Network Meta-analysis and Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Posaconazole, and Voriconazole in Invasive Fungal Infection Prophylaxis

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are associated with high mortality rates and large economic burdens. Triazole prophylaxis is used for at-risk patients with hematological malignancies or stem cell transplants. We evaluated both the efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of triazole prophylaxis. A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fluconazole, itraconazole capsule and solution, posaconazole, and voriconazole was conducted. The outcomes of interest included the incidences of IFIs and deaths. This was coupled with a cost-effectiveness analysis from patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Probabilities of transitions between health states were derived from the NMA. Resource use and costs were obtained from the Singapore health care institution. Data on 5,505 participants in 21 RCTs were included. Other than itraconazole capsule, all triazole antifungals were effective in reducing IFIs. Posaconazole was better than fluconazole (odds ratio [OR], 0.35 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.73]) and itraconazole capsule (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.97]), but not voriconazole (OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.43 to 4.01]), in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole significantly reduced all-cause deaths, compared to placebo, fluconazole, and itraconazole solution (OR, 0.49 to 0.54 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.88]). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for itraconazole solution was lower than that for posaconazole (Singapore dollars [SGD] 12,546 versus SGD 26,817 per IFI avoided and SGD 5,844 versus SGD 12,423 per LY saved) for transplant patients. For leukemia patients, itraconazole solution was the dominant strategy. Voriconazole was dominated by posaconazole. All triazole antifungals except itraconazole capsule were effective in preventing IFIs. Posaconazole was more efficacious in reducing IFIs and all-cause deaths than were fluconazole and itraconazole. Both itraconazole solution and posaconazole were cost-effective in the Singapore health care setting.

Posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole for prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis in an Asian teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

Posaconazole is superior to fluconazole/itraconazole in preventing invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in neutropenic patients. Whether the higher cost of posaconazole is offset by decreases in IFDs in a given institute requires cost-effective analysis encompassing the spectrum of IFDs and socioeconomic factors specific to that geographic area.

METHODS

This study performed a cost-effective analysis of posaconazole prophylaxis for IFDs in an Asian teaching hospital, employing decision modeling and data of IFDs and medication costs specific to the institute, in neutropenic patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

RESULTS

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the higher cost of posaconazole was partially offset by a reduction in the cost of treating IFDs that were prevented, resulting in an incremental cost of 125,954 Hong Kong dollars/16,148 USD per IFD avoided. Over a lifetime horizon, assuming same case fatality rate of IFDs in both groups, use of posaconazole results in 0.07 discounted life years saved. This corresponds to an incremental cost of 116,023 HKD/14,875 USD per life year saved. This incremental cost per life year saved in posaconazole prophylaxis fulfilled the World Health Organization defined threshold for cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Posaconazole prophylaxis was cost-effective in Hong Kong.

An update to the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal disease among neutropenic patients in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Posaconazole has shown superior clinical efficacy in the prevention of invasive fungal disease (IFD) among neutropenic patients as well as cost-effectiveness in the US healthcare setting vs fluconazole or itraconazole (FLU/ITRA) based on oral suspension formulations of each therapy. This study aims to provide an update on the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole in the current US healthcare setting to reflect bioequivalent tablet formulations of posaconazole and fluconazole, as well as changes in healthcare and drug costs.

METHODS

An existing model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs FLU/ITRA in the prevention of IFD among patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Drug efficacy, mortality related to IFD, and death from other causes were estimated for tablet formulations using data from a randomized clinical trial of oral suspensions based on bioequivalence. IFD treatment costs were updated using the average inflation rate over 8 years (2006-2014) and drug costs were based on 2014 Analysource data.

RESULTS

Trial data show a lower IFD probability over 100 days of follow-up with posaconazole compared to standard azole therapy (0.05 vs 0.11). The treatment duration on posaconazole is 29 days compared to 24 days for FLU and 29 days for ITRA. The average cost of prophylaxis is higher in the posaconazole group compared to FLU/ITRA ($4673 vs $353); however, the costs associated with treating the IFD are lower in the posaconazole group compared to FLU/ITRA ($2205 vs $5303). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of IFD avoided for posaconazole is $18,898 vs FLU/ITRA.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current healthcare cost environment where both drug costs and overall IFD treatment costs have increased since 2007, posaconazole tablets are a cost-effective alternative to fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of IFD among neutropenic patients with AML and MDS in the US.

Economic evaluation of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infection in high-risk neutropenic patients in Sweden

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), posaconazole has been proven more effective in the prevention of invasive fungal infection (IFI) than fluconazole or itraconazole (standard azoles) The current analysis seeks to estimate the cost effectiveness of prophylactic posaconazole compared with standard azoles in AML or MDS patients with severe chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in Sweden.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to estimate life expectancy, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy data were derived from a phase III clinical trial. Life expectancy and quality of life data were collected from the literature. A modified Delphi method was used to gather expert opinion on resource use for an IFI. Unit costs were captured from hospital and pharmacy pricelists. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to investigate the impact of uncertainty in the model parameters on the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

The estimated mean direct cost per patient with posaconazole prophylaxis was 46,893 Swedish kronor (SEK) (€5,387) and SEK50,017 (€5,746) with standard azoles. Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in 0.075 QALYs gained compared with standard azoles. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of SEK500,000/QALY the PSA demonstrated a more than 95 % probability that posaconazole is cost effective versus standard azoles for the prevention of IFI in high-risk neutropenic patients in Sweden.

CONCLUSION

Given the assumptions, methods, and data used, posaconazole is expected to be cost effective compared with standard azoles when used as antifungal prophylaxis in AML or MDS patients with chemotherapy-induced prolonged neutropenia in Sweden.

Adapting a global cost-effectiveness model to local country requirements: posaconazole case study

BACKGROUND

Many countries have various requirements for local economic analyses to assess the value of a new health technology and/or to secure reimbursement. This study presents a case study of an economic model developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs standard azole therapy (fluconazole/itraconazole) to prevent invasive fungal infections (IFIs), which was adapted by at least 11 countries.

METHODS

Modeling techniques were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole as IFI prophylaxis in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. For the core model, the probabilities of experiencing an IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes were estimated from clinical trial data. Long-term mortality, drug costs, and IFI treatment costs were obtained from secondary sources. Locally changed parameters were probabilities of long-term death and survival, currency, drug costs, health utility, IFI treatment costs, and discount rate.

RESULTS

Locally adapted cost-effective modeling studies indicate that prophylaxis with posaconazole, compared with fluconazole/itraconazole, prolongs survival, and, in most countries, is cost-saving. In all countries, the model predicted that prophylaxis with posaconazole would be associated with an increase in life-years, with increases ranging from 0.016-0.1 life-year saved. In all countries, use of the model led to posaconazole being approved by the appropriate reimbursement authority.

LIMITATIONS

The study did not have power to detect differences between posaconazole and fluconazole or itraconazole separately. The risk of death after 100 days was assumed to be equal for those who did and did not develop an IFI, and equal probabilities of IFI-related and other death during the trial period were used for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A core economic model was successfully adapted locally by several countries. The model showed that posaconazole was cost-saving or cost-effective vs fluconazole/itraconazole and led to positive reimbursement listings.

Cost-effectiveness of primary antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole versus itraconazole in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

METHODS

Total hospital-based costs from initial admission for allo-HSCT until day 100 after transplantation were evaluated for 49 patients in whom the clinical efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole vs itraconazole had been previously analyzed and reported. Clinical and economic data were used to determine the incremental costs per IFI avoided and per life-year gained for posaconazole compared with itraconazole. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated through bootstrapping with the bias-corrected percentile method.

RESULTS

According to our analysis, the total cost of allo-HSCT per patient during the 100-day fixed-treatment period was €46,562 in the posaconazole group (n = 33) and €45,080 in the itraconazole group (n = 16). However, the reduction in the incidence of IFI and the improved outcome with posaconazole resulted in a favorable ICER of €11,856 per IFI avoided and €5218 per life-year gained. With the outcomes of the bootstrap procedure, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed. Assuming a threshold of €30,000 per life-year gained, the ICER based on life-years gained is acceptable with 75% certainty.

LIMITATIONS

This evaluation is based on data from a single-center, non-randomized study. Preference weights or utilities were not available to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. Extra-mural costs were only partially evaluated from a hospital perspective. Indirect costs and economic consequences are not included.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation compared direct medical costs associated with posaconazole or itraconazole treatment; the data suggest that posaconazole may be cost-effective as antifungal prophylaxis during the early high-risk neutropenic period and up to 100 days after allo-HSCT.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44mcg 3-times a week vs no treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous interferon (sc IFN) beta-1a 44 mcg 3-times weekly (tiw) vs no treatment at reducing the risk of conversion to multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in Sweden.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical course of patients with CIS treated with sc IFN beta-1a 44 mcg tiw or no treatment over a 40-year time horizon. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective in 2012 Swedish kronor (SEK). Treatment efficacy data were derived from the REFLEX trial; resource use and quality-of-life (QoL) data were obtained from the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses explored whether results were robust to changes in input values and use of Poser criteria.

RESULTS

Using McDonald criteria sc IFN beta-1a was cost-saving and more effective (i.e., dominant) vs no treatment. Gains in progression free life years (PFLYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 1.63 and 0.53, respectively. Projected cost savings were 270,263 SEK. For Poser criteria cost savings of 823,459 SEK were estimated, with PFLY and QALY gains of 4.12 and 1.38, respectively. Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a remained dominant from a payer perspective. Results were insensitive to key input variation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 99.9% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 500,000 SEK/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk of MS conversion. It is associated with lower costs, greater QALY gains, and more time free of MS.

LIMITATIONS

The risk of conversion from CIS to MS was extrapolated from 2-year trial data. Treatment benefit was assumed to persist over the model duration, although long-term data to support this are unavailable. Cost and QoL data from MS patients were assumed applicable to CIS patients.

Posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) present a major issue in clinical practice, due to their high morbidity and mortality rates. In a pivotal multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, posaconazole prophylaxis prevented IFIs more effectively than did either fluconazole or itraconazole, and improved overall survival.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the aforementioned therapeutic strategies for IFI prophylaxis in neutropenic patients, in the Greek healthcare setting.

METHOD

A decision analytic model was developed, which described the course of neutropenic patients under posaconazole or standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) treatment. Effectiveness data for each treatment regimen were derived from published results of a pivotal, multi-centre, randomized clinical trial. Cost and healthcare resources utilization data depict Greek clinical practice and are derived from official Greek sources, from a third party payer perspective.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in fewer IFIs (0.05 vs 0.11 per patient) compared to treatment with fluconazole or itraconazole, during the first 100 days from initiation of prophylaxis treatment. The cost per avoided IFI with posaconazole was €6455, while the incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) was estimated at €24,196. Extensive sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case results. Possible limitations of the study are the exclusion of indirect and outpatient costs from the analysis and the inherent uncertainty with regards to the transferability of the clinical efficacy results of the clinical trial to the Greek healthcare setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of posaconazole for prophylaxis of IFIs neutropenic patients is a therapeutic strategy that provides superior clinical efficacy, while being cost-effective compared to alternative therapies.

[Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylactic treatment of invasive fungal infections in Mexico]

Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness and long-term combined effects of Posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole (standard azole) therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov model was used to compare the projected lifetime costs and effects of two theoretical groups of patients, one receiving Posaconazole and the other receiving standard azole. The model estimates total costs, numbers of IFIs, and QALY per patient in each prophylaxis group. To extrapolate trial results to a lifetime horizon, the model was extended with one-month Markov cycles in which mortality risk is specific to the underlying disease. Data on the probabilities of IFI were obtained from Study Protocol PO1899. Drug costs were taken from average wholesale drug reports for 2009. Cost and health effects were discounted at 5% according to the Mexican guideline. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2008 unit cost prices.

RESULTS

Our model projects an accumulated cost to the Mexican healthcare system per patient receiving the Posaconazol regimen of $US 5,634 compared to $US 7,463 for the standard azole regimen. The accumulated discounted effect is 3.13 LY or 2.25 QALYs per patient receiving Posaconazol, compared to 2.96 LY or 2.13 QALYs per patient receiving standard azole. Posaconazol remained the dominant strategy across each scenario. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes.

CONCLUSION

Posaconazole provides modest incremental benefits compared with standard azole therapy in the prophylaxis against IFIs among high-risk neutropenic patients. Routine Posaconazole use appears a cost saving when the likelihood of IFIs or the cost of treatment medications is high.

[Economic evaluation of posaconazole in prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in Italian neutropenic patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome]

The objective of this study was to assess the costs and effectiveness (avoided invasive fungal infections - IFIs; overall mortality) of prophylaxis with posaconazole 200 mg per os TID and standard azoles (fluconazole 400 mg per os OD, itraconazole 200 mg per os BID) in neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndromes. A 100-day cost-effectiveness model was developed following the Italian hospital perspective. The probability of IFIs, death from IFIs, and death from other causes was obtained from the literature. Health care sector resources (type, volume, unit cost) are given in Euros and refer to 2009. The robustness of the cost-effectiveness model was tested via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Total costs for posaconazole (standard azoles) was estimated at Euros 3365.26 (Euros 2339.96). Posaconazole is consistently more effective than standard azoles. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for avoided IFI (avoided overall mortality) with posaconazole is Euros 15,850.51 (Euros 18,038.43). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of such findings. In conclusion, posaconazole as a prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with AML or MDS who are at risk of IFI is good value for money for Italian hospitals.

Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among neutropenic patients in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trial data indicate that posaconazole is superior to fluconazole (FLU) or itraconazole (ITRA) in preventing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among neutropenic patients. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus FLU or ITRA for prevention of IFIs among neutropenic patients.

METHODS

We used modeling techniques to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus FLU or ITRA in the prevention of IFIs among patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The probabilities of experiencing an IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes over 100 days of follow-up were estimated from clinical trial data. Long-term mortality, drug costs, and IFI treatment costs were obtained from secondary sources.

RESULTS

Posaconazole is associated with fewer IFIs per patient (0.05 vs. 0.11) relative to FLU or ITRA over 100 days of follow-up, and lower discounted costs ($3900 vs. $4500) and increased life-years (2.50 vs. 2.43 discounted) over a lifetime horizon. Results from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicate that there is a 73% probability that posaconazole is cost saving versus FLU or ITRA and a 96% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for posaconazole is at or below $50,000 per life-year saved.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that posaconazole is very likely to be a cost-effective alternative to FLU or ITRA in the prevention of IFIs among neutropenic patients with AML and MDS, and may result in cost savings.

Cost effectiveness of itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies are associated with a high mortality rate and, therefore, require early treatment. As the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections is difficult, effective antifungal prophylaxis is desirable. So far, fluconazole has been the most commonly used.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of itraconazole compared with both fluconazole and no prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in haematological patients, mean age 51 years, in Germany and The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN

We designed a probabilistic decision model to fully incorporate the uncertainty associated with the risk estimates of acquiring an invasive fungal infection. These risk estimates were extracted from two meta-analyses, evaluating the effectiveness of fluconazole and itraconazole and no prophylaxis. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare sector; only medical costs were taken into account. All costs were reported in euro, year 2004 values.Cost effectiveness was expressed as net costs per invasive fungal infection averted. No discounting was performed, as the model followed patients during their neutropenic period, which was assumed to be less than 1 year.

RESULTS

According to our probabilistic decision model, the monetary benefits of averted healthcare exceed the costs of itraconazole prophylaxis under baseline assumptions (95% CI: from cost-saving to euro 5000 per invasive fungal infection averted). Compared with fluconazole, itraconazole is estimated to be both more effective and more economically favourable, with a probability of almost 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

In specific groups of neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies, itraconazole prophylaxis could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure, without harming effectiveness, in settings where fluconazole is common practice in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections.

Itraconazole Prophylaxis in Lung Transplant Recipients Receiving Tacrolimus (FK 506): Efficacy and Drug Interaction

BACKGROUND

Itraconazole is often given for fungal prophylaxis to lung transplant recipients after transplantation. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of interaction between tacrolimus and itraconazole in lung transplant recipients and the efficacy of itraconazole prophylaxis.

METHODS

The study group included 40 lung transplant recipients followed for at least 12 months. All received prophylactic itraconazole, 200 mg twice a day, for the first 6 months after transplantation. Tacrolimus levels and dosage requirements were compared during and after itraconazole therapy. Rejection rate, fungal infection rate, and renal function were assessed. The mean cost per daily treatment of the itraconazole/tacrolimus combination and tacrolimus alone was calculated.

RESULTS

The mean tacrolimus dose during itraconazole treatment was 3.26 +/- 2.1 mg/day compared with 5.74 +/- 2.9 mg/day after itraconazole was stopped (p < 0.0001) for a mean total daily dose elevation of tacrolimus of 76%. When the cost of itraconazole was taken into account, the average total daily cost of the combined treatment was US5.86 dollars less than the treatment with tacrolimus alone. No differences in the rejection or fungal infection rate, or in renal toxicity, were observed between the periods with and without itraconazole treatment, although less positive fungal isolates were identified during itraconazole therapy.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis therapy with itraconazole is highly effective. Itraconazole reduces the dose of tacrolimus and therefore lowers the cost of therapy without causing an increase in rejection rate and with renal function preservation.

[Study on the compliance and safety of the oral antifungal agents for the treatment of onychomycosis]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the rate of compliance, influencing factors and the safety of patients with onychomycosis under treatment of oral antifungal agents.

METHODS

According to the scoring clinical index of onychomycosis (SCIO), 330 patients with onychomycosis, their target nail's integral of the SCIO were calculated and randomly divided into three groups under the baseline of the SCIO integral range. Patients were treated with intermittent pulse itraconazole (A group), continuous terbinafine (B group) and intermittent terbinafine (C group) respectively. Self-administered questionnaire was applied in the survey on every onychomycosis patient.

RESULTS

The average rate of compliance was 55.15%. The cure rate for those compliance with doctors' order was 89.01%, while it was only 30.41% for those noncompliant patients The overall non-compliant rate was 44.85%. Among the noncompliant ones, 29.73% were worried about the side effects of medicine, 22.30% thought that they had already been cured, 15.54% was due to economic reasons and 12.16% could not bear the side effects of medicine. It was found that the compliant rates were significantly correlated to ageing, position of the target nails, the integral of the SCIO and the therapy scheme (P < 0.05), while no significant correlations were seen between male and female, culture degree and course (P > 0.1). The frequency of adverse incident of A, B, C groups were 22.73%, 21.43%, 23.15% respectively, but without statistical significance (P > 0.1). Majority of the adverse incidents happened during the first month of therapy but were mild and reversible.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that the overall compliance was low which exerted a significant influence on the curative effect of onychomycosis patients. Factors as ageing, position of the target nail, integral of the SCIO and the therapy scheme had an influence on the compliant rate. When treating onychomycosis with oral itraconazole, the results seemed to be just as safe as when using terbinafine.

Economic Evaluation of Intravenous Itraconazole for Presumed Systemic Fungal Infections in Neutropenic Patients in Korea

Systemic fungal infections remain a major clinical problem in immunocompromised patients. Presumed systemic fungal infections (PSFI) are treated empirically with an intravenous antifungal agent to reduce the occurrence of documented infections and associated mortality. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of intravenous itraconazole (IVitra) treatment with the current first-line empirical treatment of PSFI with conventional amphotericin B (CAB) in cases of neutropenic cancer and bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per additional "responder" (defined as a patient without fever or major toxicity). We developed a medical decision analytical tree that included probabilities of toxicity, response and pathogen documentation, and second-line treatments. Clinical data were obtained from randomized clinical trials, and resource use data were obtained from a panel of clinical experts. The total cost of treating PSFI per neutropenic cancer patient was lower for IVitra than for CAB, and this lower cost resulted from a reduced need for second-line antifungals. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, IVitra treatment was superior to CAB treatment. Compared with current treatment with CAB, IVitra therapy was shown to be a cost-effective and cost-saving empirical treatment for PSFI in neutropenic cancer patients and BMT patients.

[Economic evaluation of the treatment of systemic fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: the role of itraconazole]

In recent years, the incidence of HIV infection, the intensity of chemotherapy regimens for cancer and the use of bone marrow transplantation have all increased. This results in an increase in the incidence of systemic fungal infections, which are associated high rates of morbidity and mortality in this immunosuppressed population; the incidence is growing: 50% for neutropenic/transplant bone marrow patients and 5-20% for organ transplant. Fluconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin-B and, in the recent years, caspofungin and voriconazole are the most frequently used antifungal agents. However, the newly developed formulations of itraconazole and lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B have provide new treatment options for systemic fungal infection and have prompted a number of comparisons of the treatment costs of empirical therapy. The i.v. formulation of itraconazole may be more cost effective than either conventional or liposomial formulations of amphotericin-B when used as empirical therapy for neutropenic patients with persistent fever despite broad spectrum antibiotic therapy, but further studies are required. The lack of studies, national and international, and the small amount of available data on the cost of systemic fungal infections mean that the costs saving from prophylactic and empirical use of antifungals are difficult to estimate.

Economic analysis of oral and topical therapies for onychomycosis of the toenails and fingernails

OBJECTIVE

Several antifungal agents are indicated for onychomycosis, a fungal infection of the toenails and fingernails. These agents differ in their dosing regimen, efficacy, adverse events profile, potential for drug interaction, and cost. We conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral and topical therapies for onychomycosis from the perspective of a hypothetical managed care payer to determine the most cost-effective agent.

DESIGN

A decision analytic model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic profiles of itraconazole-continuous (Sporanox, Janssen Pharmaceutica), itraconazole-pulse (Sporanox, Janssen Pharmaceutica), terbinafine (Lamisil, Novartis Pharmaceuticals), and ciclopirox (Penlac, Dermik Laboratories) in the treatment of fingernail and toenail onychomycosis.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a meta-analysis of the available literature to populate the decision analytic model with clinical point estimates for success, failure, and relapse. A panel of expert dermatologists defined resources consumed during the onychomycosis treatment process. These resources were then assigned values, using publicly available data sources, to reflect the U.S. managed care perspective. These clinical and economic data elements were integrated in the decision analytic model to arrive at the expected cost of treatment for each drug. Additionally, incremental cost-effectiveness was calculated for treatment success and disease-free days achieved by each therapy. Finally, a policy-level analysis of the budgetary impact of using the therapies for onychomycosis in a managed care setting was conducted.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis demonstrated terbinafine to be the therapeutic alternative with the highest success rate for both fingernails (96.55 percent) and toenails (81.15 percent). Terbinafine also had the lowest relapse rate (6.42 percent) and the highest number of disease-free days for both fingernails and toenails. Subsequently, in terms of cost-effectiveness, terbinafine dominated all other comparators for fingernails and toenails.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the patient-level analysis, we concluded that terbinafine is the most cost-effective therapy in the treatment of onychomycosis from a managed care perspective. Furthermore, at the policy level, increased utilization of terbinafine among onychomycosis patients is likely to reduce the managed care organizations' per member per month cost.

Treatment of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis in the United States. A pharmacoeconomic analysis

This study attempted to determine the cost-effectiveness of therapies for dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis in the United States in 2001. The antimycotic agents evaluated were ciclopirox 8% nail lacquer and the oral agents terbinafine, itraconazole (pulse), itraconazole (continuous), fluconazole, and griseofulvin. A treatment algorithm for the management of onychomycosis was developed, and a meta-analysis was carried out to determine the average mycologic and clinical response rates for the various agents. The cost of the regimen was figured as the sum of the costs of drug acquisition, medical management, and management of adverse effects. The expected cost of management and disease-free days were determined, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. It was concluded that ciclopirox 8% nail lacquer, which has recently become available in the larger size of 6.6 mL, is a cost-effective agent for the management of toenail onychomycosis.

Amorolfine and itraconazole combination for severe toenail onychomycosis; results of an open randomized trial in Spain

OBJECTIVE

In an open, randomized, clinical study of toenail onychomycosis with matrix area involvement, two alternative regimens of topical amorolfine/oral itraconazole therapy were compared with itraconazole monotherapy.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A total of 131 patients were randomized to treatment. Patients in the combination groups were treated with amorolfine 5% nail lacquer (Loceryl, Galderma Laboratories) once weekly for 24 weeks and 200 mg itraconazole once daily for 6 weeks (Group AI-6) or 12 weeks (Group AI-12). A control group received itraconazole monotherapy for 12 weeks (Group 1-12). Strict inclusion criteria specified that subjects had to have onychomycosis of the toenails with matrix area involvement and/or > 80% total nail surface involvement. Mycological evaluations using both microscopic examination and culture of nail samples were performed at weeks 12 and 24. A stringent assessment of outcome at study end combined the results of mycological and clinical outcomes into a global cure rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

At week 12, mycological cure was attained in 42 of 45 patients (93.3%) in group AI-6, 29 of 35 patients (82.9%) in group AI-12, and 14 of 34 patients in group 1-12. The difference between both combination groups and the control group were significant (P < 0.001). The global cure rate at week 24 was 83.7% (36 patients) in group AI-6, 93.9% (31 patients) in group AI-12, and 68.8% (22 patients) in group I-12. The difference between the AI-12 group and itraconazole monotherapy was significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that amorolfine combination therapy represents an improved treatment strategy for patients with severe onychomycosis.

Cost effectiveness of continuous terbinafine compared with intermittent itraconazole in the treatment of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis: an analysis of based on results from the L.I.ON. study. Lamisil versus Itraconazole in Onychomycosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs and effectiveness of 2 oral antifungal treatment regimens in patients with dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using a model based on data from the Lamisil versus Itraconazole in Onychomycosis (L.I.ON.) study, a randomised controlled trial comparing continuous terbinafine with intermittent itraconazole. The trial included 4 treatment arms: terbinafine 250 mg/day for 12 or 16 weeks (T12, T16) and itraconazole 400 mg/day for 1 week in every 4 weeks for 12 or 16 weeks (I3, I4). Cost calculations for 6 countries (Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, The Netherlands, UK) included costs for medication, physician visits, laboratory tests, management of adverse events and management of relapse. Effectiveness was based on complete cure rates (mycological cure plus 100% toenail clearing). Costs per complete cure were determined and both average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

PERSPECTIVE

Healthcare system.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

In the L.I.ON. study, terbinafine was seen to be more effective than itraconazole (cure rates, 45.8 vs 23.4%). In most comparisons (5 of the 6 countries), the costs of T12 were statistically significantly lower than those of I3 [range: -37 to -173 euros (EUR); 1998 values; 1.172 US dollars = EUR1], indicating that T12 was the dominant strategy (i.e. less expensive and more effective). One exception (Finland) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR524 per additional cure. In the other 5 countries, T16 and 14 were essentially equal in cost, but the greater effectiveness of T16 (cure rates, 55.1 vs 25.9%) resulted in a situation of extended dominance.

CONCLUSION

From a healthcare system perspective, continuous terbinafine is less costly and more effective than intermittent itraconazole in the treatment of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ciclopirox nail lacquer solution 8% and the new oral antifungal agents used to treat dermatophyte toe onychomycosis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Recently a novel topical nail lacquer, ciclopirox solution 8%, has been approved for the treatment of onychomycosis.

OBJECTIVE

This was undertaken to determine the most cost-effective treatment for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toes in the United States in 2000.

METHODS

The nature of the problem was defined. The drug comparators were ciclopirox nail lacquer, terbinafine, itraconazole (pulse), itraconazole (continuous), fluconazole, and griseofulvin. A decision analytic model that reflected the manner in which pedal tinea unguium is managed was produced. Studies that have evaluated the efficacy of the nail lacquer and the oral antifungal agents for this indication were identified. Appropriate studies were used in a meta-analysis to determine the mycologic and clinical response rates when the drug comparators are used for the treatment for toe dermatophyte onychomycosis. For each drug comparator a cost of regimen analysis was carried out. This is the sum of the drug acquisition cost, the cost of medical management, and the cost of managing adverse effects. Next, the expected cost of management was calculated, disease free days were determined, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

For each comparator the meta-analytic average mycologic cure (MC) rate and clinical response (CR) rates were: ciclopirox nail lacquer (MC: 52.6 +/- 4.2%, CR: 52.4 +/- 9.0%), griseofulvin (MC: 41.1 +/- 20.4%, CR: 33.7 +/- 14.1%), itraconazole (continuous) (MC: 66.3 +/- 4.2%, CR: 70.3 +/- 4.2%), itraconazole (pulse) (MC: 70.8 +/- 5.7%, CR: 73.6 +/- 4.6%), terbinafine (MC: 77.2 +/- 4.0%, CR: 75.3 +/- 2.9%), and fluconazole (MC: 65.6 +/- 7.1%, CR: 66.5 +/- 11.7%). The cost of regimen for the drug comparators was: ciclopirox nail lacquer $325.2, griseofulvin $1413.1, itraconazole (continuous) $1410.2, itraconazole (pulse) $811.7, terbinafine $890.1, and fluconazole $966.8. The cost/mycologic cure rate and expected cost/expected symptom free day were, ciclopirox nail lacquer ($618.2, 1.69), griseofulvin $3438.2, 5.3), itraconazole (continuous) ($2126.9, 3.52), itraconazole (pulse) ($1146.4, 2.01), terbinafine ($1153.0, 2.14), and fluconazole ($1473.7, 2.10). The relative cost-effectiveness was ciclopirox nail lacquer 1.00, itraconazole (pulse) 1.19, fluconazole 1.24, terbinafine 1.27, itraconazole (continuous) 2.08, and griseofulvin 3.13. Sensitivity analysis indicated that ciclopirox nail lacquer was a cost effective alternative compared with the oral regimens of terbinafine, itraconazole (continuous), and griseofulvin when clinical response rate was used as the primary efficacy parameter.

CONCLUSION

Ciclopirox nail lacquer solution 8% is a recent addition to the armamentarium of therapies available to the physician and patient for the treatment of onychomycosis. The nail lacquer is a cost effective agent compared with the oral antifungal therapies, terbinafine, itraconazole, fluconazole, and griseofulvin.

Onychomycosis: improved cure rates with itraconazole and terbinafine

Onychomycosis is a disease that is important to our patients. Based on the current literature, recent developments of newer antifungal agents have improved cure rates of onychomycosis in the past few years (Table 3). No significant differences in safety and tolerability between itraconazole and terbinafine exist. Terbinafine does appear to have a preferable drug interaction profile. Daily therapy with either agent at standard doses has been shown to be effective when compared with placebo. When studies have directly compared daily administration of terbinafine and itraconazole, both medications have shown similar efficacy. Daily terbinafine therapy, however, appears to be more effective than pulse therapy with itraconazole. In addition, one small study showed a trend in favor of continuous rather than intermittent terbinafine therapy and similar efficacy of intermittent itraconazole and intermittent terbinafine therapy. Furthermore, terbinafine is more cost-effective than itraconazole. Finally, as quality-of-life data suggest, onychomycosis is important to our patients and affects both physical and psychosocial components of our patients' lives.

The evolving role of itraconazole, fluconazole and terbinafine in the treatment of tinea capitis

Tinea capitis has become an increasing public health concern in the last decade. The increased incidence of the disease; its sometimes subtle, nonspecific clinical presentation; and the development of tolerance to griseofulvin therapy have led to the need for alternative safe, efficacious, inexpensive therapies that work rapidly. Itraconazole, fluconazole and terbinafine all possess pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics that theoretically would make them ideal therapies for tinea capitis. However, few randomized double blind controlled studies using these agents have been published. Thus far none have been conducted in the United States. The best available data support the utility and safety of the new antifungals in the treatment of tinea capitis. However, one must keep in mind that they are not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Safety and cost considerations favor terbinafine for the treatment of T. tonsurans infections. M. canis infections may respond better to itraconazole, but good controlled studies to confirm this speculation have not been conducted. Short course and pulse dosing are particularly exciting options that may decrease cost and lower the risk of adverse side effects. Further useful information will hopefully come from future randomized double blind studies that will include patients from the United States. Studies using standardized definitions of disease, cure and appropriate follow-up evaluation of clinical and mycologic cure will best identify the optimal therapy for pediatric tinea capitis infections. The new systemic antifungals may provide more therapeutic options for fungal infections of the scalp. Note added in proof A recent trial comparing short course terbinafine and intraconazole therapy demonstrated that 2-week therapy with either drug provided good results and high cure rates (Jahangir M, et al. Br J Dermatol 1998;139:672-4).

Cost-effectiveness of two new treatments for onychomycosis: an analysis of two comparative clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacoeconomic analyses are becoming an increasingly integral component of the overall profile of new drugs. This is particularly true for terbinafine and itraconazole, because both agents have been shown to be clinically effective and relatively safe.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of terbinafine and itraconazole in two recent comparative clinical trials of these new agents for onychomycosis of the toenails.

METHODS

Data as reported in the two clinical trials were used as the basis for an analytic decision-tree model that included cost of drug, medical management of the disease and any adverse reactions, and clinical efficacy data into calculations that estimated the relative cost effectiveness ratio for each drug on the basis of cost per disease-free day.

RESULTS

The total cost of terbinafine therapy ranged from $697.55 to $699.11, and the total cost of itraconazole therapy ranged from $1216.40 to $1218.80. The expected cost per disease-free day of itraconazole was $2.05 and $2.37, in the Bräutigam and De Backer trials, respectively; similar costs for terbinafine were $1.27 and $1.50. Relative to terbinafine, which was assigned a value of 1.0, the cost-effectiveness ratio of itraconazole was 1.62 and 1.58 in each trial, indicating a lower cost-effectiveness than terbinafine.

CONCLUSION

Terbinafine is more cost-effective than itraconazole in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral antifungal therapies used to treat dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toenails. A US analysis

Until a few years ago, griseofulvin and ketoconazole were the only 2 oral agents available for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toenails. With the availability of the newer antifungal agents, such as itraconazole, terbinafine and fluconazole, the armamentarium of drugs available to treat onychomycosis has expanded. The objective of this study was to determine the relative cost effectiveness of the most commonly used oral antifungal agents in the US for the treatment of dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toenails from the perspective of a third-party payer. The time horizon was 3 years. A 5-step approach was used in this pharmacoeconomic analysis. First, the purpose of the study, the comparator drugs and their dosage regimens were defined. In step II, the medical practice and resource-consumption patterns associated with the treatment of onychomycosis were identified. In step III, a meta-analysis was performed on all studies meeting prespecified criteria, and the mycological cure rates of the comparator drugs were determined. In step IV, the treatment algorithm for the management of onychomycosis was constructed for each drug. The cost-of-regimen analysis for each comparator incorporated the drug acquisition cost, medical-management cost and cost of managing adverse drug reactions. The expected cost per patient, number of symptom-free days (SFDs), cost per SFD and the relative cost effectiveness for the comparator drugs were calculated. In step V, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The drug comparators for this study were griseofulvin, itraconazole (continuous and pulse), terbinafine and fluconazole. The mycological cure rates [mean +/- standard error (SE)] from the meta-analysis were griseofulvin 24.5 +/- 6.7%, itraconazole (continuous) 66.4 +/- 6.1%, itraconazole (pulse) 76 +/- 9.3%, terbinafine 74 +/- 7% and fluconazole 59%. The cost per mycological cure was griseofulvin $US8089, itraconazole (continuous) $US1877, itraconazole (pulse) $US991, terbinafine $US1125 and fluconazole $US1506. The corresponding cost per SFD was griseofulvin $US7.05, itraconazole (continuous) $US2.18, itraconazole (pulse) $US1.26, terbinafine $US1.28 and fluconazole $US2.12. The resulting ratios of cost per SFD relative to itraconazole (pulse) [1.00] were terbinafine 1.02, itraconazole (continuous) 1:73, fluconazole 1.69 and griseofulvin 5.62. In conclusion, in this analysis, itraconazole (pulse) and terbinafine were the most cost-effective therapies for dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toenails, both being substantially more cost effective than griseofulvin.

Oral treatment options for onychomycosis

The author discusses the new oral antifungal agents for the treatment of onychomycosis. The history, mechanisms of action, efficacies, dosing, safety profiles, and costs of itraconazole, terbinafine, and fluconazole are reviewed. The author emphasizes that use of these effective antifungals represents an important paradigm shift for podiatric physicians away from the palliative therapy of nail debridement to a potentially curative treatment.

A cost/efficacy analysis of oral antifungals indicated for the treatment of onychomycosis: griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine

This analysis was conducted at HIP Health plan of New Jersey (a Northeastern group model health maintenance organization) to determine the most cost-effective therapy among the three currently available oral antifungal drugs that are indicated for the treatment of onychomycosis: griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine. Costs of an appropriate and complete treatment regimen were calculated for each of the three drugs based on average wholesale price. Efficacy was determined by meta-analysis of the published literature for those studies where appropriate treatment regimens for onychomycosis were put to use. Efficacy outcome measures were limited to mycologic cure rates in the more recalcitrant cases of toenail onychomycosis. From these measures of cost and efficacy, a cost/efficacy ratio was calculated for each drug by dividing the cost per treatment by the weighted average mycological cure rate. This ratio represents the cost per mycologically cured infection. The final outcome measure (the cost per mycologically cured infection) was $2,721.28, $1,845.05, and $648.96, for griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine continuous therapies, respectively. For itraconazole and terbinafine pulse therapy, the costs were $855.88 and $388.50, respectively. For both continuous and pulse therapy, terbinafine is apparently the most cost-effective drug, followed by itraconazole and then by griseofulvin. Terbinafine has the fewest drug interactions and the highest treatment success rate.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis: a US model

An evaluation of treatment practices in 13 countries, not including the United States, has shown oral terbinafine to be more cost-effective (from a government payer perspective) than griseofulvin, itraconazole, and ketoconazole in the treatment of onychomycosis of toenails and fingernails. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic effects of oral griseofulvin, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and terbinafine in the treatment of onychomycosis from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States. A previously constructed decision-analytic model evaluating the costs of onychomycosis in 13 countries outside the United States was updated to determine the costs of treating onychomycosis in the United States. Clinical management patterns were assessed to identify and quantify physician visits, laboratory tests, and adverse drug reaction treatment components for patients with toenail and fingernail onychomycosis. A random-effects model meta-analysis of treatment efficacy (mycologic cure) and New York Metropolitan Medicare charge data for physician fees were used in the treatment model. A sensitivity analysis assessing alternative dosing regimens and a rank order stability analysis investigating the effects of length of treatment, success rates, relapse rates, and drug acquisition costs on overall results were also conducted. Terbinafine had the lowest cost per mycologic cure after one treatment regimen for onychomycosis in both toenail and fingernail infections ($791.00 and $454.00, respectively). The costs of treating toenail and fingernail infections were comparatively higher for therapy with itraconazole ($1535.00 and $767.00, respectively), griseofulvin ($2385.00 and $837.00, respectively), and ketoconazole ($10,025.00 and $1512.00, respectively). As a primary treatment choice, terbinafine also had the lowest overall expected cost per patient for both toenail and fingernail infections ($977.00 and $550.00, respectively). Griseofulvin had expected costs ($1543.00 and $822.00, respectively) similar to itraconazole ($1588.00 and $894.00, respectively), whereas ketoconazole was the most expensive primary treatment choice ($2359.00 and $1287.00, respectively). This study demonstrates that terbinafine is an economical and cost-effective treatment for patients with dermatophytic onychomycosis, supporting European and Canadian studies. Except for the rank order of griseofulvin and itraconazole, sensitivity analyses show that these results are fairly stable.

Economic evaluation of antifungal agents in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in Germany

BACKGROUND

The strategies for the management of onychomycosis have changed since the availability of the newer generation of antifungal agents, particularly, itraconazole and terbinafine. Itraconazole (1-week pulse) therapy may have higher efficacy and an improved adverse-effects profile compared to the continuous therapy regimen.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the most commonly used treatments in Germany for toenail onychomycosis from a health care payer perspective.

METHODS

A 5-step approach was used. Firstly, the purpose of the study, the comparator drugs, their dosage regimens and the time frame of the analysis were defined. Next, the medical practice and resource consumption patterns associated with the treatment of onychomycosis were identified. In step III, a meta-analysis was used to determine the relative efficacy of the comparator drugs. In step IV, a decision tree of the treatment algorithms was constructed for each comparator. The expected cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis were also performed. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

For the four main comparator drugs used to treat toenail onychomycosis in Germany, the clinical response rates (clinical cure plus marked improvement) at the end of the follow-up period (month 12 after starting therapy) were, for itraconazole (1-week pulse dosing): 89.8 +/- 3% (mean +/- SE), terbinafine: 79.4 +/- 10%, itraconazole (continuous dosing): 77.5 +/- 9%, and ciclopirox nail varnish: 55 +/- 5%. Itraconazole (1-week pulse dosing) was most cost-effective at DM 1,107 per successful treatment, followed by oral terbinafine at DM 1,224, ciclopirox nail varnish and itraconazole (continuous dosing). Sensitivity analyses indicated that itraconazole (1-week pulse dosing) and terbinafine had similar cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSION

Itraconazole is an effective, broad-spectrum triazole used as continuous or pulse therapy in the treatment of onychomycosis. Itraconazole (1-week pulse) and terbinafine are the most cost-effective therapies for toenail onychomycosis.

A multinational pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis. The Onychomycosis Study Group

Due to increased interest in economic evaluation and the rapid international spread of new healthcare technologies across borders, there is a need to interpret economic evaluations on a worldwide basis. We conducted a multinational cost-effectiveness analysis, from a government payer perspective, comparing four primary oral treatment regimens for onychomycosis of the fingernails and toenails: griseofulvin, itraconazole, ketoconazole and terbinafine. We used a four-step pharmacoeconomic research model which includes all relevant factors affecting costs in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the U.K. A worldwide meta-analysis of published clinical data served as the statistical input for the pharmacoeconomic model, and demonstrated that terbinafine had the highest success rates (95.0% and 78.3%) of the clinical comparators for fingernails and toenails, respectively. We found that terbinafine was the most effective therapy in relation to cost (therefore giving it the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio) for both infections in all health-care systems analysed.