» Articles » PMID: 15773796

[Economic Evaluation of Voriconazole Versus Amphotericin B in the Treatment of Invasive Aspergilosis]

Overview
Journal Farm Hosp
Date 2005 Mar 19
PMID 15773796
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Invasive aspergillosis is an infection with high incidence and mortality. Voriconazole is a new antifungal agent that presents a high efficacy against Aspergillus. The aim of this evaluation was to carry out a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of voriconazole versus amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Spain.

Material And Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed by building a decision analytical model. Effectiveness data, probabilities of the different branches of the decision tree and consumption of healthcare resources were obtained from a clinical trial that compared voriconazole versus amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and from a local expert panel in order to incorporate the model in the daily medical practice in our country. Only direct medical costs were included in the model (drug acquisition, length of hospital stay, analytical tests and treatment of therapeutic failures). The perspective chosen for this analysis was hospital assistance and the time horizon selected was 12 weeks, the maximum time that patients were followed up in the referenced clinical trial.

Results: Therapeutic success was reached in 52.8% of patients treated with voriconazole and in 31.6% of the group treated with amphotericin B. The cost of treating a patient with voriconazole or amphotericin B was of 56,296 and 56,382 Euros respectively, while the cost/effectiveness ratio was of 106,621 and 178,424 Euros. The incremental analysis performed shows how the use of voriconazole versus amphotericin B produces a healthcare resources saving of 406 Euros per patient.

Conclusions: Voriconazole is more efficient than amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis, (thus) resulting in healthcare resources saving due to better clinical results with lower associated costs.

Citing Articles

The efficacy and safety of first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review.

Chen Y, Zhao J, Wang Y, Ge L, Kwong J, Lan J Front Pharmacol. 2025; 15:1530999.

PMID: 39881866 PMC: 11775403. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1530999.


Healthcare Costs of Hospitalizations Due to Aspergillosis and 25-Year Trends in Spain, 1997-2021.

Rincon Villar M, Alonso-Sardon M, Alvarez-Artero E, Rodriguez Alonso B, Lopez-Bernus A, Romero-Alegria A J Fungi (Basel). 2024; 10(11).

PMID: 39590653 PMC: 11595839. DOI: 10.3390/jof10110733.


Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole tablets versus fluconazole as prophylaxis for invasive fungal diseases in patients with graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Grau S, Camara R, Jurado M, Sanz J, Aragon B, Gozalbo I Eur J Health Econ. 2017; 19(4):627-636.

PMID: 28569350 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0907-5.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of combination antifungal therapy with voriconazole and anidulafungin versus voriconazole monotherapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Spain.

Grau S, Azanza J, Ruiz I, Vallejo C, Mensa J, Maertens J Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017; 9:39-47.

PMID: 28115858 PMC: 5221484. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S122177.


Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Spain.

Grau S, de la Camara R, Sabater F, Jarque I, Carreras E, Casado M BMC Infect Dis. 2012; 12:83.

PMID: 22471553 PMC: 3355034. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-83.