Cost analysis of ganciclovir and foscarnet in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with cytomegalovirus viremia.

BACKGROUND: Ganciclovir (GCV) and foscarnet (FOS) are the most commonly used antivirals for preemptive treatment of cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). The current literature indicates similar efficacy between these agents. Thus, the primary consideration for choice of initial anti-CMV treatment is the safety profile, time period after alloHCT, and concern of myelosuppression or renal dysfunction. METHODS: Herein, we retrospectively reviewed medical records of 124 alloHCT recipients who received GCV or FOS between April 27, 2014, and December 31, 2015, during the first year post-transplant. Healthcare resource use included drug, hospitalization, home health, dialysis, and growth factor costs. RESULTS: Total duration of therapy was longer in the GCV group (37 days vs 28 days, P = .21) but hospitalization days were similar (9 days) in both groups. The total treatment cost was significantly lower in the GCV group ($38 100 vs $59 400, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Preemptive anti-CMV therapy is associated with major healthcare resource costs, which were greater in patients who required FOS than those who were treated with GCV.

Economic evaluation of systemic treatments for cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost of using systemic therapy to treat newly diagnosed cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis in persons with AIDS. DESIGN: Incidence-based simulation model of CMV treatment from a government payer perspective. SETTING: Swiss healthcare system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with AIDS and newly diagnosed CMV retinitis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to 1 of 4 treatment regimens for induction and maintenance therapy: (i) intravenous (IV) cidofovir induction and maintenance (cidofovir IV/IV); (ii) IV foscarnet induction and maintenance (foscarnet IV/IV); (iii) IV ganciclovir induction and maintenance (ganciclovir IV/IV); and (iv) IV ganciclovir induction and oral (PO) ganciclovir maintenance (ganciclovir IV/PO). Following a second relapse, patients were assigned to one of the other regimens. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to first and subsequent progression, duration of maintenance treatment and direct medical expenditures [1998 Swiss francs (SwF)] . RESULTS: The median time to first progression was longest for cidofovir IV/IV, followed by foscarnet IV/IV, ganciclovir IV/IV and ganciclovir IV/PO. Mean survival was 13 months and mean costs for this period in the base case were lowest in those initially treated with cidofovir (SwF146,742), followed by initial treatment with foscarnet IV/IV (SwF194,809), ganciclovir IV/PO (SwF195,190) and ganciclovir IV/IV (SwF243,964). Costs were most sensitive to changes in efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the regimens studied, initiation of treatment with systemic cidofovir appears least costly over a 13-month period.

Clinical and ethical perspectives on rationing of high-cost drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the use of high-cost drugs from a clinical decision-making approach and ethical perspectives on rationing. CASE: The case of a 26-year-old intravenous drug user with AIDS raises issues of how to ration high-cost drugs such as foscarnet, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) for septic shock, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. ASSESSMENT: Should a patient with a terminal illness receive high-cost drugs given limited healthcare resources? Necessary clinical information including treatment algorithms, risk to benefit ratios, and cost-effectiveness data are evaluated. Rationing, especially bedside rationing, by the clinician is rejected because it is contrary to the clinician's ethical obligation of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Patient autonomy and desires may also conflict with society's interest in equitably distributing resources. Treatment could be denied if costs exceed benefits for the outcomes and thus deny resources to others who have more basic healthcare needs. There is no obligation to offer medically futile care or for the patient to accept extraordinary medical care. CONCLUSIONS: An ethical argument for rationing cannot be made because of the lack of a clear clinical and societal consensus on specific criteria for rationing of healthcare dollars. The decision to use high-cost drugs in the case presented is made using a clinical decision-making approach based on available treatment guidelines. This assumes that the patient continues to consent to therapy and that there is continued benefit.