Search

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose busulfan (Bu) administration and pharmacokinetically (PK) guided adjustment of Bu dose for patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The efficacy and safety of both dosing strategies were compared using a systematic review and meta-analysis. A Markov model was used in estimating relevant cost and health outcomes from the perspective of the health system. The primary outcomes of interest were lifetime cost, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollar per QALY gained. Results showed that progression-free survival and overall survival in the PK-guided group were higher than that in the fixed-dose group, and the PK-guided group was associated with low non-relapse mortality and relapse rate. In contrast to safety, the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was the same in the two groups (P > 0.05). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the QALY of the PK-guided group (12.8135 QALYs and $582,475.07) increased by 2.0609 relative to that in the fixed-dose group (10.7526 QALYs and $562,833.20), and the ICER was $9530.72/QALY. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the results. In conclusion, the PK-guided approach has higher efficacy and is safer., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole for the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) patients in the Netherlands. A decision analytic model was developed based on a double-blind randomized trial that compared posaconazole with fluconazole antifungal prophylaxis in recipients of allogeneic HSCT with GVHD who were receiving immunosuppressive therapy (Ullmann et al., N Engl J Med 356:335-347, 2007). Clinical events were modeled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFIs, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Data on life expectancy, quality-of-life, medical resource consumption, and costs were obtained from the literature. The total cost with posaconazole amounted to 9,428 (95% uncertainty interval 7,743-11,388), which is 4,566 (2,460-6,854) more than those with fluconazole. Posaconazole prophylaxis resulted in 0.17 (0.02-0.36) quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to fluconazole prophylaxis, corresponding to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 26,225 per QALY gained. A scenario analysis demonstrated that at an increased background IFI risk (from 9% to 15%) the ICER was 13,462 per QALY. Given the underlying data and assumptions, posaconazole prophylaxis is expected to be cost-effective relative to fluconazole in recipients of allogeneic HSCT developing GVHD in the Netherlands. The cost-effectiveness of posaconazole depends on the IFI risk, which can vary by hospital.