英国使用伊曲康唑治疗侵袭性霉菌病与两性霉素 B 脂质体相比的经济影响。
Economic impact of treating invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the UK.
机构信息
Covance Market Access, London, UK.
Clinical Microbiology & Public Health Laboratory, Public Health England, National Infection Service, Box 236, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
出版信息
Future Microbiol. 2018 Sep;13(11):1283-1293. doi: 10.2217/fmb-2018-0119. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
AIM
Invasive mold diseases (IMDs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Approved treatments include voriconazole (VORI), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB), posaconazole (POSA) and isavuconazole (ISAV). A UK-based economic model was developed to explore the cost of treating IMDs with ISAV versus L-AMB followed by POSA.
MATERIALS & METHODS: As indirect comparisons have demonstrated similar efficacy between the comparators, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Drug acquisition, administration & monitoring, and hospitalization costs were evaluated from the healthcare system perspective.
RESULTS
Per-patient costs were UK£14,842 with ISAV versus UK£18,612 with L-AMB followed by POSA. Savings were driven by drug acquisition, and administration & monitoring costs.
CONCLUSION
ISAV has the potential to reduce IMD treatment costs relative to L-AMB followed by POSA.
目的
侵袭性霉菌病（IMD）与较高的发病率和死亡率相关。已批准的治疗方法包括伏立康唑（VORI）、脂质体两性霉素 B（L-AMB）、泊沙康唑（POSA）和伊曲康唑（ISAV）。本研究建立了一个英国基于经济学模型，旨在探索 ISAV 与 L-AMB 序贯 POSA 治疗 IMD 的成本。
材料与方法
由于间接比较显示了这些对照药物的疗效相似，因此采用成本最小化方法。从医疗保健系统的角度评估了药物获取、管理和监测以及住院费用。
结果
ISAV 治疗 IMD 的每位患者的费用为 14842 英镑，而 L-AMB 序贯 POSA 为 18612 英镑。节省主要来自药物获取和管理与监测成本。
结论
与 L-AMB 序贯 POSA 相比，ISAV 具有降低 IMD 治疗成本的潜力。
Zotero 插件