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.

OBJECTIVES

This 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).

METHODS

In 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSION

Compared with voriconazole, isavuconazole is regarded as a dominant treatment strategy for patients with suspected IA and generates savings for the SHS.