Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) has demonstrated similar efficacy to conventional amphotericin B for antifungal treatment in patients with febrile neutropenia; however, it is not without toxicities and is associated with a high acquisition cost. Despite this high cost, LAmB has been shown to have a pharmacoeconomic advantage over less expensive agents. Voriconazole is a potential alternative for empirical antifungal treatment of febrile neutropenia. The objective of this study was to assess the economic outcomes of voriconazole versus LAmB in patients with fever and neutropenia.
Methods: A decision analytical model was developed from a hospital perspective based on a 2-year (2002-2003) review of outcomes and prescribing practices in febrile neutropenic patients at a tertiary care medical centre. Literature reports and expert opinion were used to further populate the model. Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation enhanced the robustness of the model through variation of all probabilities and costs that populated the model.
Results: Sixty-three cases were evaluated in the retrospective review. Thirty-two were initially given voriconazole and 31 were given LAmB. Patient demographic data were similar in each group. In the base case, patients initially given voriconazole displayed a 27% reduction in overall treatment cost over patients initially given LAmB (14,950 vs 20,591 $US). Sensitivity analysis determined that the cost advantage in the voriconazole arm was maintained over a wide range of costs and probabilities. Variance in the cost of nephrotoxicity and medication cost did not significantly alter results. Monte Carlo simulation determined the voriconazole arm to be the optimal path in 65% of cases.
Conclusion: The decision model indicated that use of voriconazole as the preferred antifungal agent in adult haematology patients with febrile neutropenia should result in lower overall treatment costs relative to LAmB.