Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole is well established as standard treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). In 2017, isavuconazole, a new antifungal from the azole class, with a broader pathogen spectrum, was introduced in Sweden. A model has therefore been developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole and voriconazole in the treatment of possible IA in adults in Sweden. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients with possible IA entered the model, with 6% assumed to actually have mucormycosis. It was also assumed that pathogen information would become available during the course of treatment for only 50% of patients, with differential diagnosis unavailable for the remainder. Patients who were considered unresponsive to first-line treatment were switched to second-line treatment with liposomal amphotericin-B. Data and clinical definitions included in the model were taken from the published randomised clinical trial comparing isavuconazole with voriconazole for the treatment of IA and other filamentous fungi (SECURE) and the single-arm, open-label trial and case-control analysis of isavuconazole for the treatment of mucormycosis (VITAL). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the combined parameter uncertainty, and a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a scenario analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model assumptions. The model followed a Swedish healthcare payer perspective, therefore only considering direct medical costs. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that isavuconazole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 174,890 Swedish krona (SEK) per additional quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was mainly due to the efficacy of isavuconazole against IA and mucormycosis, as opposed to voriconazole, which is only effective against IA. Sensitivity and scenario analyses of the data showed that the average ICER consistently fell below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1,000,000 SEK. The probability of isavuconazole being cost-effective at a WTP of 170,000 SEK per QALY gained was 50% and at a WTP of 500,000 SEK per QALY gained was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical outcomes associated with isavuconazole versus relevant comparators for patients with invasive aspergillosis.

OBJECTIVES: Voriconazole, amphotericin B (AmB) formulations, and isavuconazole are all included in guideline recommendations for treatment of patients with invasive aspergillosis (IA) but the relative efficacy of isavuconazole versus AmB formulations has not been directly compared. We aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of isavuconazole compared with AmB deoxycholate (AmB-D), liposomal AmB (L-AmB), and voriconazole for the treatment of patients with proven/probable IA. METHODS: Nine literature databases were screened for randomized controlled trials comparing treatments with any of voriconazole, AmB-D, L-AmB and isavuconazole for treatment of proven/probable IA. Articles meeting the criteria were included in a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of AmB-D, L-AmB and voriconazole relative to isavuconazole based on all-cause mortality (ACM) and overall response using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Four articles were identified that compared L-AmB with AmB-D (Study 1), standard-dose L-AmB (3-5 mg/kg/day) with high-dose L-AmB (10 mg/kg/day; Study 2), voriconazole with AmB-D (Study 3), and isavuconazole with voriconazole (Study 4). In the network meta-analysis, isavuconazole was statistically superior to AmB-D on both ACM (odds ratio [95% credible intervals] shown as natural log, 1.00 [0.26, 1.74]) and overall response (-1.39 [-2.21, -0.63]). Differences between isavuconazole, and standard-dose L-AmB, high-dose L-AmB and voriconazole were not statistically significant for either ACM (0.18 [-1.17, 1.53], 0.50 [-1.11, 2.13] and 0.32 [-0.19, 0.84], respectively) or overall response (-0.99 [-2.21, 0.29], -0.89 [-2.41, 0.65] and 0.06 [-0.43, 0.57], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This data suggests that the efficacy of isavuconazole for treatment of IA is superior to AmB-D and comparable with both L-AmB and voriconazole.

Economic impact of treating invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the UK.

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.

The cost of treating mucormycosis with isavuconazole compared with standard therapy in the UK.

AIM: Mucormycosis is a fungal infection associated with high mortality. Until recently, the only licensed treatments were amphotericin B (AMB) formulations. Isavuconazole (ISAV) is a new mucormycosis treatment. A UK-based economic model explored treatment costs with ISAV versus liposomal AMB followed by posaconazole. MATERIALS & METHODS: As a matched case-control analysis showed similar efficacy for ISAV and AMB, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Direct costs - drug acquisition, monitoring and administration, and hospitalization costs - were estimated from the National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: Per-patient costs for ISAV and liposomal AMB + posaconazole were UK£26,810 and UK£41,855, respectively, with savings primarily driven by drug acquisition and hospitalization costs. CONCLUSION: ISAV may reduce costs compared with standard mucormycosis therapy.

Cost-of-illness analysis of patients with chronic hand eczema in routine care in Germany: focus on the impact of occupational disease.

Chronic hand eczema places a heavy burden on patients, often affecting their ability to work. This paper compares the cost-of-illness and treatment approaches for patients with refractory chronic hand eczema, in relation to whether the disease was occupational or unrelated to work factors. Data from 2 surveys, comprising 310 patients with chronic hand eczema insured by German statutory health insurance (SHI) (including work-impaired patients, work-unaffected patients and non-working patients) and known work-related chronic hand eczema insured by occupational health insurance (OHI). Annual healthcare costs of managing work-impaired patients (SHI) and patients with work-related chronic hand eczema (OHI) were €3,164 and €3,309, respectively, approximately double the costs of managing non-working and work-unaffected (SHI) patients. This analysis shows that the costs associated with chronic hand eczema are affected by the correlation of chronic hand eczema with work, with costs being higher for occupational patients with chronic hand eczema.