Economic analysis of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis in Germany

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1743-1753

  Cornely, O A ^a   Sidhu, M ^b   Odeyemi, I ^b   Van Engen, A K ^c,d   Van Der Waal, J M ^c   Schoeman, O ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b ASTELLAS PHARMA EUROPE LTD   (United Kingdom)

^c IQVIA   (United States)

^d NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Candidiasis; Economic model; Liposomal amphotericin B; Micafungin; Pharmacoeconomics

Indexed keywords

AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID COMPLEX; MICAFUNGIN;

ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CANDIDEMIA; CANDIDIASIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DOSE RESPONSE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEVER; GERMANY; HUMAN; HYPOKALEMIA; INJECTION SITE REACTION; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NAUSEA; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RIGOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIDE EFFECT; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VOMITING;

AMPHOTERICIN B; ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS; CANDIDIASIS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ECHINOCANDINS; GERMANY; HUMANS; LIPOPROTEINS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 46449110834     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007990802124889     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, et al. The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1546-54
2. Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24 179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:309-17
3. Morrell M, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Delaying the empiric treatment of Candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005;49:3640-5
4. Golan Y, Wolf MP, Pauker SG, et al. Empirical anti-Candida therapy among selected patients in the intensive care unit: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:857-69
5. Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Stolpman M, et al. The direct cost and incidence of systemic fungal infections. Value Health 2002;5:26-34
6. Anaissie EJ, Darouiche RO, Abi-Said D, et al. Management of invasive Candidal infections: results of a prospective, randomised multicentre study of fluconazole versus amphotericin B and review of the literature. Clin Inf Diseases 1996;23:964-72
7. Prentice HG, Hann IM, Herbrecht R, et al. A randomized comparison of liposomal versus conventional amphotericin B for the treatment of pyrexia of unknown origin in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 1997;98:711-8
8. Walsh TJ, Finberg RW, Arndt C, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1999;340:764-71
9. Kuse ER, Chetchotisakd P, da Cunha CA, et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2007;369:1519-27
10. Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C, et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 2002;347:2020-9
11. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford medical publications, Oxford University Press, 1999
12. Goeree R, Burke N, O'Reilly D, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results from one geographic area for another. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:671-82
13. Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, et al. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998;7:481-93
14. Rote Liste® Online. Rote Liste® Service GmbH. Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 2006. Available from http://www.roteliste.de/Online [Last accessed 06 Nov 2006]
15. Gelbe Liste Pharmaindex. Medizinische Medien Informations GmbH. Neu-Isenburg, Germany, 2006. Available from http://www.gelbeliste.de [Last accessed 06 Nov 2006]
16. Deutsche Internet Apotheke. Martinus-Apotheke. Erftstadt, Germany, 2006. Available from http://www.deutscheinternetapotheke.de [Last accessed 06 Nov 2006]
17. G-DRG Browser Version 2.4. InEK gGmbH, Siegburg, Germany. Available from http://www.g-drg.de [Last accessed 06 Nov 2006]
18. Clade H. Krankenhaus-Management: Kompetenzzentren sind zukunftsträchtig. Deutsches Arzteblatt 101, Ausgabe 41 vom 08.10.2004, Seite A-2724. Available from http://www.aerzteblatt.de [Last accessed 05 Mar 2007]
19. Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, Berlin, Germany, 2006. Available from http://www.kbv.de/ ebm2000plus/EBMGesamt.htm [Last accessed 06 Nov 2006]
20. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:479-500
21. Jansen JP, Kern WV, Cornely OA, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole versus conventional amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Germany. Value Health 2006;9:12-23
22. Wingard JR, White MH, Anaissie E, et al. A randomized, double-blind comparative trial evaluating the safety of liposomal amphotericin B versus amphotericin B lipid complex in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia. L Amph/ABLC Collaborative Study Group. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:1155-63