Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES:

Using data from a published clinical trial, our objectives were to compare the cost advantage of voriconazole over amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd) for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis and to determine the financial impact the findings would have in a real-world clinical setting.

DESIGN:

Pharmacoeconomic analysis.

SETTING:

University hospital.

PATIENTS:

Two hundred seventy-seven patients in the modified intent-to-treat population.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

An analysis was performed of drug acquisition costs for all patients in the modified intent-to-treat population, which consisted of 144 patients in the voriconazole group and 133 in the AmBd group. The analysis included costs of initial drug therapy; conversion from intravenous to oral treatment for patients receiving voriconazole; and the types, dosages, and duration of other licensed [Food and Drug Administration-approved] antifungal therapy (OLAT) for up to three OLAT regimens/patient. Current drug costs for our university hospital were used for all calculations. Total voriconazole costs were $784,405 ($581,008 for initial therapy with voriconazole, $203,397 for OLAT) compared with $852,238 for AmBd ($31,677 for initial AmBd therapy, $820,561 for OLAT). Over the 12-week study period, the cost/patient was $961 less for patients whose initial treatment was voriconazole than for those whose initial treatment was AmBd. Other licensed antifungal therapy accounted for 26% and 96% of total drug costs for voriconazole and AmBd, respectively. Other licensed antifungal therapy was given to 36% of voriconazole-treated patients and 80% of AmBd-treated patients.

CONCLUSION:

These data demonstrate the importance of evaluating total drug costs when comparing treatment regimens and not just initial therapy. Initial therapy with voriconazole had a cost advantage over AmBd in total antifungal drug cost/patient.