Fluconazole versus mould-active triazoles for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis
This study evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of fluconazole versus mould-active triazoles (voriconazole and posaconazole) in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). A decision analytical model was developed with inputs from a 7-year retrospective study (2009–2016) of 103 consecutive adult patients with ALL who received antifungal prophylaxis. Information on the administration of antifungal agents, clinical outcomes, and costs were collected. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. The mould-active triazoles group was associated with higher life-years (3.71 vs 3.59) and lower total costs (US$4886 vs US$5722) per patient compared with fluconazole. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that varying all of the key variables in the model did not affect the robustness of the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that mould-active triazoles had a probability of 77.1 and 90.1% of providing a dominant and cost-effective option relative to fluconazole, respectively. Mould-active triazoles should be regarded as preferable to fluconazole as the first-line prophylactic for adult patients with ALL accompanied by uncommon severe vinca alkaloid-induced neurotoxicity. However, the results reported here should be interpreted with caution owing to the observational nature of the data.
KeywordsCost-effectiveness Antifungal agents Prophylaxis Acute lymphoblastic leukemia
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81473177 and 81672954) and the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2016JM8015).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- 3.NCT01259713. Prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in subjects receiving chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. 2010. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01259713.
- 7.Ananda-Rajah MR, Cheng A, Morrissey CO, Spelman T, Dooley M, Neville AM, et al. Attributable hospital cost and antifungal treatment of invasive fungal diseases in high-risk hematology patients: an economic modeling approach. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:1953–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.NCCN Guidelines Version 2.2016 of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia [Internet]. American: National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/. Accessed 20 Sept 2016.
- 10.Astellas Pharma Europe B.V. Mycamine: summary of product characteristics. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/20997/SPC/Mycamine+50mg+and+100mg+powder+for+solution+for+infusion/. Accessed 20 Sept 2016.
- 13.Pfizer Inc. Vfend (voriconazole) package insert. New York; 2008.Google Scholar
- 14.Merck Inc. Noxafil (posaconazole) package insert. Darmstadt; 2012.Google Scholar
- 18.Grau S, de la Camara R, Sabater FJ, Jarque I, Carreras E, Casado MA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Spain. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12:83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Heng SC, Slavin MA, Al-Badriyeh D, Kirsa S, Seymour JF, Grigg A, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of fluconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing first consolidation chemotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:1669–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Mauskopf J, Chirila C, Graham J, Gersten ID, Leather H, Maziarz RT, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of voriconazole and fluconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection in patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70:1518–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, Stevens DA, Edwards JE, Calandra T, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:1813–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Health and Family Planning of 2015. Beijing: Peking Union Medical University; 2015.Google Scholar
- 24.WHO-CHOICE. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/ Accessed 20 Sept 2016.
- 28.Wingard JR, Carter SL, Walsh TJ, Kurtzberg J, Small TN, Baden LR, et al. Randomized, double-blind trial of fluconazole versus voriconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2010;116:5111–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar