Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valutazione economica di voriconazolo versus amfotericina B convenzionale nel trattamento di prima linea dell’aspergillosi nei pazienti immunocompromessi

Economic evaluation of voriconazole versus conventional amphotericin B for the primary treatment of aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients

  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Italian Research Articles

Summary

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of voriconazole versus amphotericin B as primary therapy for immunocompromised patients with aspergillosis.

Methods

We used a pre-existent model in which two cohorts of patients received voriconazole or amphotericin B. The patients were followed for 12 weeks. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. We considered life years gained (LYG) and direct medical costs. LYG were based on the results of an international clinical trial and direct medical costs were based on Italian treatment patterns. Benefits were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analysis on key clinical and economic parameters were performed.

Results

LYG with voriconazole compared with amphotericin B were respectively 13,87 and 11,36 years. The expected cost was € 25.366 with voriconazole and € 26.218 with amphotericin B.

Conclusion

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that voriconazole is a dominant strategy compared with amphotericin B for the primary treatment of aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliografia

  1. Graber G. An overview of fungal infections. Drugs 2001: 61(S1): 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lin SJ, Schranz J, Teutsch SM. Aspergillosis case fatality rate: systematic review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(3): 358–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Briegel J, Forst H, Spill B, et al. Risk factors for systemic fungal infections in liver transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1995; 14(5): 375–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rabkin JM, Oroloff SL, Corless CL, et al. Association of fungal infection and increased mortality in liver transplant recipients. Am J Surg 2000; 179(5): 426–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pannuti C, Gingrich R, Pfaller MA, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in patients having bone marrow transplants. Attributable mortality and risk factors. Cancer 1992; 69(11): 2653–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Stolpman M, et al. The direct cost and incidence of systemic fungal infections. Value Health 2002; 5(1): 26–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dismukes WE. Introduction to antifungal drugs. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30(4): 653–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stevens DA, Kan VL, Judson MA, et al. Practice guidelines for diseases caused by Aspergillus. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30(4): 696–709

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Patterson TF, Kirkpatrick WR, White M, et al. Invasive aspergillosis: disease spectrum, treatment practices, and outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore) 2000; 79(4): 250–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Denning DW. Invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 26(4): 781–803

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Al Mohsen I, Hughes WT. Systemic antifungal therapy: past, present and future. Ann Saudi Med 1998; 18: 28–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sheppard D, Lampiris HW. Antifungal agents. In: Katzung BG, ed. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1998: 780–7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(6): 408–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wenzel R, Del Favero A, Kibbler C. Economic evaluation of voriconazole compared with conventional amphotericn B for the primary treatment of aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55(3): 352–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lucioni C, Garancini MP, Massi-Benedetti M, et al. Il costo sociale del diabete di tipo 2 in Italia: lo studio CODE-2. Pharmacoeconomics-Italian Research Articles 2000; 2(1): 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lucioni C, Mazzi S, Neeser K. Analisi di costo-efficacia della terapia combinata con pioglitazone nel trattamento del diabete mellito di tipo 2 in Italia. Pharmacoeconomics-Italian Research Articles 2004; 6(2): 81–93

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (Ed. it. a cura di Fattore G, Garattini L, Lucioni C). Metodi per la valutazione economica dei programmi sanitari. Roma: Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore, 2000

  18. Lewis JS, Boucher HW, Lubowski TJ, et al. Cost advantage of voriconazole over amphotericin B deoxycholate for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Pharmacotherapy 2005; 25(6): 839–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jansen JP, Kern WV, Cornely OA, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole versus conventional amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Germany. Value Health 2006; 9(1): 12–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jonsson B. Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (Suppl. 4): 5–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wolters Kluwer Health/Adis International Ltd Italia, Via Lanino 5, 20144, Milano, Italia

    Roberto Ravasio

  2. Medical Department Pfizer Italia s.r.l., Roma, Italia

    G. Pizzarelli

Authors
  1. Roberto Ravasio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Pizzarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Ravasio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ravasio, R., Pizzarelli, G. Valutazione economica di voriconazolo versus amfotericina B convenzionale nel trattamento di prima linea dell’aspergillosi nei pazienti immunocompromessi. Pharmacoeconomics-Ital-Res-Articles 8, 45–54 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320557

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320557

Search

Navigation