Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Posaconazole is superior to fluconazole or itraconazole in preventing invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in patients with haematological malignancies; however, there have been reports of the comparing posaconazole and voriconazole. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective study in China enrolled AML, ALL and MDS patients, among others. Prophylaxis with posaconazole or voriconazole was administered for patients recovering from neutropenia or who had achieved complete remission. The primary emphasis was proven, probable, or possible IFDs during treatment. The cost-effectiveness, the proportion of adverse events and systemic antifungal treatment were the secondary emphasis. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were recruited to receive posaconazole (n=81) or voriconazole (n=83). The incidence rates of proven, probable or possible IFD were 2.46% (2/81) and 4.82% (4/83) in the posaconazole group and voriconazole groups, respectively (P>0.05). Only one patients experienced adverse events on posaconazole, while eleven patients experienced such events on voriconazole (P=0.003). Patients receiving posaconazole or voriconazole had similar proportions of systemic antifungal treatment: 18.52% (15/81) in the posaconazole group and 16.87% (14/83) in the voriconazole group (P>0.05). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the prognosis of the two groups was close, but the drug acquisition costs of posaconazole were higher than those of voriconazole (P=0.021). CONCLUSION: Posaconazole and voriconazole have the same prophylactic effect against IFDs in high-risk neutropenic Chinese patients. However, the safety of posaconazole is superior to that of voriconazole, while in terms of cost-effectiveness, voriconazole has an advantage over posaconazole.

[Economic evaluation on different two-dose-vaccination-strategies related to Measles, Mumps and Rubella Combined Attenuated Live Vaccine].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic effect of Measles, Mumps and Rubella Combined Attenuated Live Vaccine (MMR) under different two-dose vaccination programs. METHODS: A hypothetical birth cohort of 750 000 infants over their lifetime, was followed up from birth through death in Zhejiang province. The current MMR vaccination strategie would include three different ones: 1) Childlern were vaccinated with Measles-Rubella Combined Attenuated Live Vaccine and MMR, respectively at the age of 8 months and 18 months. 2) Children receive MMR at 8 months and 18 months, 3) Strategy 1 plus an additional vaccination of MMR at 4 years of age. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICBR) and incremental net benefit (INB) were applied to calculate the health economic difference for Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 as compared to Strategy 1. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of results with main parameters, including the rate of immunization coverage, effectiveness of the vaccines, incidence and burdens of the related diseases, cost of vaccines and the vaccination program itself. RESULTS: ICER, ICBR and INB for Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 appeared as 2 012.51∶1 RMB Yuan per case and 4 238.72∶1 RMB Yuan per case, 1∶3.14 and 1∶1.58, 21 277 800 RMB Yuan and 9 276 500 RMB Yuan, respectively. Only slight changes (<20%) were found under the univariate sensitivity analysis, with varied values on main parameters. CONCLUSION: Based on the current national immunization program, infants vaccinated with MMR at 8 months of age, generated more health economic effects than the Strategy 3.

Lack of benefit of CD34+ cell selected over non-selected peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: results of a single center study.

In order to determine the clinical impact of CD34+ cell selected autologous transplantation in multiple myeloma (MM), we have performed a retrospective case-controlled analysis comparing 21 MM patients receiving high-dose melphalan and autologous transplantation with CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) as front-line therapy to 21 control patients receiving unselected products. Case matching was performed using the following criteria: age and beta2-microglobulin at diagnosis and disease status at the time of transplantation. Both cohorts were homogeneous in term of induction treatment and conditioning regimen. Patients were collected for CD34+ selection after priming with G-CSF alone. Significantly fewer CD34+ cells/kg were infused to patients in the selected group as compared to patients in the control group: 2.2 (range 0.5-14.3) vs 9.4 (range 1.1-15) (P < 0.001). The median time to neutrophil recovery > or =0.05 x 10(9)/l was 10 days for the CD34+ group and 9.5 days for the control group (P = 0.357). The median time to platelet recovery > or = 20 x 10(9)/l was 9 days for the CD34+ group and 4.5 days for the control group (P = 0.005). Response rates were comparable in both groups (85.7% in the CD34+ group vs 90.4% in the control group). At 3 years, event-free survival (32% in the CD34+ group vs 39% in the control group) and overall survival (85% in the CD34+ group vs 79% in the control group) were not significantly different. Finally, use of unselected products dramatically reduced the cost of the transplantation procedure. This study shows that CD34+ cell selected autologous transplantation is more expensive than transplantation with unselected products and does not improve the clinical outcome of patients with MM.