Cost-Effectiveness of Antifungal Supplementation of Corneal Cold Storage Media.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supplementing hypothermic cold storage media (CSM) with antifungal therapy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). PARTICIPANT: Base case of a patient with Fuch's endothelial dystrophy undergoing a first eye keratoplasty. METHODS: Cost-effective analysis of the base case with corneal tissue stored in CSM or CSM supplemented with antifungal therapy over a 16-year time horizon. Multiple clinical scenarios were considered, including endothelial keratoplasty (EK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK); amphotericin B, voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination therapy; and third-party payer and societal perspectives. The incidences were derived from PubMed literature searches and average wholesale prices of medications; all costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the reference case, a corneal endothelial graft stored in amphotericin B-supplemented CSM was the most cost-effective approach from a third-party payer and societal perspective. Probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the societal model for the EK was robust, with 93.5% being below an arbitrary willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $20 000 per fungal infection averted. Voriconazole, caspofungin, and combination antifungals were less cost-effective than amphotericin B. The main factors influencing the CEA were the incidences of postkeratoplasty fungal infections, potential increases in graft failures, and antifungal costs. For grafts intended for PKs, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective than for EKs. CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal supplementation with amphotericin B for EK grafts was the most cost-effective approach of the studied antifungals; however, the CEA was sensitive to potential changes in graft failure rates, underlining the importance of long-term safety studies. For full-thickness corneal grafts, antifungal supplementation was less cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is well established as standard treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). In 2017, isavuconazole, a new antifungal from the azole class, with a broader pathogen spectrum, was introduced in Sweden. A model has therefore been developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole and voriconazole in the treatment of possible IA in adults in Sweden. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients with possible IA entered the model, with 6% assumed to actually have mucormycosis. It was also assumed that pathogen information would become available during the course of treatment for only 50% of patients, with differential diagnosis unavailable for the remainder. Patients who were considered unresponsive to first-line treatment were switched to second-line treatment with liposomal amphotericin-B. Data and clinical definitions included in the model were taken from the published randomised clinical trial comparing isavuconazole with voriconazole for the treatment of IA and other filamentous fungi (SECURE) and the single-arm, open-label trial and case-control analysis of isavuconazole for the treatment of mucormycosis (VITAL). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the combined parameter uncertainty, and a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a scenario analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model assumptions. The model followed a Swedish healthcare payer perspective, therefore only considering direct medical costs. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that isavuconazole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 174,890 Swedish krona (SEK) per additional quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was mainly due to the efficacy of isavuconazole against IA and mucormycosis, as opposed to voriconazole, which is only effective against IA. Sensitivity and scenario analyses of the data showed that the average ICER consistently fell below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1,000,000 SEK. The probability of isavuconazole being cost-effective at a WTP of 170,000 SEK per QALY gained was 50% and at a WTP of 500,000 SEK per QALY gained was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.

Assessment of carvacrol for control of avian aspergillosis in intratracheally challenged chickens in comparison to voriconazole with a reference on economic impact.

AIM: This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of essential oils as an alternative prophylaxis and treatment for avian aspergillosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The in vitro susceptibility of Aspergillus fumigatus strains to antifungal drugs and carvacrol, thymol, eugenol, thymoquinone and cinnamon was determined using the macrodiffusion and microdilution methods. Carvacrol has antifungal activity in comparison to voriconazole (VCZ) (MIC 0·5, 0·25 µg ml-1 respectively). While cinnamon, euganol, thymol and thymoquinone displayed moderate to weak inhibitory activity. For the efficacy study, five groups of 10-day-old chicks (n = 48) were infected intratracheally either with A. fumigatus conidia or saline (negative control). Chicks in carvacrol prophylactic and treatment (CRPT) group were fed for 10 days beginning from hatch with carvacrol (200 mg kg-1 per diet) supplemented diets. VCZ (VCZT:20 mg kg-1 body weight (BW)), carvacrol treatment (CRT, CRPT) was started upon appearance of the first clinical signs and continued for 10 days. Birds were monitored for an additional 15 days following treatment. Fungal burden and therapeutic efficacy were assessed by survival, BW, quantitative (q) culture (CFU), quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and histopathological changes at several time points. Serum biochemical changes were also assessed. VCZT, CRPT, CRT in comparison to the sham-treated (SHAM) group have prolonged survival (87·5, 83·4, 79·2, 41·7% respectively). In VCZT and CRPT, a significant reduction in clinical signs, lesions, CFU and qPCR counts to the limit of detection were observed. CRPT has the lowest BW reduction, economic losses and significant low total cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: Carvacrol has a promising potential to be used as a prophylactic and treatment against A. fumigatus. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Prognosis of avian aspergillosis is often poor due to delayed diagnosis and treatment failure. However, the widespread uses of azole prophylaxis in birds are thought to be the major driver of azole resistance. These findings create a possibility to develop an effective drug-free alternative strategy for control of avian aspergillosis.

Network Meta-analysis and Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole in Invasive Fungal Infection Prophylaxis.

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality rates and large economic burdens. Triazole prophylaxis is used for at-risk patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplants. We evaluated both the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of triazole prophylaxis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole capsule and solution, posaconazole, and voriconazole was conducted. The outcomes of interest included the incidences of IFIs and deaths. This was coupled with a cost-effectiveness analysis from patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Probabilities of transitions between health states were derived from the NMA. Resource use and costs were obtained from the Singapore health care institution. Data on 5,505 participants in 21 RCTs were included. Other than itraconazole capsule, all triazole antifungals were effective in reducing IFIs. Posaconazole was better than fluconazole (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.73]) and itraconazole capsule (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.97]), but not voriconazole (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.43 to 4.01]), in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole significantly reduced all-cause deaths, compared to placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole solution (OR, 0.49 to 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for itraconazole solution was lower than that for posaconazole (Singapore dollars [SGD] 12,546 versus SGD 26,817 per IFI avoided and SGD 5,844 versus SGD 12,423 per LY saved) for transplant patients. For leukemia patients, itraconazole solution was the dominant strategy. Voriconazole was dominated by posaconazole. All triazole antifungals except itraconazole capsule were effective in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole was more efficacious in reducing IFIs and all-cause deaths than were fluconazole and itraconazole. Both itraconazole solution and posaconazole were cost-effective in the Singapore health care setting.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of voriconazole prophylaxis for prevention of invasive aspergillosis in high-risk liver transplant recipients.

Aspergillus infection remains a significant and deadly complication after liver transplantation (LT). We sought to determine whether the antifungal prophylactic use of voriconazole reduces the incidence of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in high-risk LT recipients without prohibitively increasing cost. During the study era (April 2008 to April 2014), 339 deceased donor LTs were performed. Of those patients, 174 high-risk recipients were administered antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole. The median biological Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score at the time of LT was 33 (range, 18-49) with 56% requiring continuous renal replacement therapy and 50% requiring ventilatory support immediately before transplantation. Diagnosis of IA was stratified as proven, probable, or possible according to previously published definitions. No IA was documented in patients receiving voriconazole prophylaxis. At 90 days after LT, the institutional cost of prophylaxis was $5324 or 5.6% of the predicted cost associated with post-LT aspergillosis. There was no documentation of resistant strains isolated from any recipient who received voriconazole. In conclusion, these data suggest that voriconazole prophylaxis is safe, clinically effective, and cost-effective in high-risk LT recipients.

Budget impact analysis of CYP2C19-guided voriconazole prophylaxis in AML.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the economic impact of proactive, CYP2C19 genotype-guided voriconazole prophylaxis in AML. METHODS: An Excel-based model was created to project the cost of treating a simulated cohort of severely neutropenic AML patients undergoing antifungal prophylaxis. The model compares (i) standard prophylactic dosing with voriconazole and (ii) CYP2C19 genotyping of all AML patients to guide voriconazole dosing and prescribing. RESULTS: Based on the model, genotype-guided dosing of voriconazole conservatively spares 2.3 patients per year from invasive fungal infections. Implementing proactive genotyping of all AML patients in a simulated 100 patient cohort is expected to save a total of $41467 or $415 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The model, based on the robust literature of clinical and economic data, predicts that proactive genotype-guided voriconazole prophylaxis is likely to yield modest cost savings while improving patient outcomes. The primary driver of savings is the avoidance of expensive antifungal treatment and extended hospital stays, costing $30 952 per patient, in patients succumbing to fungal infection.

Economic evaluation of a preemptive treatment strategy for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases.

We compared the expected medical costs of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases. Based on the results of two clinical trials with different backgrounds reported by Oshima et al. [J Antimicrob Chemother 60(2):350-355; Oshima study] and Cordonnier et al. [Clin Infect Dis 48(8):1042-1051; PREVERT study], we developed a decision tree model that represented the outcomes of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies, and estimated the expected medical costs of medications and examinations in the two strategies. We assumed that micafungin was started in the empirical group at 5 days after fever had developed, while voriconazole was started in the preemptive group only when certain criteria, such as positive test results of imaging studies and/or serum markers, were fulfilled. When we used an incidence of positive test results of 6.7 % based on the Oshima study, the expected medical costs of the empirical and preemptive groups were 288,198 and 150,280 yen, respectively. Even in the case of the PREVERT study, in which the incidence of positive test results was 32.9 %, the expected medical costs in the empirical and preemptive groups were 291,871 and 284,944 yen, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the expected medical costs in the preemptive group would exceed those in the empirical group when the incidence of positive test results in the former was over 34.4 %. These results suggest that a preemptive treatment strategy can be expected to reduce medical costs compared with empirical therapy in most clinical settings.

Antifungal step-down therapy based on hospital intravenous to oral switch policy and susceptibility testing in adult patients with candidaemia: a single centre experience.

AIMS: Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of candidaemia in moderately severe to severely ill patients. Step-down or de-escalation from echinocandin to fluconazole is advised in patients who are clinically stable but data in relation to step-down therapy are sparse. Using our hospital intravenous to oral switch therapy (IVOST) policy to guide antifungal de-escalation in patients with candidaemia, we aimed to determine what proportion of patients are de-escalated to fluconazole, the timescale to step-down, associated reduction in consumption of echinocandins and antifungal cost savings. METHODOLOGY: Patients with candidaemia were followed from April 2011 to March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 37 episodes of candidaemia were documented during the study period. Twenty-seven patients were commenced on an echinocandin or voriconazole and 19 (70.3%) were de-escalated to fluconazole based on the IVOST policy. The mean and median number of days to de-escalation of therapy was 4.6 and 5 days, respectively. One patient whose therapy was de-escalated relapsed. The overall 30 day crude mortality was 37.1%. The step-down approach led to significant saving in antifungal drug cost of £1133.88 per candidaemic episode and £2208.08 per de-escalation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of IVOST policy led to streamlining of antifungal therapy.

The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to the standard of care in the treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection prior to differential pathogen diagnosis in the United Kingdom.

Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared with the standard of care, voriconazole, for the treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection disease when differential diagnosis of the causative pathogen has not yet been achieved at treatment initiation.Materials and methods: The economic model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and used a decision-tree approach to reflect real-world treatment of patients with invasive fungal infection (IFI) prior to differential pathogen diagnosis. It was assumed that 7.8% of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis at treatment initiation actually had mucormycosis, and confirmation of pathogen identification was achieved for 50% of all patients during treatment. To extrapolate to a lifetime horizon, the model considered expected survival based on the patients' underlying condition. The model estimated the incremental costs (costs of drugs, laboratory analysis, hospitalization, and management of adverse events) and clinical outcomes (life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) of first-line treatment with isavuconazole compared with voriconazole. The robustness of the results was assessed by conducting deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Isavuconazole delivered 0.48 more LYs and 0.39 more QALYs per patient at an incremental cost of £3,228, compared with voriconazole in the treatment of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis. This equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8,242 per additional QALY gained and £6,759 per LY gained. These results were driven by a lack of efficacy of voriconazole in mucormycosis. Results were most sensitive to the mortality of IA patients and treatment durations.Conclusions: At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY, the use of isavuconazole for the treatment of patients with IFI prior to differential pathogen diagnosis in the UK can be considered a cost-effective allocation of healthcare resources compared with voriconazole.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Isavuconazole vs. Voriconazole as First-Line Treatment for Invasive Aspergillosis.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. The phase III SECURE trial demonstrated non-inferiority in clinical efficacy between isavuconazole and voriconazole. No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to voriconazole. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole for the first-line treatment of IA from the US hospital perspective. METHODS: An economic model was developed to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole in hospitalized patients with IA. The time horizon was the duration of hospitalization. Length of stay for the initial admission, incidence of readmission, clinical response, overall survival rates, and experience of adverse events (AEs) came from the SECURE trial. Unit costs were from the literature. Total costs per patient were estimated, composed of drug costs, costs of AEs, and costs of hospitalizations. Incremental costs per death avoided and per additional clinical responders were reported. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: Base case analysis showed that isavuconazole was associated with a $7418 lower total cost per patient than voriconazole. In both incremental costs per death avoided and incremental costs per additional clinical responder, isavuconazole dominated voriconazole. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Isavuconazole was cost saving and dominant vs. voriconazole in most DSA. In PSA, isavuconazole was cost saving in 80.2% of the simulations and cost-effective in 82.0% of the simulations at the $50,000 willingness to pay threshold per additional outcome. CONCLUSION: Isavuconazole is a cost-effective option for the treatment of IA among hospitalized patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

Voriconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are associated with a high mortality, and accordingly most alloHSCT recipients receive prophylaxis with antifungal agents. Despite some improvement in outcomes of IFIs over time, they continue to represent substantial clinical risk, mortality, and financial burden. Areas covered: We review the main pathogens responsible for IFIs in recipients of alloHSCT, current treatment recommendations, and discuss clinical and economic considerations associated with voriconazole prophylaxis of IFIs in these patients. Expert commentary: The clinical efficacy of voriconazole appears to be at least equivalent to other antifungal treatments, and generally well tolerated. Overall, benefit-risk balance is favorable, and findings from cost-effectiveness analyses support the use of voriconazole prophylaxis of IFIs in recipients of alloHSCT.

Assessment of high-priced systemic antifungal prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES: To assess compliance with international guidelines for costly antifungal prescriptions and to compare these results with a first study performed in 2007. METHODS: Retrospective study including all costly antifungal prescriptions made in surgical and medical intensive care units and in a hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and digestive surgery unit. Prescriptions were assessed in terms of indication, dosage, and antifungal de-escalation. RESULTS: Seventy-four treatments were analyzed. Treatments were prescribed for prophylactic (1%), empirical (22%), pre-emptive (16%), or targeted therapy (61%). Caspofungin accounted for 68% of prescriptions, followed by voriconazole (20%) and liposomal amphotericin B (12%). Indication was appropriate in 91%, debatable in 1%, and inappropriate in 8%. Dosage was appropriate in 69%, debatable in 8%, and inappropriate in 23%. Prescriptions were inappropriate for the following reasons: lack of dosage adjustment in light of the hepatic function (10 cases), underdosage or excessive dosage by>25% of the recommended dose in seven cases. De-escalation to fluconazole was implemented in 40% of patients presenting with a fluconazole-susceptible candidiasis. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of appropriate use was higher in 2012 compared with 2007 (62% and 37% respectively, P=0.004). Nevertheless, costly antifungal prescriptions need to be optimized in particular for empirical therapy, dosage adjustment, and potential de-escalation to fluconazole.

Hospital resource use of patients receiving isavuconazole vs voriconazole for invasive mold infections in the phase III SECURE trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase III SECURE trial, isavuconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for all-cause mortality for the primary treatment of invasive mold disease (IMD) caused by Aspergillus spp. and other filamentous fungi. This analysis assessed whether hospital resource utilization was different between patients treated with isavuconazole vs voriconazole in SECURE. METHODS: The analysis population comprised adults with proven/probable/possible IMD enrolled in SECURE. The primary endpoint was hospital length of stay (LOS) in the overall trial population. Patients were also stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate-modification of diet in renal disease category (< 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [moderate-to-severe impairment] and ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [mild or no impairment]), body mass index (BMI; <25, ≥25-<30, and ≥30 kg/m(2)), and age (≤45, >45-≤65, and >65 years). RESULTS: Data from 516 patients (258 per arm) were evaluated. Overall, median LOS was not statistically significantly different between the isavuconazole (15.0 days) and voriconazole (16.0 days; p = 0.607) arms. Median LOS was statistically significantly shorter in patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment treated with isavuconazole (9.0 days) vs voriconazole (19.0 days; hazard ratio [HR]: 3.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-7.83). Median LOS was shorter, but not significantly, in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) (isavuconazole 13.5 days vs voriconazole 22 days; HR = 1.57; 95% CI = 0.70-3.52) or aged >65 years (isavuconazole 15.0 days vs voriconazole 20.0 days; HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.87-2.16). LIMITATIONS: As the patient subgroups analyzed were small, sub-group findings should be interpreted with caution in light of the lack of statistical significance for each sub-group-by-treatment interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Isavuconazole may reduce hospital LOS in certain subgroups of patients with IMD, especially those with moderate-to-severe renal impairment.

Economic Comparison of an Empirical Versus Diagnostic-Driven Strategy for Treating Invasive Fungal Disease in Immunocompromised Patients.

PURPOSE: Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective. METHODS: An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for ≥10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30% of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling. FINDINGS: Total costs were 32% lower for the DD strategy (£1561.29) versus the empirical strategy (£2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41% (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers.

Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain.

BACKGROUND: The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain. METHODS: A decision analytic model based on a decision tree was constructed to estimate the potential treatment costs of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B. Each model pathway was defined by the probability of an event occurring and the costs of clinical outcomes. Outcome probabilities and cost inputs were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert panels and local database costs. In the base case, patients who failed to respond to first-line therapy were assumed to experience a single switch between comparator drugs or the other drug was added as second-line treatment. Base-case evaluation included only drug-management costs and additional hospitalisation costs due to severe AEs associated with first- and second-line therapies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost estimates were inflated to 2011 euros (€). RESULTS: Based on clinical trial success rates of 52.8% (voriconazole) and 50.0% (liposomal amphotericin B), voriconazole had lower total treatment costs compared with liposomal amphotericin B in both Germany (€ 12,256 versus € 18,133; length of therapy [LOT] = 10-day intravenous [IV] + 5-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B) and Spain (€ 8,032 versus € 10,516; LOT = 7-day IV + 8-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B). Assuming the same efficacy (50.0%) in first-line therapy, voriconazole maintained a lower total treatment cost compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Cost savings were primarily due to the lower drug acquisition costs and shorter IV LOT associated with voriconazole. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to drug price, particularly the cost of liposomal amphotericin B. CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole is likely to be cost-saving compared with liposomal amphotericin B when used as a first-line treatment for IA in Germany and Spain.