Patients with CHE refractory to topical steroids incur marked costs to society. The costs increase disproportionately with escalating treatment stages, especially in patients admitted to hospital. Hence, new treatments may help to reduce the societal costs of CHE.
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.
BackgroundVoriconazole 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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%.ConclusionsThis model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-3683-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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 casecontrol 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.