Abstract:BACKGROUND:Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) are both indicated for treating invasive fungal infections (IFIs) caused by Aspergillus, Candida and Cryptococcus spp. among patients who are refractory to or intolerant of conventional amphotericin B (CAB). Prior studies have suggested similar efficacies but differences in adverse event (AE) profiles between L-AMB and ABLC.OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to conduct a cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis for the treatment of IFIs with L-AMB and ABLC in a US hospital setting.METHODS:A Microsoft® Excel-based budget impact model was developed to estimate the costs associated with using L-AMB and ABLC for the treatment of adult patients with Aspergillus, Candida and Cryptococcus spp. infections, who are refractory to or intolerant of CAB, during a hospital stay. The model was built from a hospital perspective, and included drug costs of L-AMB and ABLC, and costs for treating drug-related AEs (i.e. nephrotoxicity with/without dialysis, infusion-related reactions, anaphylaxis, hypomagnesaemia and hypokalaemia). Average sales price was used as the drug cost estimate in the base-case analyses. The treatment duration and rates of AEs for L-AMB and ABLC were mainly obtained from a retrospective study of these two drugs in the target population using the Cerner Health Facts data. Treatment costs of AEs were obtained from the publicly available sources. The budget impact ($US, year 2011 values) was evaluated for a hypothetical hospital with 100 administrations where L-AMB and ABLC are used for the treatment of the target population by changing the market share of L-AMB and ABLC from 32/68% to an anticipated market share of 60/40% in the base-case analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying drug costs, rates of AEs, costs of AEs and anticipated market shares of L-AMB and ABLC.RESULTS:The estimated per-patient cost per hospital episode associated with L-AMB and ABLC use were $US14,563 and $US16,748, respectively. Cost of AEs accounted for 68.7% of the costs for L-AMB and 85.4% for ABLC. In a hypothetical hospital with 100 annual admissions of patients using these two drugs for IFIs, changing the market shares from 32/68% for L-AMB and ABLC, respectively, to 60/40% yielded a 3.8% cost reduction, which corresponded to an absolute cost savings of $US61,191. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in input parameter values in most cases.CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that hospitals can realize cost savings by substituting L-AMB for ABLC in the treatment of IFIs. The cost savings are driven by the lower rates of AEs associated with L-AMB use compared with ABLC.

Acute Infusion-Related Side Effects of Amphotericin B Lipid Complex (ABLC) in Oncohematological Patients: Real-World Data from Brazilian Reference Centers

Effectiveness, Tolerability, and Safety of Different Amphotericin B Formulations in Invasive Fungal Infections: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study

[Clinical Study of Amphotericin B in the Treatment of Invasive Fungal Infection in 111 Hematological Disorder Patients with Neutrocytopenia].

Does High-Dose Cytarabine Cause More Fungal Infection in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Undergoing Consolidation Therapy A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study in China

[Clinical efficacy and safety of liposomal amphotericin B in the salvage treatment of invasive fungal disease in patients with hematological diseases]

Salt‐induced conformational changes in, and secondary structure analysis of, halophile ribosomal ‘a’ proteins equivalent to EL7/EL12

Safety of different amphotericin B formulations among AIDS patients with invasive fungal disease: a retrospective observational study

Intravenous Liposomal Amphotericin B Efficacy and Safety for Cutaneous and Mucosal Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Single-Dose Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion in Healthy Chinese Subjects and Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis to Inform Clinical Efficacy in Invasive Infections Caused by Candida albicans

Oral Lipid Nanocrystal Amphotericin B (MAT2203) for the Treatment of Invasive Fungal Infections

Adverse Effects Associated With Currently Commonly Used Antifungal Agents: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

High-Risk Neutropenic Fever and Invasive Fungal Diseases in Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Delivery strategies of amphotericin B for invasive fungal infections

Evaluation of Anidulafungin in the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Candidiasis: a Pooled Analysis of Patient-Level Data from 5 Prospective Studies

Patterns of Amphotericin B Use and Factors Related to Mortality in a Low-Middle Income Country: An Observational and Longitudinal Study

The Efficacy and Safety of Antifungal Agents for Managing Oral Candidiasis in Oncologic Patients: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis

Budget Impact Analysis of Liposomal Amphotericin B and Amphotericin B Lipid Complex in the Treatment of Invasive Fungal Infections in the United States

Efficacy and Safety of Domestic Amphotericin B in Preemptive Therapy of Pulmonary Invasive Fungal Infection in Hematological Disorder Patients

Amphotericin B in the Era of New Antifungals: Where Will It Stand?

Single molecule rotational probing of supercooled liquids.

The clinical usage of liposomal amphotericin B in patients receiving renal replacement therapy in Japan: a nationwide observational study