RESUMEN
Tucson, Arizona, USA, is a highly coccidioidomycosis-endemic area. We conducted a retrospective review of 815 patients in Tucson over 2.7 years. Of 276 patients with coccidioidomycosis, 246 had a delay in diagnosis; median delay was 23 days. Diagnosis delay was associated with coccidioidomycosis-related costs totaling $589,053 and included extensive antibacterial drug use.
Asunto(s)
Coccidioidomicosis/epidemiología , Diagnóstico Tardío/economía , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/epidemiología , Arizona/epidemiología , Coccidioidomicosis/diagnóstico , Coccidioidomicosis/economía , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Femenino , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Masculino , Registros Médicos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
We developed an electronic records methodology to programmatically estimate the date of first appearance of coccidioidomycosis symptoms in patients. We compared the diagnostic delay with overall healthcare utilization charges. Many patients (46%) had delays in diagnosis of >1 month. Billed healthcare charges before diagnosis increased with length of delay.
Asunto(s)
Coccidioidomicosis/epidemiología , Diagnóstico Tardío/economía , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/epidemiología , Arizona/epidemiología , Coccidioidomicosis/diagnóstico , Coccidioidomicosis/economía , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Femenino , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Masculino , Registros Médicos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vigilancia de la Población , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal disease (IFD) causes significant morbidity and mortality in hematologic malignancy patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia (FN). These patients therefore often receive empirical antifungal therapy. Diagnostic test-guided pre-emptive antifungal therapy has been evaluated as an alternative treatment strategy in these patients. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search for literature comparing empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal strategies in FN among adult hematologic malignancy patients. We systematically reviewed 9 studies, including randomized-controlled trials, cohort studies, and feasibility studies. Random and fixed-effect models were used to generate pooled relative risk estimates of IFD detection, IFD-related mortality, overall mortality, and rates and duration of antifungal therapy. Heterogeneity was measured via Cochran's Q test, I2 statistic, and between study τ2. Incorporating these parameters and direct costs of drugs and diagnostic testing, we constructed a comparative costing model for the two strategies. We conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis on pooled estimates and one-way sensitivity analyses on other key parameters with uncertain estimates. RESULTS: Nine published studies met inclusion criteria. Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive strategies were associated with significantly lower antifungal exposure (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) and duration without an increase in IFD-related mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36-1.87) or overall mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46-1.99). The pre-emptive strategy cost $324 less (95% credible interval -$291.88 to $418.65 pre-emptive compared to empirical) than the empirical approach per FN episode. However, the cost difference was influenced by relatively small changes in costs of antifungal therapy and diagnostic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive antifungal therapy in patients with high-risk FN may decrease antifungal use without increasing mortality. We demonstrate a state of economic equipoise between empirical and diagnostic-directed pre-emptive antifungal treatment strategies, influenced by small changes in cost of antifungal therapy and diagnostic testing, in the current literature. This work emphasizes the need for optimization of existing fungal diagnostic strategies, development of more efficient diagnostic strategies, and less toxic and more cost-effective antifungals.
Asunto(s)
Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/complicaciones , Neoplasias Hematológicas/complicaciones , Mananos/sangre , Micosis/prevención & control , Infecciones Oportunistas/prevención & control , Antifúngicos/administración & dosificación , Antifúngicos/economía , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/inmunología , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Árboles de Decisión , Pruebas Diagnósticas de Rutina/economía , Esquema de Medicación , Costos de los Medicamentos , Diagnóstico Precoz , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Estudios de Factibilidad , Galactosa/análogos & derivados , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Neoplasias Hematológicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Hematológicas/inmunología , Humanos , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/etiología , Micosis/diagnóstico , Micosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Micosis/economía , Micosis/etiología , Infecciones Oportunistas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Oportunistas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Oportunistas/economía , Infecciones Oportunistas/etiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
Posaconazole (Noxafil®) is an oral, second-generation, extended-spectrum triazole whose approved indications include prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD) in immunocompromised patients. In pivotal head-to-head trials, posaconazole was significantly more effective in preventing IFD than standard azole therapy (i.e. oral fluconazole or itraconazole) in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and was noninferior to treatment with fluconazole in patients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) who were receiving intensive immunosuppressive therapy following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In both indications, prophylactic posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of IFD-related mortality. The overall tolerability profile of posaconazole was generally similar to that of the other prophylactic treatments. The large body of modelled cost-effectiveness analyses from a healthcare payer perspective on the use of prophylactic posaconazole suggest that it is a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard azole therapy in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS, and fluconazole in patients with GVHD. Based on clinical trial data in these patient groups, antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole was predicted to be a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles, with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained, life-year (LY) gained and/or other outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses in numerous countries. In those analyses in which posaconazole did not dominate the comparator, posaconazole was considered cost effective, as the incremental cost per QALY or LY gained with posaconazole was lower than assumed willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated that these results were robust to plausible changes in key model assumptions. In conclusion, prophylactic treatment with posaconazole is clinically effective in preventing IFD in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS and patients with GVHD. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of posaconazole as a dominant or cost-effective prophylactic antifungal treatment relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles in these patient populations at high risk of developing IFD.
Asunto(s)
Antifúngicos/economía , Infecciones Fúngicas del Sistema Nervioso Central/economía , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Triazoles/economía , Antifúngicos/efectos adversos , Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Fúngicas del Sistema Nervioso Central/prevención & control , Costos de los Medicamentos , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/prevención & control , Triazoles/efectos adversos , Triazoles/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) poses major management problems for clinicians caring for patients with haematological diseases. The clinical courses of patients with IPA who had been hospitalised in Hematology Unit, Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit and Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Unit between 1998 and 2005, the efficacy and adverse effects and costs of antifungal drugs (conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate, liposomal amphotericin B, amphotericin B lipid complex and caspofungin) used in the therapy of these patients were analysed in this study. Ninety-three patients with IPA were reviewed retrospectively. Mean age of the patients was 40.4 +/- 15.1 years (range 14-70 years). Fifty-eight male patients and 35 female patients were included in the study. Manageable hypopotassemia, nausea/vomiting and headache were the most commonly observed side-effects during antifungal (AF) therapy. While it was not found to be statistically significant with regard to the mean time to resolution of fever (P = 0.8), it was found to be statistically significant with regard to radiological regression at 30th day, and mean duration of therapy between patients who were dead or alive (P < 0.05, P < 0.001). Total cost of AF therapy for 93 patients was found to be US$4 461 824 (minimum US$387-maximum US$279 023). Of this amount, US$4 272 845 represents the payment for AF drugs, US$188 979 the payment for other expenditures. Mean cost of therapy for a patient with IPA was found to be US$49 336. Although it seemed to be difficult, investigations should primarily focus on providing standardisation of parameters relating to the duration of AF therapy. Despite the less-than-optimal safety profile of CAB, it often remains to be the preferred first line option for the treatment of fungal infections because of its broad spectrum, activity and low acquisition cost.
Asunto(s)
Antifúngicos/economía , Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Aspergilosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Aspergilosis/economía , Enfermedades Hematológicas/complicaciones , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Antifúngicos/efectos adversos , Aspergilosis/fisiopatología , Costos de los Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The comparative cost-effectiveness of voriconazole and amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) was examined. METHODS: A decision-tree model was constructed comparing 12-week treatment outcomes in a subset of patients enrolled in a clinical trial comparing initial treatment of IPA with amphotericin B versus voriconazole. Patients included those with IPA who underwent a thoracic computed tomographic (CT) scan at baseline. Cost and survival were estimated for those with and without a halo sign at baseline. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing voriconazole with amphotericin B were calculated for both patient subgroups. RESULTS: Patients with a halo sign had similar costs and better survival rates than those without the sign. Within the subgroup of patients with the sign, total costs were lower and survival rates higher for those treated with voriconazole than for those treated with amphotericin B. For patients without a halo sign, total costs and survival rates were higher for those treated with voriconazole versus amphotericin B. CONCLUSION: Among patients treated for IPA, those with a baseline CT halo sign, an early indicator of the condition, appeared to have better survival rates and lower health care costs compared with patients without the sign. In patients with the halo sign, survival rates were higher and costs were lower when voriconazole rather than amphotericin B was used as first-line treatment; survival was better with voriconazole than with amphotericin B when the halo sign was not present. Voriconazole was cost-effective compared with amphotericin B when the halo sign was present, but voriconazole's cost-effectiveness when the sign was not present depended on the cost per life saved.
Asunto(s)
Anfotericina B/economía , Aspergilosis/economía , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Modelos Económicos , Pirimidinas/economía , Triazoles/economía , Anfotericina B/uso terapéutico , Aspergilosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Aspergilosis/mortalidad , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Árboles de Decisión , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/mortalidad , Pirimidinas/uso terapéutico , Tasa de Supervivencia/tendencias , Triazoles/uso terapéutico , VoriconazolRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Voriconazole, a broad-spectrum triazole, has demonstrated significantly improved survival compared with conventional amphotericin B (CAB) as initial therapy for invasive aspergillosis (IA). OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource use and cost at 12 weeks following first-line treatment with voriconazole compared with CAB for IA using resource use data collected during a clinical trial. METHODS: Days of hospitalization, intensive care, antifungal drug use, and outpatient care were collected during a large randomized, controlled trial of patients with IA receiving initial treatment with voriconazole or CAB. Unit costs based on published data sources were applied to healthcare use to estimate 12-week costs following initiation of therapy. Resource use and costs were compared for each treatment arm overall and by survival. The sensitivity of total costs to changes in healthcare use and unit costs was examined. RESULTS: Total hospital days and intensive care unit (ICU) days were similar for voriconazole and CAB (total: 27.8 vs. 27.7, P=0.97 and ICU: 5.6 vs. 8.1, P=0.11). Among survivors, voriconazole was associated with similar numbers of total hospital days (29.8 vs. 32.0 days, P=0.54) to CAB, but fewer ICU days (3.9 vs. 8.2, P=0.03). For non-survivors, those treated with voriconazole had a similar number of total hospital days (23.0 vs. 21.8, P=0.73) and ICU days (9.8 vs. 7.9, P=0.44). Patients treated with voriconazole had significantly more days alive and out of the hospital than with CAB at 12 weeks (40.3 vs. 28.4 days, P<0.001). Total costs were similar with voriconazole compared with CAB ($78,860 vs. $83,857, P=0.51). Differences in cost were not sensitive to changes in the input parameter values. CONCLUSIONS: Using voriconazole first-line for treatment of IA resulted in significantly fewer deaths and similar treatment costs. Hospital-free survival was significantly greater for patients initially treated with voriconazole.
Asunto(s)
Anfotericina B/uso terapéutico , Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Aspergilosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Pirimidinas/uso terapéutico , Triazoles/uso terapéutico , Anfotericina B/economía , Antifúngicos/economía , Aspergilosis/economía , Aspergilosis/microbiología , Costos de los Medicamentos , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/microbiología , Pirimidinas/economía , Triazoles/economía , VoriconazolAsunto(s)
Aspergilosis/diagnóstico , Aspergilosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Antifúngicos/economía , Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Aspergilosis/economía , Aspergillus fumigatus/aislamiento & purificación , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Fúngicas/economía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Invasive aspergillosis can be difficult to diagnose and control, and conventional drug treatment is often highly toxic, producing medical complications that further compromise patients' health status and escalate health care costs. This article describes the clinical manifestations of Aspergillus infection and discusses approaches to its therapy, including newer pharmaceutical agents with fewer adverse effects, which offer the potential to improve outcomes and substantially lower the cost of treating aspergillosis.