Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1106
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorNeoh, Chin Fenen_US
dc.contributorSenol, Esinen_US
dc.contributorKara, Atesen_US
dc.contributorDinleyici, Ener Cagrien_US
dc.contributorTurner, Stuart J.en_US
dc.contributorKong, David C. M.en_US
dc.date2017-
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-09T05:38:00Z-
dc.date.available2018-02-09T05:38:00Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.govdoc01079en_US
dc.identifier.issn0933-7407en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/1106-
dc.description.abstractAnidulafungin has been shown to be non-inferior to, and possibly more efficacious, than fluconazole in treating patients with invasive candidiasis (IC). This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of anidulafungin vs fluconazole for treatment of IC in the Turkish setting. A decision analytic model was constructed to depict downstream economic consequences of using anidulafungin or fluconazole for treatment of IC in the Turkish hospitals. Transition probabilities (ie treatment success, observed or indeterminate treatment failures) were obtained from a published randomised clinical trial. Cost inputs were from the latest Turkish resources. Data not available in the literature were estimated by expert panels. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model outcome. While anidulafungin [TL 17 171 (USD 4589)] incurred a higher total cost than fluconazole [TL 8233 (USD 2200) per treated patient, treatment with anidulafungin was estimated to save an additional 0.58 life-years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TL 15 410 (USD 4118) per life-years saved. Drug acquisition cost and hospitalisation were the main cost drivers for anidulafungin and fluconazole arms respectively. The model findings were robust over a wide range of input variables except for anidulafungin drug cost. Anidulafungin appears to be a cost-effective therapy in treating IC from the Turkish hospital perspective.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2018-01-23T02:42:23Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2018-02-09T05:38:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2018-02-09T05:38:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2017en
dc.relation.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28699297en_US
dc.titleCost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin vs fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.specifiedArticleen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleMycosesen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume60en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue11en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage714en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage722en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusANTIFUNGAL AGENTSen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCANDIDAen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusANIDULAFUNGINen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusFLUCONAZOLEen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCOST-BENEFIT ANALYSISen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCANDIDIASIS, INVASIVEen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusDRUG COSTSen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusTURKEYen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/myc.12651en_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.