Institutional Experience with Voriconazole Compared with Liposomal Amphotericin B as Empiric Therapy for Febrile Neutropenia

Cost effectiveness of caspofungin vs. voriconazole for empiric therapy in Turkey

Invasive fungal infections from febrile neutropenia are associated with significant cost and mortality. The mainstay of treatment has been liposomal amphotericin B, however, echinocandins and azoles have shown promise as alternative treatments. Data on clinical efficacy exist, however, data incorporating pharmacoeconomic considerations are required in Turkey. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of caspofungin vs. voriconazole in empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia in Turkey. A decision analytic model was utilised, built upon two randomised-controlled trials and supplemented with expert panel input from clinicians in Turkey. A five-point composite outcome measure was utilised and sensitivity analyses were performed to demonstrate the robustness of the model. The base case scenario resulted in caspofungin being preferred by TL2,533, TL29,256 and TL2,536 per patient treated, successfully treated patient and patient survival, respectively (approx. USD1414, 16 328 and 1415); sensitivity analyses did not change the outcome. Monte Carlo simulation highlighted a 78.8% chance of favouring caspofungin. The result was moderately sensitive to treatment duration and acquisition cost of the antifungal agents compared. This is the first pharmacoeconomic study comparing caspofungin to voriconazole within Turkey, resulting in an advantage towards caspofungin. The study will aid in formulary decision-making based on the clinical and economic consequences of each agent in the Turkish health care setting.

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.

Antifungal treatment strategies in patients with haematological diseases or cancer: from prophylaxis to empirical, pre-emptive and targeted therapy

Immunocompromised patients have a high risk for invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). These infections are mostly life-threatening and an early diagnosis and initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy are essential for the clinical outcome. Empirical treatment is regarded as the standard of care for granulocytopenic patients who remain febrile despite broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, this strategy can bear a risk of overtreatment and subsequently induce toxicities and unnecessary treatment costs. Pre-emptive antifungal therapy is now increasingly used to close the time gap between delayed initiation for proven disease and empirical treatment for anticipated infection without further laboratory or radiological evidence of fungal disease. Currently, some new non-invasive microbiological and laboratory methods, like the Aspergillus-galactomannan sandwich-enzyme immunoassay (Aspergillus GM-ELISA), 1,3-β-D-glucan assay or PCR techniques have been developed for a better diagnosis and determination of target patients. The current diagnostic approaches to fungal infections and the role of the revised definitions for invasive fungal infections, now IFDs, will be discussed in this review as well as old and emerging approaches to empirical, pre-emptive and targeted antifungal therapies in patients with haemato-oncological malignancies.

Pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

The recent increase in the use of antineoplastic and immune suppressive agents and the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, prosthetic interventions, organ transplants and more aggressive surgery have been related to a greater prevalence of invasive fungal infections (IFI). Over the past few years, several new antifungal therapies have become available for these patients. Pharmacoeconomic data can play a useful role in comparing the relative benefits of treatment.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review summarizes all the available evidence regarding the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole. A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic analyses through a non-restricted literature search was conducted (until May 2009).

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a greater understanding of the pharmacoeconomics role of voriconazole.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

The majority of economic analyses have shown that voriconazole is a more cost-effective alternative in the treatment of invasive fungal infections than the antifungal drugs with which it was compared.