Economic impact of managing invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole in Spain.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1080/14787210.2024.2327517
C Moya-Alarcón, J R Azanza, J Barberán, R Ferrer, M Kwon, A Moreno, C Rubio-Terrés, M Gálvez-Santisteban
{"title":"Economic impact of managing invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole in Spain.","authors":"C Moya-Alarcón, J R Azanza, J Barberán, R Ferrer, M Kwon, A Moreno, C Rubio-Terrés, M Gálvez-Santisteban","doi":"10.1080/14787210.2024.2327517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of this work was to compare the costs per adult patient, associated with intravenous isavuconazole (ISAV) followed by oral ISAV <i>versus</i> the regimen of liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole (L-AMB→POSA) in the treatment of IFI. The comparison was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (SNS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As indirect comparisons have demonstrated similar efficacy between the comparators, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Drug acquisition, administration, hospitalization, laboratory tests and adverse events costs were evaluated from SNS perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total costs per-patient were €24,715.54 with ISAV versus €29,753.53 with L-AMB→POSA, resulting in cost-savings per patient treated with ISAV of €5,037.99 (-16.9%). Treatment costs of IFI remained lower for ISAV than for L-AMB→POSA across all sensitivity analyses (-7,968.89€ to -326.59€), being treatment duration the most influential parameter.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to the present model, the treatment of IFIs with ISAV would generate savings for the SNS compared to L-AMB→POSA. These savings are attributed to the shorter duration of IV treatment, reduced use of healthcare resources and lower costs associated with managing adverse effects when ISAV was employed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12213,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"713-720"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2024.2327517","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of this work was to compare the costs per adult patient, associated with intravenous isavuconazole (ISAV) followed by oral ISAV versus the regimen of liposomal amphotericin B followed by posaconazole (L-AMB→POSA) in the treatment of IFI. The comparison was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (SNS).

Methods: As indirect comparisons have demonstrated similar efficacy between the comparators, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Drug acquisition, administration, hospitalization, laboratory tests and adverse events costs were evaluated from SNS perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes were performed.

Results: Total costs per-patient were €24,715.54 with ISAV versus €29,753.53 with L-AMB→POSA, resulting in cost-savings per patient treated with ISAV of €5,037.99 (-16.9%). Treatment costs of IFI remained lower for ISAV than for L-AMB→POSA across all sensitivity analyses (-7,968.89€ to -326.59€), being treatment duration the most influential parameter.

Conclusion: According to the present model, the treatment of IFIs with ISAV would generate savings for the SNS compared to L-AMB→POSA. These savings are attributed to the shorter duration of IV treatment, reduced use of healthcare resources and lower costs associated with managing adverse effects when ISAV was employed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在西班牙,用异唑康唑与先用两性霉素 B 脂质体再用泊沙康唑治疗侵袭性霉菌病的经济影响比较。
背景:侵袭性真菌感染(IFI)与严重的发病率和死亡率有关。这项研究的目的是比较静脉注射异维康唑(ISAV)后口服 ISAV 与脂质体两性霉素 B 后服用泊沙康唑(L-AMB→POSA)治疗 IFI 时每名成人患者的相关费用。比较从西班牙国家卫生系统(SNS)的角度进行:方法:由于间接比较显示比较药之间的疗效相似,因此采用了成本最小化方法。从西班牙国家卫生系统的角度对药物采购、用药、住院、实验室检测和不良事件的成本进行了评估。进行了确定性和概率敏感性分析:结果:每名患者使用 ISAV 的总成本为 24,715.54 欧元,而使用 L-AMB→POSA 的总成本为 29,753.53 欧元,ISAV 为每名患者节省成本 5,037.99 欧元(-16.9%)。在所有敏感性分析中,ISAV 的 IFI 治疗成本仍低于 L-AMB→POSA(-7,968.89 欧元至-326.59 欧元),治疗持续时间是影响最大的参数:根据本模型,与 L-AMB→POSA 相比,用 ISAV 治疗 IFI 可为 SNS 节省费用。这些节省可归因于 ISAV 可缩短静脉注射治疗时间、减少医疗资源的使用以及降低与管理不良反应相关的成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy (ISSN 1478-7210) provides expert reviews on therapeutics and diagnostics in the treatment of infectious disease. Coverage includes antibiotics, drug resistance, drug therapy, infectious disease medicine, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral approaches, and diagnostic tests.
期刊最新文献
Could the next "disease X" be a pandemic of virus-induced encephalitis? What should our first medical response be? The opportunities and challenges of epigenetic approaches to manage herpes simplex infections. Potential activity of nanomaterials to combat SARS-CoV-2 and mucormycosis ‎coinfection‎. Clinical effectiveness of oral antivirals for non-hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients aged 18-60 years. Is self-medication with antibiotics among the public a global concern: a mixed-methods systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1