ArticlePloS one2024
Economic and budgetary impact evaluation of isavuconazole (Cresemba®) versus voriconazole (Vfend®) for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Voriconazole versus isavuconazole for invasive aspergillosis: a retrospective analysis in a medically insured U.S. population (2017-2020).Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the cost-utility and the budgetary impact of isavuconazole compared to voriconazole in patients with suspected invasive aspergillosis (IA) from the perspective of the Brazilian supplementary health system (SHS).
methodsIn this model, a decision tree was developed and included patients with possible IA. Efficacy parameters were extracted from the clinical studies. Drug acquisition, hospitalization costs and adverse events were also collected. Alternative 3- and 10-year time horizon scenarios were used. In addition, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were simulated. A budget impact analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was performed, assuming a time horizon of 5 years. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. Results are reported in Brazilian Real (BRL), year values 2022.
resultsThe economic analysis of the base case showed that isavuconazole is associated with a saving of 95,174.00 BRL per patient compared to voriconazole. All other simulated scenarios showed that isavuconazole is dominant versus comparators when considering a willingness to pay 40,688.00 BRL/Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). The results were considered robust by the sensitivity analyses. The budget impact analysis showed that the incorporation of isavuconazole generates savings to the SHS, compared to voriconazole, of approximately 20.5 million BRL in the first year. This reaches about 54 million BRL in the fifth incorporation year, considering the market penetration of 20% in the first year, and 50% in the fifth year.
conclusionCompared with voriconazole, isavuconazole is regarded as a dominant treatment strategy for patients with suspected IA and generates savings for the SHS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.