Resource use and cost of treatment with voriconazole or conventional amphotericin B for invasive aspergillosis
- 1 July 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Transplant Infectious Disease
- Vol. 9 (3), 182-188
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3062.2007.00210.x
Abstract
Voriconazole, a broad-spectrum triazole, has demonstrated significantly improved survival compared with conventional amphotericin B (CAB) as initial therapy for invasive aspergillosis (IA). To compare health care resource use and cost at 12 weeks following first-line treatment with voriconazole compared with CAB for IA using resource use data collected during a clinical trial. Days of hospitalization, intensive care, antifungal drug use, and outpatient care were collected during a large randomized, controlled trial of patients with IA receiving initial treatment with voriconazole or CAB. Unit costs based on published data sources were applied to healthcare use to estimate 12-week costs following initiation of therapy. Resource use and costs were compared for each treatment arm overall and by survival. The sensitivity of total costs to changes in healthcare use and unit costs was examined. Total hospital days and intensive care unit (ICU) days were similar for voriconazole and CAB (total: 27.8 vs. 27.7, P=0.97 and ICU: 5.6 vs. 8.1, P=0.11). Among survivors, voriconazole was associated with similar numbers of total hospital days (29.8 vs. 32.0 days, P=0.54) to CAB, but fewer ICU days (3.9 vs. 8.2, P=0.03). For non-survivors, those treated with voriconazole had a similar number of total hospital days (23.0 vs. 21.8, P=0.73) and ICU days (9.8 vs. 7.9, P=0.44). Patients treated with voriconazole had significantly more days alive and out of the hospital than with CAB at 12 weeks (40.3 vs. 28.4 days, P<0.001). Total costs were similar with voriconazole compared with CAB ($78,860 vs. $83,857, P=0.51). Differences in cost were not sensitive to changes in the input parameter values. Using voriconazole first-line for treatment of IA resulted in significantly fewer deaths and similar treatment costs. Hospital-free survival was significantly greater for patients initially treated with voriconazole.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Economic Evaluation of Voriconazole versus Conventional Amphotericin B in the Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in GermanyValue in Health, 2006
- Economic evaluation of voriconazole in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in the NetherlandsCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2005
- Economic evaluation of voriconazole compared with conventional amphotericin B for the primary treatment of aspergillosis in immunocompromised patientsJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2005
- Invasive aspergillosis in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: changes in epidemiology and risk factorsBlood, 2002
- Voriconazole versus Amphotericin B for Primary Therapy of Invasive AspergillosisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- The Direct Cost and Incidence of Systemic Fungal InfectionsValue in Health, 2002
- Invasive Mold Infections in Allogeneic Bone Marrow Transplant RecipientsClinical Infectious Diseases, 2001
- Aspergillosis Case-Fatality Rate: Systematic Review of the LiteratureClinical Infectious Diseases, 2001
- Burden of Aspergillosis?Related Hospitalizations in the United StatesClinical Infectious Diseases, 2000
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment with Liposomal Amphotericin B versus Conventional Amphotericin B in Organ or Bone Marrow Transplant Recipients with Systemic MycosesPharmacoEconomics, 1992