteyn K, Gant V, McKenzi C, Pagliuca T, Poynton C, Kumar R, Jansen J: A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK. Eur J Haematol 2007, 78(6):532-539.
• [17]de Pauw B, Sable C, Walsh T, Lupinacci R, Bourque M, Wise B, Nguyen B-Y, DiNubile M, Teppler H: Impact of alternate definitions of fever resolution on the composite endpoint in clinical trials of empirical antifungal therapy for neutropenia patients with persistent fever: analysis of results from the caspofungin empirical therapy study. Transpl Infect Dis 2006, 8(1):31-37.
• [18]Al-Badriyeh D, Liew D, Stewart K, Kong D: Economic impact of caspofungin as compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in febrile neutropenia in Australia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009, 63(6):1276-1285.
• [19]Al-Badriyeh D, Liew D, Stewart K, Kong D: Pharmacoeconomic analysis of voriconazole vs. caspofungin in the empirical antifungal therapy of febrile neutropenia in Australia. Mycoses 2012, 55(3):244-256.
• [20]Tatar M, Mollahaliloglu S, Sahin B, Aydin S, Maresso A, Hernandez-Quevado C: Turkey, health system review. Health Syst Transit 2011, 13(6):1-184.
• [21]Romá-Sánchez E, Poveda-Andrés J, García-Pellicer J, Salavert-Lletí M, Jarque-Ramos I: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the empirical antifungal strategy in oncohaematological patients. Farm Hosp 2008, 32(1):7-17.
• [22]Powers J, Dixon C, Goldberger M: Voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med 2002, 346(4):289-290.
• [23]Kaskel P, Tuschy S, Wagner A, Bannert C, Cornely O, Glasmacher A, Lipp H, Ullmann A: Economic evaluation of caspofungin vs liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy of suspected systemic fungal infection in the German hospital setting. Ann Hematol 2008, 87(4):311-319.
• [24]Stam W, Aversa F, Kumar R, Jansen J: Economic evaluation of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empiric antifungal treatment in patients with neutropenic fever in Italy. Value Health 2008, 11(5):830-841.
• [25]Naik S, Lundberg J, Kumar R, Sjolin J, Jansen J: Economic evaluation of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia in Sweden. Scand J Infect Dis 2011, 43(6-7):504-514.