Flynn T N, Kelsey S M, Hazel D L, Guest J F
Catalyst Health Economics Consultants Ltd, Pinner, Middlesex, UK.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Nov;16(5 Pt 2):543-50. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199916050-00010.
To assess the economic impact of adding granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to amphotericin B to treat a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenic patients. This study was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) hospital sector.
We used our previously reported trial as the clinical basis for the analysis (see Participants and interventions). These data were combined with resource utilisation data, enabling us to construct a decision tree model of the treatment paths attributable to managing patients in each arm of the trial. The model was used to calculate the cost effectiveness of using amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to amphotericin B monotherapy in neutropenic patients with a presumed deep-seated fungal infection.
An adult leukaemia/bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit in a large UK teaching hospital.
Patients with a neutrophil count of < 0.5 x 10(9)/L and having a presumed deep-seated fungal infection after either chemotherapy or stem cell/bone marrow transplantation for haematological malignancy.
29 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) plus subcutaneous G-CSF (3 to 5 micrograms/kg daily) and 30 patients received intravenous amphotericin B (1 mg/kg daily) monotherapy. The clinical trial showed that 62% of patients responded to antifungal treatment with amphotericin B plus G-CSF compared to 33% of patients who responded to amphotericin B monotherapy (p = 0.027). Nonresponders went on to receive a lipid formulation of amphotericin B.
The mean cost per patient treated with amphotericin B plus G-CSF was 11,247 Pounds and the corresponding cost for amphotericin B monotherapy was 14,317 Pounds (1996/1997 values)--a cost reduction of 3070 Pounds per patient. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the addition of G-CSF to conventional amphotericin B in the treatment of a presumed deep-seated fungal infection offers not only clinical benefits, but cost benefits which are robust to changes in clinical and economic parameters.
From a UK hospital perspective, amphotericin B plus G-CSF is cost effective compared with amphotericin B monotherapy in managing a presumed deep-seated fungal infection in neutropenic patients. This result should provide strong arguments to clinicians and policy-makers for the adoption of this treatment strategy in such patients.
评估在使用两性霉素B治疗中性粒细胞减少患者深部真菌感染时加用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)的经济影响。本研究是从英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)医院部门的角度进行的。
我们将之前报道的试验作为分析的临床基础(见参与者和干预措施)。这些数据与资源利用数据相结合,使我们能够构建一个决策树模型,以分析试验中每组患者治疗路径的情况。该模型用于计算在疑似深部真菌感染的中性粒细胞减少患者中,使用两性霉素B加G-CSF与两性霉素B单药治疗相比的成本效益。
英国一家大型教学医院的成人白血病/骨髓移植(BMT)科室。
中性粒细胞计数<0.5×10⁹/L且在因血液系统恶性肿瘤接受化疗或干细胞/骨髓移植后疑似深部真菌感染的患者。
29例患者接受静脉注射两性霉素B(每日1mg/kg)加皮下注射G-CSF(每日3至5μg/kg),30例患者接受静脉注射两性霉素B(每日1mg/kg)单药治疗。临床试验表明,两性霉素B加G-CSF治疗的患者中62%对抗真菌治疗有反应,而两性霉素B单药治疗的患者中这一比例为33%(p = 0.027)。无反应者继续接受两性霉素B脂质体剂型治疗。
接受两性霉素B加G-CSF治疗的患者平均成本为11247英镑,两性霉素B单药治疗的相应成本为14317英镑(1996/1997年数值),即每位患者成本降低3070英镑。敏感性分析表明,在治疗疑似深部真菌感染时,在传统两性霉素B基础上加用G-CSF不仅具有临床益处,而且成本效益显著,对临床和经济参数的变化具有稳健性。
从英国医院的角度来看,在治疗中性粒细胞减少患者疑似深部真菌感染时,两性霉素B加G-CSF与两性霉素B单药治疗相比具有成本效益。这一结果应为临床医生和政策制定者在这类患者中采用这种治疗策略提供有力依据。