The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK

A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK
A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B was evaluated using a decision-tree model. The decision tree was populated using both data and clinical definitions from published clinical studies. Model outcomes included success in terms of resolution of fever, baseline infection, absence of breakthrough infection, survival and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Discontinuation due to nephrotoxicity or other adverse events were included in the model. Efficacy and safety data were based on additional analyses of a randomised, double blind, multinational trial of caspofungin compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Information on life expectancy, quality of life, medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from peer-reviewed published data.

Results: The caspofungin mean total treatment cost was £9762 (95% uncertainty interval 6955–12 577), which was £2033 (−2489; 6779) less than liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment with caspofungin resulted in 0.40 (−0.12; 0.94) additional QALYs saved in comparison with liposomal amphotericin B. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 95% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within the generally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness (£30 000). Additional analyses with varying dose of caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B confirmed these findings.

Conclusion: Given the underlying assumptions, caspofungin is cost-effective compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.
532-539
Bruynesteyn, K.
71b69b7b-884d-4b8c-a745-b4a70e69feef
Gant, Vanya
3d4d8d7b-ffbf-4ff4-a2cd-49468b4c52fd
McKenzie, C.
ec344dee-5777-49c5-970e-6326e82c9f8c
Pagliuca, T.
2a0fb801-1fab-4a94-8c32-577d0cbc2091
Poynton, C.
0533afbd-a505-486b-8e8d-9793c336d28f
Kumar, R.N.
f04a8242-e0b5-4174-8657-5ce34d75dbfc
Jansen, J.P.
127db34b-d04b-4249-bcc1-083a0ee0b976
Bruynesteyn, K.
71b69b7b-884d-4b8c-a745-b4a70e69feef
Gant, Vanya
3d4d8d7b-ffbf-4ff4-a2cd-49468b4c52fd
McKenzie, C.
ec344dee-5777-49c5-970e-6326e82c9f8c
Pagliuca, T.
2a0fb801-1fab-4a94-8c32-577d0cbc2091
Poynton, C.
0533afbd-a505-486b-8e8d-9793c336d28f
Kumar, R.N.
f04a8242-e0b5-4174-8657-5ce34d75dbfc
Jansen, J.P.
127db34b-d04b-4249-bcc1-083a0ee0b976

Bruynesteyn, K., Gant, Vanya, McKenzie, C., Pagliuca, T., Poynton, C., Kumar, R.N. and Jansen, J.P. (2007) A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK. European Journal of Haematology, 78 (6), 532-539. (doi:10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00850.x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B was evaluated using a decision-tree model. The decision tree was populated using both data and clinical definitions from published clinical studies. Model outcomes included success in terms of resolution of fever, baseline infection, absence of breakthrough infection, survival and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Discontinuation due to nephrotoxicity or other adverse events were included in the model. Efficacy and safety data were based on additional analyses of a randomised, double blind, multinational trial of caspofungin compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Information on life expectancy, quality of life, medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from peer-reviewed published data.

Results: The caspofungin mean total treatment cost was £9762 (95% uncertainty interval 6955–12 577), which was £2033 (−2489; 6779) less than liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment with caspofungin resulted in 0.40 (−0.12; 0.94) additional QALYs saved in comparison with liposomal amphotericin B. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 95% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within the generally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness (£30 000). Additional analyses with varying dose of caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B confirmed these findings.

Conclusion: Given the underlying assumptions, caspofungin is cost-effective compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 22 February 2007
e-pub ahead of print date: 28 February 2007
Published date: June 2007

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 479929
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/479929
PURE UUID: 5b8ed81e-6316-4619-a6d3-ded4048681d7
ORCID for C. McKenzie: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5190-9711

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 28 Jul 2023 16:53
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:23

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: K. Bruynesteyn
Author: Vanya Gant
Author: C. McKenzie ORCID iD
Author: T. Pagliuca
Author: C. Poynton
Author: R.N. Kumar
Author: J.P. Jansen

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×