Cost‐effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin vs fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey

Mycoses - Tập 60 Số 11 - Trang 714-722 - 2017
Chin Fen Neoh1, Esin Şenol2, Ateş Kara3, Ener Çağrı Dinleyici4, Stuart Turner5, David C. M. Kong6,7
1Collaborative Drug Discovery Research (CDDR) Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Malaysia
2Department of Infectious Diseases, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
3Department of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
4Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey
5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA
6Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia
7Pharmacy Department, Ballarat Health Services, Ballarat, VIC, Australia

Tóm tắt

SummaryAnidulafungin has been shown to be non‐inferior to, and possibly more efficacious, than fluconazole in treating patients with invasive candidiasis (IC). This study aimed to determine the cost‐effectiveness of anidulafungin vs fluconazole for treatment ofICin the Turkish setting. A decision analytic model was constructed to depict downstream economic consequences of using anidulafungin or fluconazole for treatment ofICin the Turkish hospitals. Transition probabilities (ie treatment success, observed or indeterminate treatment failures) were obtained from a published randomised clinical trial. Cost inputs were from the latest Turkish resources. Data not available in the literature were estimated by expert panels. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model outcome. While anidulafungin [TL17 171 (USD4589)] incurred a higher total cost than fluconazole [TL8233 (USD2200) per treated patient, treatment with anidulafungin was estimated to save an additional 0.58 life‐years, with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio ofTL15 410 (USD4118) per life‐years saved. Drug acquisition cost and hospitalisation were the main cost drivers for anidulafungin and fluconazole arms respectively. The model findings were robust over a wide range of input variables except for anidulafungin drug cost. Anidulafungin appears to be a cost‐effective therapy in treatingICfrom the Turkish hospital perspective.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1016/j.idc.2015.10.013

10.1093/cid/civ933

10.1056/NEJMoa066906

10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.08.010

10.2165/11584810-000000000-00000

10.1093/jac/dkr186

10.1186/s12879-015-1143-1

10.1016/j.mycmed.2013.05.004

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Turkey.Turkey's Development Cooperation: General Characteristics and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Aspect.http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey_s-development-cooperation.en.mfaAccessed May 10 2017.

MirzaÇA ŞenolE KalkancıA.Epidemiology and risk factors of candidaemia among hospitalized patients in a Turkish tertiary care hospital. In:Abstracts of the 26th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Amsterdam Netherlands 2016. Abstract EV0739. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Basel Switzerland.

Republic of Turkey‐Social Security Institution.http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/en?CSRT=16458562213556365941Accessed November 22 2016.

10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00324.x

10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00850.x

10.1097/CCM.0b013e318168f649

10.1097/00003246-200301000-00001

TurkStat.Life Tables (2013‐2015).http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do;jsessionid=VsSmYhQSj9gjw3vShQxcJcb2GpsvMN1pyXRJphyvlFkTNvhp2hNM!1210427637?id=21509Accessed November 22. 2016.

10.1001/jama.1997.03540370048035

Petitti DB, 2000, Meta‐Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis

World Health Organization.Choosing interventions that are cost‐effective (2014).http://www.who.int/choice/en/Accessed November 22 2016.

The World Bank.World Development Indicators (2015).http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?Code=NY.GDP.PCAP.CD&id=af3ce82b&report_name=Popular_indicators&populartype=series&ispopular=yAccessed November 22 2016.

10.1002/hec.1199

10.1056/NEJM199411173312001

10.1186/s12879-014-0573-5

10.3201/eid1210.060389

10.3109/13693786.2010.501344

10.1111/myc.12582

10.1086/505204

10.1592/phco.30.4.361

Drummond MF, 2015, Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes

10.1186/1471-2334-13-560

10.2471/BLT.14.138206

10.2165/00019053-200422070-00002

10.1517/14656566.6.15.2617

10.1086/514955

10.1185/03007990802124889

Rotstein C, 2008, Economic evaluation of voriconazole for the treatment of candidemia in Canadian adults, Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol, 19, 219, 10.1155/2008/161835

10.1185/03007990903072565

10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181760f42

10.1345/aph.1H516

Gold M, 1996, Cost‐Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, 10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Mycoses

Tập 60 Số 11

714-722

Thông tin tác giả