Liu Qiang, Chen Pingyu, Xiao Dunming, Wei Jingxuan, Lin Yintao, Tao Tiantian, Li Xin
Center for Global Health, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Department of Health Economics, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Future Microbiol. 2025 Feb;20(3):213-225. doi: 10.1080/17460913.2024.2423530. Epub 2024 Nov 18.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of treating invasive aspergillosis with isavuconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole in China. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was conducted, considering both healthcare system and patient out-of-pocket perspectives. We considered the costs of medications, diagnostics and hospitalization and the consequences of mortality, response rate and adverse events. From the healthcare system perspective, compared with voriconazole, isavuconazole saved 967.39 Chinese Yuan (CNY) and posaconazole saved 8624.82 CNY. From the patient out-of-pocket perspective, compared with voriconazole, isavuconazole saved 1056.00 CNY, posaconazole increased 3153.83 CNY. The CCA demonstrated that isavuconazole exhibited higher medical costs but lower out-of-pocket costs compared with posaconazole, while there were no significant differences in consequences. Isavuconazole is potentially the most economical option.
评估在中国使用艾沙康唑、泊沙康唑和伏立康唑治疗侵袭性曲霉病的成本效益。进行了一项成本后果分析(CCA),同时考虑了医疗保健系统和患者自付费用的角度。我们考虑了药物、诊断和住院的成本以及死亡率、缓解率和不良事件的后果。从医疗保健系统的角度来看,与伏立康唑相比,艾沙康唑节省了967.39元人民币(CNY),泊沙康唑节省了8624.82元人民币。从患者自付费用的角度来看,与伏立康唑相比,艾沙康唑节省了1056.00元人民币,泊沙康唑增加了3153.83元人民币。成本后果分析表明,与泊沙康唑相比,艾沙康唑的医疗成本较高,但自付费用较低,而后果方面没有显著差异。艾沙康唑可能是最经济的选择。