Principal-agent theory-based cost and reimbursement structures of isavuconazole treatment in German hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Isavuconazole (ISA) is a frequently used antifungal agent for the treatment of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). However, hospital reimbursement data for ISA is limited. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to analyse the different perspectives of relevant stakeholders and the (dis)incentives for the administration of ISA in Germany. To that aim, the health economic effects of using ISA from a hospital management perspective were analysed. PATIENTS/METHODS: Based on principal-agent theory (PAT), the perspectives of (a) the patient (principal) as well as (b) physicians, (c) pharmacists and iv. hospital managers (all agents) were analysed. For the evaluation of the cost-containment and reimbursement strategies of ISA, the German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) system was used. RESULTS: Hospitals individually negotiating additional payments for innovative treatment procedures (zusatzentgelte [ZE]) within the G-DRG system is a key element of hospital management for the reduction of total healthcare expenditure. Our analysis demonstrated the beneficial role of ISA in healthcare resource utilisation, primarily due to a shortened overall length of hospital stay. Depending on underlying disease, coded G-DRG and ISA formulation, large differences in total reimbursement and the amount of ZE was shown. The PAT demonstrated disincentives for hospital managers to use innovative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the PAT, beneficial, detrimental and indifferent perspectives of different stakeholders regarding the usage of ISA were shown. A reduction of bureaucratic hurdles is needed in Germany for the extension of effective and innovative antifungal treatment strategies with ISA.

Reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in English and Spanish hospitals-The example of isavuconazole.

BACKGROUND: Kron et al (Mycoses, 64, 2021, 86) found cost savings for the use of the innovative pharmaceutical isavuconazole in the inpatient setting in Germany (Bismarck-based healthcare system). Little is known about the reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in the inpatient setting of Beveridge-based healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the market access process and reimbursement of isavuconazole, exemplary for innovative pharmaceuticals, in England and Spain. PATIENTS/METHODS: Market access processes of both countries were described. Focussing on typical patient clusters for isavuconazole treatment, reimbursement data regarding inpatients with (i) allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation or (ii) acute myeloid leukaemia was considered. Data were publicly available and of high topicality (England 2020/2021, Spain 2018). Discounting and a currency conversion to Euro were applied. RESULTS: This study showed that market access processes of both countries are broadly similar. Further, full reimbursement of isavuconazole as an innovative pharmaceutical may lead to reduction in resource utilisation. Without medication costs, isavuconazole can thus result in cost savings for both patient clusters due to a reduction in length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Expenses for innovative pharmaceuticals may be balanced or even lead to cost savings due to a reduction in length of stay. The latter contributes to a greater patient benefit. For both healthcare system, the analyses highlighted drugs' cost-effectiveness and assessing its added value into reimbursement decisions is highly relevant.

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.

Isavuconazole to prevent invasive fungal infection in immunocompromised adults: Initial experience at an academic medical centre.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of isavuconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Retrospective, single-centre cohort study of patients who received isavuconazole prophylaxis. Outcomes assessed included breakthrough IFI, early discontinuation of isavuconazole for any reason and antifungal prophylaxis prescribed at discharge. The impact on inpatient drug expenditure was evaluated using current isavuconazole and posaconazole drug costs per observed isavuconazole days of therapy (DOT) during the study period. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight courses of isavuconazole prophylaxis were administered to 98 inpatients (2193 DOT). Relapsed/refractory acute myelogenous leukaemia was the indication for prophylaxis in over half (59.4%) of patients. Breakthrough IFI occurred in 8 (5.8%) courses. Suspected drug-related toxicities led to early discontinuation in 6 (4.3%) courses (five hepatotoxicity, one drug rash). At discharge, 24 (17.4%) courses lacked insurance coverage for isavuconazole. The formulary switch to isavuconazole prophylaxis resulted in an estimated mean drug cost savings of $128.25 per DOT relative to estimated posaconazole costs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Isavuconazole may be an option for antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised adults and has the potential to produce significant inpatient drug cost savings. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole in this role.

Impact of Non-Adherence and Flare Resolution on the Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Gout: Application of a Linked Pharmacometric/Pharmacoeconomic Model.

BACKGROUND: Dual urate-lowering therapy (ULT) with lesinurad in combination with either allopurinol or febuxostat is an option for patients with gout unsuccessfully treated on either monotherapy. Treatment failure is often a result of poor medication adherence. Imperfect adherence in clinical trials may lead to biased estimates of treatment effect and confound the results of cost-effectiveness analyses. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact of varying medication adherence on the cost effectiveness of lesinurad dual therapy and estimate the value-based price of lesinurad at which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is equal to £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). METHODS: Treatment effect was simulated using published pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models and scenarios representing adherence in clinical trials, routine practice, and perfect use. The subsequent cost and health impacts, over the lifetime of a patient cohort, were estimated using a bespoke pharmacoeconomic model. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing lesinurad dual ULT with monotherapy ranged from £39,184 to £78,350/QALY gained using allopurinol and £31,901 to £124,212/QALY gained using febuxostat, depending on the assumed medication adherence. Results assuming perfect medication adherence imply a per-quarter value-based price of lesinurad of £45.14 when used in dual ULT compared with allopurinol alone and £57.75 compared with febuxostat alone, falling to £25.41 and £3.49, respectively, in simulations of worsening medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated value-based prices of lesinurad only exceeded that which has been proposed in the United Kingdom when assuming both perfect drug adherence and the eradication of gout flares in sustained treatment responders.

Nitric Oxide Releasing Nanoparticles as a Strategy to Improve Current Onychomycosis Treatments.

Topical antimicrobials are the ideal mode of onychomycosis treatment for efficient drug delivery and avoidance of sytemic effects associated with oral medications. However, high treatment costs, tissue penetration limitations, and low cure rates have continued to pose major challenges. To capitalize on the progress made by topical efinaconazole solution, efinaconazole was combined with inexpensive, previously-characterized nitric oxide releasing nanoparticles (NO-np), which have been shown to offer sustained nitric oxide release over time and enhanced barrier penetration, while exerting broad spectrum antimicrobial and immunomodulating properties. NO-np were combined with efinaconazole in varying concentrations and applied against reference strains of Trichophyton rubrum using a checkerboard method. Results demonstrated synergism of NO-np+efinaconazole against T. rubrum, which is noteworthy given the barriers present in the topical treatment of onychomycosis, and the multiple potential benefits offered by NO-np. Overall, this study illustrates the untapped potential of nanotechnology in the treatment of disorders of the skin, hair, and nails where drug delivery remains a challenge. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(7):717-720.

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel + trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

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.

Economic evaluation of azoles as primary prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in Spanish patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost-effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent. To determine the costs and outcomes associated with AFP, a decision-analytic model was used to simulate treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients undergoing alloHSCT from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Generic itraconazole was the least costly AFP (€162) relative to fluconazole (€500), posaconazole oral suspension (€8628) or voriconazole (€6850). Compared with posaconazole, voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs (36 vs 60); thus, the model predicted fewer deaths from breakthrough IFI for voriconazole (24) than posaconazole (33), and the lowest predicted costs associated with other licensed antifungal treatment and IFI treatment in a cohort of 1000. Voriconazole resulted in cost savings of €4707 per patient compared with posaconazole. Itraconazole demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective. As primary AFP in alloHSCT patients 180 days posttransplant, voriconazole was more likely to be cost-effective than posaconazole regarding cost per additional IFI and additional death avoided.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

Although recent studies demonstrated that fulvestrant is superior to anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer, the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus anastrozole remained uncertain. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant compared with anastrozole in the first-line setting. A Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer. Costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. Model results suggested that fulvestrant provides an additional effectiveness gain of 0.11 QALYs at an incremental cost of $32,654 compared with anastrozole, resulting in an ICER of $296,855/QALY exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700/QALY. Hence, fulvestrant is not a cost-effective strategy compared with anastrozole as first-line treatment for HR-positive advanced breast cancer.

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.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.

Treatment cost development of patients undergoing remission induction chemotherapy: a pharmacoeconomic analysis before and after introduction of posaconazole prophylaxis.

Prior clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness of posaconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal diseases in high-risk patients. Controversy exists about the cost-effectiveness of this approach. We performed an analysis comparing the direct costs of posaconazole prophylaxis against polyene mouthwash (thrush) prophylaxis in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML). Data of AML patients receiving remission-induction chemotherapy were extracted from the CoCoNut (Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients) database to compare hospital costs of patients before (2003-2005) and after (2006-2008) introduction of posaconazole prophylaxis. Treatment on general ward, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, diagnostic procedures, and all anti-infectives were calculated. Patient groups were well matched according to age, gender and duration of neutropenia. The mean costs per patient in the posaconazole group (n = 76) and the polyene mouthwash group (n = 81) were €21 040 (95% confidence interval (CI): €18 204-€23 876) and €23 169 (95% CI: €19 402-€26 937) per patient. Antifungal treatment costs were €4580 (95% CI: €3678-€5482) and €4019 (95% CI: €2825-€5214). Duration on the ICU was 2582 (95% CI: 984.1-4181.7) and 5517 (95% CI: 2206-8827.3) min. In our hospital, primary antifungal prophylaxis by posaconazole was cost-effective. There was a trend towards cost savings, which was primarily caused by a shorter overall length of stay and the less frequent ICU treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs in Greece.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide, added to oral antidiabetic drug mono- or combination therapy respectively, in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Greece. METHODS: The CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was adapted to the Greek healthcare setting. Patient and intervention effects data were gathered from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.2 mg once daily vs. sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, both combined with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily vs. exenatide 10 µg twice daily, both as add-on to metformin, glimepiride or both. Direct costs were reported in 2013 Euros and calculated based on published and local sources. All future outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum, and the analysis was conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, treatment with liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. sitagliptin drove a mean increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.13 (SD 0.23) years and in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.19 (0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas therapy with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. exenatide yielded increases of 0.14 (0.23) years and 0.19 (0.16) QALYs respectively. As regards lifetime direct costs, liraglutide 1.2 mg resulted in greater costs of €2797 (€1468) versus sitagliptin, and so did liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide (€1302 [€1492]). Liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg doses were associated with incremental cost effectiveness ratios of €15101 and €6818 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a Greek setting.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing first consolidation chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole are used prophylactically in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). This study evaluated the clinical and economic outcomes of these agents when used in AML patients undergoing consolidation chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective chart review (2003-10) of AML patients receiving consolidation chemotherapy was performed. Patients were followed through their first cycle of consolidation chemotherapy. Antifungal prescribing patterns, clinical outcomes and resource consumptions were recorded. A decision analytical model was developed to depict the downstream consequences of using each antifungal agent, with success defined as completion of the designated course of initial antifungal prophylaxis without developing invasive fungal disease (IFD). Cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 106 consecutive patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics and predisposing factors for IFD were comparable between groups. Three IFDs (one proven, one probable and one suspected) occurred, all in the posaconazole group. Patients receiving posaconazole had the highest rate of intolerance requiring drug cessation (13% versus 7% in each of the fluconazole and voriconazole groups). Fluconazole conferred overall savings per patient of 26% over posaconazole and 13% over voriconazole. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated a mean cost saving with fluconazole of AU$8430 per patient (95% CI AU$5803-AU$11 054) versus posaconazole and AU$3681 per patient (95% CI AU$990-AU$6319) versus voriconazole. One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to show that, in the setting of consolidation therapy for AML, fluconazole is the most cost-effective approach to antifungal prophylaxis compared with posaconazole or voriconazole.

Cost-utility analysis of oral deferasirox versus infusional deferoxamine in transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia patients.

BACKGROUND: Deferasirox (DFX) is a novel iron chelator that has been shown to have similar efficacy and safety compared with deferoxamine (DFO) in patients with ß-thalassemia. The aim of this study was to determine the cost utility of DFX versus DFO in ß-thalassemia major patients from Iran's society perspective. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model has been developed to determine lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients. To estimate the annual cost of each method, a cross-sectional study was conducted among two groups of patients who received DFO and DFX (n = 100 and n = 45, respectively). Also a time trade-off method was used to estimate the utility of two strategies. Finally a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the strength of the results. RESULTS: Our base-case analysis showed that estimated total lifetime costs per patient for DFX and DFO were 47,029 international dollar ($Int) and $Int143,522, respectively, while the estimated total discounted QALYs per person were 12.28 and 7.76, respectively. Calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that DSX is a dominant therapy and its estimated lifetime net monetary benefit was $Int273,528. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of DFX instead of DFO represents a cost-effective use of resources for treatment of iron overload in patients with ß-thalassemia from Iran's society perspective.

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

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.