...
首页> 外文期刊>Current medical research and opinion >Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK.
【24h】

Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK.

机译:米卡芬净与卡泊芬净治疗英国系统性念珠菌感染的成本-效果分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of micafungin compared to caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections (SCIs) in the UK, including invasive candidiasis and candidaemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of both echinocandin antifungal drugs was estimated using decision analysis. Response to treatment, resource utilisation, and costs in the model were derived from a phase 3, head-to-head comparative trial. The model includes only data directly related to the treatment of the systemic Candida infection over the study duration (a maximum period of 14 weeks). Transition probabilities were calculated based on the efficacy results from the clinical trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The model's effectiveness outcome is surviving patients who are successfully treated, based on the absence of signs and symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and culture/histologic evidence associated with the fungal infection. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed to identify cost-effectiveness in several specific patient groups. RESULTS: The total medical treatment costs for the micafungin group were pound 29,095, which is similar to the total costs for the caspofungin group (pound 29,953). In the micafungin arm 60% of the patients and in the caspofungin arm 58% of the patients were successfully treated and alive. Cost-effectiveness ratio of micafungin was pound 48,771, and of caspofungin pound 52,066 per successfully treated patient. Because the costs are lower and the effectiveness is higher for micafungin in comparison with caspofungin, micafungin is more cost-effective than caspofungin. However, probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis show that the differences cannot be considered significant due to a large variance although micafungin remained the most cost-effective option throughout all but one of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and effects of micafungin compare to those of caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK. The results indicate that micafungin is cost-effective compared to caspofungin, although the difference was not found to be significant.
机译:目的:评估与卡泊芬净相比,米卡芬净在治疗系统性念珠菌感染(SCI)(包括浸润性念珠菌病和念珠菌血症)中的成本效益。研究设计与方法:使用决策分析法评估两种棘脚can素抗真菌药的成本效益。该模型中对处理,资源利用和成本的响应来自第3阶段的全面对比试验。该模型仅包括与研究期间(最长14周)的全身性念珠菌感染的治疗直接相关的数据。根据临床试验的功效结果计算转移概率。主要观察指标:根据无症状和体征,影像学异常以及与真菌感染相关的文化/组织学证据,该模型的有效性结果是成功治疗的存活患者。此外,还进行了亚组分析,以确定几个特定患者组的成本效益。结果:米卡芬净组的总医疗费用为29,095英镑,与卡泊芬净组的总费用相似(29,953英镑)。在米卡芬净治疗组中有60%的患者和卡泊芬净治疗组中有58%的患者得到了成功的治疗和存活。每成功治疗的患者米卡芬净的成本-效果比为48,771英镑,卡泊芬净为52,066英镑。与卡泊芬净相比,由于米卡芬净的成本较低且疗效更高,因此米卡芬净比卡泊芬净更具成本效益。但是,概率敏感性和亚组分析表明,尽管米卡芬净仍然是除敏感性分析之一以外的所有方法中最具成本效益的选择,但由于差异很大,因此差异不大。结论:在英国,米卡芬净与卡泊芬净相比在治疗全身性念珠菌感染方面的成本和效果均得到了比较。结果表明,与卡泊芬净相比,米卡芬净具有较高的成本效益,尽管差异不明显。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号