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:Micafungin与Caspofungin治疗英国系统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
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

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:评价Micafungin与Caspofungin治疗英国系统念珠菌感染(SCIS)的成本效益,包括侵入性念珠菌和念珠菌。研究设计与方法:利用决策分析估计了卓越的抗真菌药物的成本效益。响应治疗,资源利用率和模型中的成本源自阶段3,头部对比试验。该模型仅包括与研究持续时间(最长为14周)的系统念珠菌感染的数据直接相关的数据。基于临床试验的疗效结果计算过渡概率。主要观察措施:模型的有效性结果是基于没有症状和症状,射线照相异常和与真菌感染相关的文化/组织学证据成功治疗的患者存活患者。此外,进行亚组分析以鉴定几种特定患者组中的成本效益。结果:Micafungin组的总医疗费用为29,095磅,类似于Caspofungin组的总成本(磅为29,953)。在Micafungin Arm中60%的患者和Caspofungin Arm 58%的患者成功处理和活着。 Micafungin的成本效益比为48,771磅,每成功治疗患者的Caspofungin磅52,066磅。由于成本较低,而Micafungin的有效性与Caspofungin相比,Micafungin比Caspofungin更具成本效益。然而,概率敏感性和亚组分析表明,由于麦克风素在所有敏感性分析中仍然是最具成本效益的选项,因此差异不可能被认为是显着的。结论:Micafungin与Caspofungin的成本和影响在英国系统性念珠菌感染治疗中的Caspofungin。结果表明,与Caspofungin相比,Micafungin具有成本效益,尽管没有发现差异是显着的。

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