Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Oteseconazole vs. Fluconazole for Patients With Severe Vulvovaginal Candidiasis in China
Author(s)
Chen Jiang, BS1, Yuyanzi Zhang, PhD student2, Yinyin Jin, Director3, Xiao Zhang, MSc4, Hongchao Li, PhD5, Xin Guan, PhD6.
1China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 2China pharmaceutical university, Nanjing, China, 3Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Lianyungang, China, 4Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, 5China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 6Dr., China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
1China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 2China pharmaceutical university, Nanjing, China, 3Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Lianyungang, China, 4Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, 5China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China, 6Dr., China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of oteseconazole versus fluconazole for patients with severe vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in China.
METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to estimate the 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). As the main clinical inputs in the model, clinical cure rate and recurrence rate were derived from the Chinese clinical trial SHR8008-302 and the international clinical trial VMT-VT-1161-CL-004, respectively. Other clinical inputs like frequency of disease recurrence, treatment rate of recurrent patients and therapies for recurrent patients were observed from a real world study in China. Utilities were obtained from a published literature. The costs obtained both from real world data and local published resources comprised drugs, administration, adverse events management, follow-up and therapeutic costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results.
RESULTS: Oteseconazole provided 0.9527 QALYs at a cost of $291.95, whereas fluconazole provided 0.9204 QALYs at a cost of $202.22. The ICER of oteseconazole versus fluconazole was $2,784.45/QALY, which was below 0.5 time GDP per capita of China. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that oteseconazole, compared with fluconazole, was more cost-effective in 100% simulations at local threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to fluconazole, oteseconazole was a more cost-effective choice for patients with severe VVC in China.
METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to estimate the 1-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). As the main clinical inputs in the model, clinical cure rate and recurrence rate were derived from the Chinese clinical trial SHR8008-302 and the international clinical trial VMT-VT-1161-CL-004, respectively. Other clinical inputs like frequency of disease recurrence, treatment rate of recurrent patients and therapies for recurrent patients were observed from a real world study in China. Utilities were obtained from a published literature. The costs obtained both from real world data and local published resources comprised drugs, administration, adverse events management, follow-up and therapeutic costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the results.
RESULTS: Oteseconazole provided 0.9527 QALYs at a cost of $291.95, whereas fluconazole provided 0.9204 QALYs at a cost of $202.22. The ICER of oteseconazole versus fluconazole was $2,784.45/QALY, which was below 0.5 time GDP per capita of China. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that oteseconazole, compared with fluconazole, was more cost-effective in 100% simulations at local threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to fluconazole, oteseconazole was a more cost-effective choice for patients with severe VVC in China.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE214
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)