An update to the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal disease among neutropenic patients in the United States

Abstract

Objectives:

Posaconazole has shown superior clinical efficacy in the prevention of invasive fungal disease (IFD) among neutropenic patients as well as cost-effectiveness in the US healthcare setting vs fluconazole or itraconazole (FLU/ITRA) based on oral suspension formulations of each therapy. This study aims to provide an update on the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole in the current US healthcare setting to reflect bioequivalent tablet formulations of posaconazole and fluconazole, as well as changes in healthcare and drug costs.

Methods:

An existing model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs FLU/ITRA in the prevention of IFD among patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Drug efficacy, mortality related to IFD, and death from other causes were estimated for tablet formulations using data from a randomized clinical trial of oral suspensions based on bioequivalence. IFD treatment costs were updated using the average inflation rate over 8 years (2006–2014) and drug costs were based on 2014 Analysource data.

Results:

Trial data show a lower IFD probability over 100 days of follow-up with posaconazole compared to standard azole therapy (0.05 vs 0.11). The treatment duration on posaconazole is 29 days compared to 24 days for FLU and 29 days for ITRA. The average cost of prophylaxis is higher in the posaconazole group compared to FLU/ITRA ($4673 vs $353); however, the costs associated with treating the IFD are lower in the posaconazole group compared to FLU/ITRA ($2205 vs $5303). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of IFD avoided for posaconazole is $18,898 vs FLU/ITRA.

Conclusions:

In the current healthcare cost environment where both drug costs and overall IFD treatment costs have increased since 2007, posaconazole tablets are a cost-effective alternative to fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of IFD among neutropenic patients with AML and MDS in the US.

Keywords::

• Cost-effectiveness
• Decision analysis
• Invasive fungal disease
• Prophylaxis

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This study was funded by Merck.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

All authors are employees of Merck.