Adapting a global cost-effectiveness model to local country requirements: posaconazole case study

References

• Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. Br Med J 2004;329:972-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009;12:409-18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Web Site. Princeton, NJ, 2010. Available at: http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp [last accessed 16 March 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003;6:9-17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. PharmacoEconomics 2004;22:857-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoykova B, Drummond M, Barbieri M, et al. The lag between effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of new drugs. Implications for decision-making in health care. Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:313-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richardson MD. Changing patterns and trends in systemic fungal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;56(1 Suppl):i5-i11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzin J, Meyers JL, Friedman M, et al. Mortality, length of hospitalization, and costs associated with invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:1711-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ, et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007;356:348-59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullmann AJ, Lipton JH, Vesole DH, et al. Posaconazole or fluconazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:335-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh TJ, Raad I, Patterson TF, et al. Treatment of invasive aspergillosis with posaconazole in patients who are refractory to or intolerant of conventional therapy: an externally controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:2-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raad II, Hachem RY, Herbrecht R, et al. Posaconazole as salvage treatment of invasive fusariosis in patients with underlying hematologic malignancy and other conditions. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:1398-403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merck & Co., Inc. Noxafil® (posaconazole) oral suspension [prescribing information]. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co. Inc., 2012
   Google Scholar
• Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited. Noxafil® (posaconazole) oral suspension [summary of product characteristics]. Hertfordshire, UK: Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, 2012
   Google Scholar
• O'Sullivan AK, Pandya A, Papadopoulos G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among neutropenic patients in the United States. Value Health 2009;12:666-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics review 1975-2003. National Cancer Institute Web site, Bethesda, MD, p 1–88, 2009. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/ [last accessed 14 July 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Kantarjian H, Beran M, Cortes J, et al. Long-term follow-up results of the combination of topotecan and cytarabine and other intensive chemotherapy regimens in myelodysplastic syndrome. Cancer 2006;106:1099-109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. Cancer survival statistics 1992-2000. Statistics Canada Web Site, Ontaria, Canada, 2009. Available at http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=E&AS_Sort=0&ChunkStart=1&ChunkSize=25&ResultTemplate=%2FStu-Etu%2FStu-Etu6&AS_Action=Find&AS_Theme=-1&AS_Date=.&AS_Ser=.&AS_Auth=.&AS_Univ=6&AS_Srch=cancer+survival+statistics&AS_Btn=Search [last accessed 22 October 2009]
   Google Scholar
• Grau S, de la Camara RR, Sanz MA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus standard azole treatment (fluconazole or itraconazole) in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Spain. Poster presented at: 18th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; April 19-22, 2008; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Michallet M, Gangneux JP, Lafuma A, et al. Cost effectiveness of posaconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in acute leukaemia patients for the French healthcare system. J Med Econ 2011;14:28-35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greiner RA, Meier Y, Papadopoulos G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole compared with standard azole therapy for prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients at high risk in Switzerland. Oncology 2010;78:172-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahami Monfared AA, O’Sullivan AK, Papadopoulos G. Posaconazole versus standard azole therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Poster presented at: 18th European Congress for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; April 19-22, 2008; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Stam WB, O’Sullivan AK, Rijnders B, et al. Economic evaluation of posaconazole versus standard azole prophylaxis in high risk neutropenic patients in the Netherlands. Eur J Haematol 2008;81:467-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim Y, Lee D, Jun S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of posaconazole for prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia in South Korea. Poster presented at: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 14th Annual International Meeting; May 16-20, 2009; Orlando, FL
   Google Scholar
• Frost MJ, O’Sullivan AO, Morrissey O, et al. Cost effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole versus standard azole therapy in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among high risk haematology patients in Australia. Poster presented at: 6th Annual Meeting of the Globalization and Health Technology Assessment International Meeting; June 21-24, 2009; Singapore
   Google Scholar
• Maertens J, Aoun M, Bron D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole (Noxafil®) versus standard azole therapy in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Belgium. Poster presented at: 10th International Symposium on Febrile Neutropenia; February 8-9, 2008; Brussels, Belgium
   Google Scholar
• Belousov YB, Kolbin AS, Koroleva OA, et al. Clinical and economic expediency of posaconazole comparing with fluconazole and itraconazole in primary prophylaxis of systemic mycoses in severe neutropenic patients. Clin Microbiol Antimicrob Chemother (Russia) 2009;11:170-82
   Google Scholar
• Grau Cerrato S, Mateu-De AJ, Soto AJ, et al. [Economic evaluation of voriconazole versus amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis]. Farmacia Hospitalaria 2005;29:5-10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Stolpman M, et al. The direct cost and incidence of systemic fungal infections. Value Health 2002;5:26-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenzel R, Del Favero A, Kibbler C, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole compared with conventional amphotericin B for the primary treatment of aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005;55:352-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen JP, Meis JF, Blijlevens NM, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1535-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascioglu S, Rex JH, de Pauw B, et al. Defining opportunistic invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplants: an international consensus. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:7-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Integrale Kankercentra (Netherlands Integral Cancer Centre). Integraal Kankercentrum Amsterdam (national cancer statistics for the Netherlands). Integrale Kankercentra Web Site. Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2010. Available at http://www.ikcnet.nl/ [last accessed 16 March 2010]
   Google Scholar
• Collins CD, Ellis JJ, Kaul DR. Comparative cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:2237-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyseng-Williamson KA. Posaconazole: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease in immunocompromised hosts. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29:251-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar