Educational ICU Antimicrobial Stewardship model: the daily activities of the AMS team over a 10-month period.

The emergence of antibiotic resistance as a consequence of inappropriate use results in higher mortality rates and has become a major public health challenge worldwide. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to ensure proper use of antimicrobials and reduce health care costs. We assessed the impact of using a behavioral approach during a persuasive ASP on antibiotic appropriateness, consumption and costs. We conducted a prospective interventional cohort before-and-after study in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a 554-bed, university teaching hospital in Terni, Italy, 14 of which are located in the ICU. We describe a 10-month persuasive ASP intervention model used in a referral ICU with daily rounds. The aim of the study was to improve medication appropriateness through educational action and reduce the consumption of carbapenems and echinocandins by conducting post-prescription reviews, prescribing reviews and holding daily discussions with the ICU team. We analyzed the prescribing appropriateness of the ICU team in accordance with the decisions made by the Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) team to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing during the first five months and the last five months of the surveillance period. The results were expressed as the defined daily dose (DDD) per 100 occupied bed-days and costs. The data were compared with those previously obtained during the pre-educational period (the year before ASP implementation). Comparisons were made between the decisions taken to improve antimicrobial treatments administered during the first half of the surveillance period (March-July) and those administered during the second half (August-December). In all, 116 decisions were made from March to July while only 65 were made from August to December (p-value 0.00001). A significant reduction was observed in the consumption of carbapenems and echinocandins (11.15% and 25.62%, respectively). Total antibiotic cost savings amounted to 57,541.16 euros. The persuasive ASP strategy positively influenced the prescribing behavior of physicians, thus improving the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy and reducing antimicrobial consumption.

Cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin versus escalation from fluconazole for invasive candidiasis in China.

AIMS: Guidelines on treating invasive candidiasis recommend initial treatment with a broad-spectrum echinocandin (e.g. micafungin), then switching to fluconazole if isolates prove sensitive (de-escalation strategy). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin vs escalation from fluconazole from a Chinese public payers perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a decision analytic model, in which patients begin treatment with fluconazole 400 mg/day (escalation) or micafungin 100 mg/day (de-escalation). From Day 3, when susceptibility results are available, patients are treated with either fluconazole (if isolates are fluconazole-sensitive/dose-dependent) or micafungin (if isolates are resistant). The total duration of (appropriate) treatment is 14 days. Model inputs are early (Day 3) and end-of-treatment mortality rates, treatment success rates, and health resource utilization. Model outputs are costs of health resource utilization over 42 days, incremental cost per life-year, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the de-escalation strategy was associated with longer survival and higher treatment success rates compared with escalation, at a lower overall cost (-¥1,154; -175 United States Dollars). Life-years and QALYs were also better with de-escalation. Thus, this strategy dominated the escalation strategy for all outcomes. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99% of 10,000 simulations were below the very cost-effective threshold (1 × gross domestic product). LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of the study was the lack of real-world input data for clinical outcomes on treatment with micafungin in China; data from other countries were included in the model. CONCLUSION: A de-escalation strategy is cost-saving from the Chinese public health payer perspective compared with escalation. It improves outcomes and reduces costs to the health system by reducing hospitalization, due to an increase in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of micafungin versus caspofungin as definitive therapy for candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey.

Micafungin was shown to be as efficacious as caspofungin in treating patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC). However, it remains unknown if micafungin or caspofungin is a cost-effective definitive therapy for candidaemia and IC in Turkey. The present study aimed to determine the economic impact of using micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidaemia and IC in the Turkish setting. A decision analytic model was constructed and was populated with data (i.e. transition probabilities, duration of initial antifungal treatment, reasons for treatment failure, percentage of patients who stepped down to oral fluconazole, and duration on oral fluconazole) obtained from a published randomised clinical trial. Cost inputs were derived from the latest Turkish resources while data that were not readily available in the literature were estimated by expert panels. One-way sensitivity analyses, threshold analyses, scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Caspofungin (€2693) incurred a lower total cost than micafungin (€4422), with a net cost saving of €1729 per treated patient. Drug acquisition cost was the main cost driver for both study arms. The model outcome was robust over wide variations (of ±100.0% from the base case value) for all input parameters except for micafungin drug cost and the duration of initial treatment with micafungin. Caspofungin appears to be a cost-saving option in treating candidaemia and IC from the Turkish hospital perspective.

Cost Effectiveness of Candida Polymerase Chain Reaction Detection and Empirical Antifungal Treatment among Patients with Suspected Fungal Peritonitis in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from intra-abdominal candidiasis in intensive care units (ICUs) is high. It takes many days for peritoneal-fluid fungal culture to become positive, and the recommended empirical antifungal therapy involves excessive costs. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) should produce results more rapidly than fungal culture. OBJECTIVES: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the combination of several diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to manage Candida peritonitis in non-neutropenic adult patients in ICUs. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree model to evaluate the cost effectiveness. Cost and effectiveness were taken into account in a 1-year time horizon and from the French National Health Insurance perspective. Six strategies were compared: fluconazole or echinocandin as an empirical therapy, plus diagnosis by fungal culture or detection by PCR of all Candida species, or use of PCR to detect most fluconazole-resistant Candida species (i.e., Candida krusei and Candida glabrata). RESULTS: The use of fluconazole empirical treatment and PCR to detect all Candida species is more cost effective than using fluconazole empirical treatment without PCR (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,055/quality-adjusted life-year). Empirical treatment with echinocandin plus PCR to detect C. krusei and C. glabrata is the most effective strategy, but has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €93,776/quality-adjusted life-year. If the cost of echinocandin decreases, then strategies involving PCR plus empirical echinocandin become more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Detection by PCR of all Candida species and of most fluconazole-resistant Candida species could improve the cost-effectiveness of fluconazole and echinocandin given to non-neutropenic patients with suspected peritoneal candidiasis in ICUs.

Choosing Optimal Antifungal Agents To Prevent Fungal Infections in Nonneutropenic Critically Ill Patients: Trial Sequential Analysis, Network Meta-analysis, and Pharmacoeconomic Analysis.

The use of antifungal interventions in critically ill patients prior to invasive fungal infection (IFI) being microbiologically confirmed and the preferred drug are still controversial. A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared untargeted antifungal treatments applied to nonneutropenic critically ill patients. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proven IFI rates. A random-effects model was used with trial sequential analyses (TSA), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to obtain indirect evidence, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model was completed from the patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. In total, 19 RCTs involving 2,556 patients (7 interventions) were included. Untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly decrease the incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.70 to 1.14), but it did reduce the incidence of proven IFI (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.71) relative to placebo/no intervention. The TSA showed that there was sufficient evidence supporting these findings. In the NMA, the only significant difference found for both primary outcomes was between fluconazole and placebo/no intervention in preventing proven IFI (OR = 0.35, 95%CI = 0.19 to 0.65). Based on drug and hospital costs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved for fluconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin relative to placebo/no intervention corresponded to US$889, US$9,994, and US$10,351, respectively. Untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced proven IFI rates in nonneutropenic critically ill patients but with no mortality benefits relative to placebo/no intervention. Among the well-tolerated antifungals, fluconazole remains the only one that is effective for IFI prevention and significantly cheaper than echinocandins.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness studies of echinocandins for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, including candidemia, are rare in Asia. No study has determined whether echinocandins are cost-effective for both Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species. There have been no economic evaluations that compare non-echinocandins with the three available echinocandins. This study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual echinocandins, namely caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin, versus non-echinocandins for C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, respectively. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of echinocandins and non-echinocandins for invasive candidiasis. The probability of treatment success, mortality rate, and adverse drug events were extracted from published clinical trials. The cost variables (i.e., drug acquisition) were based on Taiwan's healthcare system from the perspective of a medical payer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For treating invasive candidiasis (all species), as compared to fluconazole, micafungin and caspofungin are dominated (less effective, more expensive), whereas anidulafungin is cost-effective (more effective, more expensive), costing US$3666.09 for each life-year gained, which was below the implicit threshold of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Taiwan. For C. albicans, echinocandins are cost-saving as compared to non-echinocandins. For non-albicans Candida species, echinocandins are cost-effective as compared to non-echinocandins, costing US$652 for each life-year gained. The results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the clinical efficacy of antifungal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Echinocandins, especially anidulafungin, appear to be cost-effective for invasive candidiasis caused by C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin vs fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey.

Anidulafungin 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.

Assessment of high-priced systemic antifungal prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES: To assess compliance with international guidelines for costly antifungal prescriptions and to compare these results with a first study performed in 2007. METHODS: Retrospective study including all costly antifungal prescriptions made in surgical and medical intensive care units and in a hepatobiliary, pancreatic, and digestive surgery unit. Prescriptions were assessed in terms of indication, dosage, and antifungal de-escalation. RESULTS: Seventy-four treatments were analyzed. Treatments were prescribed for prophylactic (1%), empirical (22%), pre-emptive (16%), or targeted therapy (61%). Caspofungin accounted for 68% of prescriptions, followed by voriconazole (20%) and liposomal amphotericin B (12%). Indication was appropriate in 91%, debatable in 1%, and inappropriate in 8%. Dosage was appropriate in 69%, debatable in 8%, and inappropriate in 23%. Prescriptions were inappropriate for the following reasons: lack of dosage adjustment in light of the hepatic function (10 cases), underdosage or excessive dosage by>25% of the recommended dose in seven cases. De-escalation to fluconazole was implemented in 40% of patients presenting with a fluconazole-susceptible candidiasis. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of appropriate use was higher in 2012 compared with 2007 (62% and 37% respectively, P=0.004). Nevertheless, costly antifungal prescriptions need to be optimized in particular for empirical therapy, dosage adjustment, and potential de-escalation to fluconazole.

Micafungin versus anidulafungin in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients the incidence of invasive fungal infections caused by Candida spp. has increased remarkably. Echinocandins are recommended as initial treatment for invasive fungal infections. The safety and efficacy of micafungin compared to caspofungin is similar, but no comparison is made between anidulafungin and micafungin concerning safety and efficacy. We therefore performed a retrospective study to assess these aspects in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis. METHODS: All patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) with invasive candidiasis, who were only treated with anidulafungin or micafungin, between January 2012 and December 2014 were retrospectively included. Baseline demographic characteristics, infection characteristics and patient courses were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients received either anidulafungin (n = 30) or micafungin (n = 33) at the discretion of the attending intensivist. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, suggesting similar risk for developing invasive candidiasis. Patients with invasive candidiasis and liver failure were more often treated with anidulafungin than micafungin. Response rates were similar for both groups. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality, but 90-day mortality was higher in patients on anidulafungin. Multivariable cox regression analysis showed that age and serum bilirubin were the best parameters for the prediction of 90-day mortality, whereas APACHE II, Candida score and antifungal therapy did not contribute (P > 0.05). None of the patients developed impaired liver function related to antifungal use and no differences were seen in prothrombin time, serum transaminases and bilirubin levels between the groups, after exclusion of patients with liver injury or failure. CONCLUSION: Micafungin can be safely and effectively used in critically ill patients with invasive candidiasis. The observed increased 90-day mortality with anidulafungin can be explained by intensivists unnecessarily avoiding micafungin in patients with liver injury and failure.

Cost-effectiveness of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of systemic fungal infections: a systematic review of economic analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of fungal infections in severely ill patients is a clinical and economic challenge worldwide. Liposomal amphotericin B and caspofungin are highly effective antifungal drugs; however, they are very expensive and health systems must select the drug that results in the best clinical outcomes and is economically feasible. AREAS COVERED: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluation Database, and Centre for Review and Dissemination to find complete economic evaluations that directly compared the two treatment strategies. Expert commentary: Because of the high cost, patients in developing countries experience difficulty accessing highly effective treatments. These data can subsidize a decision for an effective antifungal treatment with reduced costs from all perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines. METHODS: Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources. RESULTS: The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success. DISCUSSION: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Economic Comparison of an Empirical Versus Diagnostic-Driven Strategy for Treating Invasive Fungal Disease in Immunocompromised Patients.

PURPOSE: Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective. METHODS: An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for ≥10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30% of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling. FINDINGS: Total costs were 32% lower for the DD strategy (£1561.29) versus the empirical strategy (£2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41% (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates. IMPLICATIONS: This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers.

Treatment of invasive candidiasis: between guidelines and daily clinical practice.

Invasive candidiasis, including candidemia (IC/C), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. While incidence is higher in intensive care units, the majority of cases of candidemia are documented in medical wards. Although Candida albicans is still the most frequently isolated species, IC/C due to non-albicans species, usually less susceptible to fluconazole, is increasing. Early identification of patients at risk, knowledge of local epidemiology and prompt efforts to define etiologic diagnosis play a pivotal role for appropriateness. Starting therapy with an echinocandin, switching then to fluconazole when possible, seems to represent a potentially useful strategy for the management of IC/C. The choice between the three echinocandins should be based on the specific indications, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, clinical experience and relative cost.

Economic evaluation of a preemptive treatment strategy for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases.

We compared the expected medical costs of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies for invasive fungal infection in neutropenic patients with hematological diseases. Based on the results of two clinical trials with different backgrounds reported by Oshima et al. [J Antimicrob Chemother 60(2):350-355; Oshima study] and Cordonnier et al. [Clin Infect Dis 48(8):1042-1051; PREVERT study], we developed a decision tree model that represented the outcomes of empirical and preemptive treatment strategies, and estimated the expected medical costs of medications and examinations in the two strategies. We assumed that micafungin was started in the empirical group at 5 days after fever had developed, while voriconazole was started in the preemptive group only when certain criteria, such as positive test results of imaging studies and/or serum markers, were fulfilled. When we used an incidence of positive test results of 6.7 % based on the Oshima study, the expected medical costs of the empirical and preemptive groups were 288,198 and 150,280 yen, respectively. Even in the case of the PREVERT study, in which the incidence of positive test results was 32.9 %, the expected medical costs in the empirical and preemptive groups were 291,871 and 284,944 yen, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the expected medical costs in the preemptive group would exceed those in the empirical group when the incidence of positive test results in the former was over 34.4 %. These results suggest that a preemptive treatment strategy can be expected to reduce medical costs compared with empirical therapy in most clinical settings.

A cost and resource utilization analysis of micafungin bridging for hemato-oncological high-risk patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bridging strategies increase exposure of antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk hematological patients. The cost-effectiveness of such strategies has not been analyzed. METHODS: A recent study compared the impact of oral posaconazole (POS) and oral posaconazole with intravenous micafungin bridging (POS-MIC) as prophylactic antifungal regimens in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (aSCT). Based on data from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut), a health economic evaluation of direct treatment costs was performed to analyze the economic impact of micafungin bridging. Analysis was undertaken based on current guidelines for the German societal perspective with an annual discount rate of 5%, whereby indirect costs were disregarded due to the severity of the underlying disease. Sensitivity analysis of cost calculation with different discount rates was performed to improve robustness of our health economic evaluation. RESULTS: A retrospective case-control analysis of patients undergoing aSCT between 05/2006 and 07/2011 was performed; 106 patients each in the POS and POS-MIC group were included. In the POS and POS-MIC group, mean costs per patient for the treatment on bone marrow transplant ward were €27,228 (95% CI: €24,932-€29,525) vs. €27,894 (95% CI: €26,414-€29,375; P = 0.629), for diagnostic measures €2124 (95% CI: €1823-€2425) vs. €1269 (95% CI: €1168-€1370; P ≤ 0.001), for laboratory findings €10,612 (95% CI: €9681-€11,544) vs. €8836 (95% CI: €8198-€9475; P = 0.002), and for overall antifungal treatment €6105 (95% CI: €4703-€7508) vs. €6943 (95% CI: €5393-€8493; P = 0.428), resulting in mean overall costs per patient of €60,304 (95% CI: €53,969-€66,639) vs. €58,089 (95% CI: €51,736-64,442; P = 0.625). CONCLUSIONS: Our health economic evaluation shows micafungin bridging in aSCT patients did not result in excess cost. Higher acquisition costs of antifungal prophylaxis were balanced by a reduced incidence of possible IFD and lower costs for empirical, preemptive, and targeted antifungal therapy as well as lower costs for diagnostic measures and laboratory tests in the micafungin bridging group.

Echinocandins in the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis: clinical and economic perspectives.

Candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) complicate modern medical therapy, contributing to high morbidity and mortality. Managing candidiasis is costly, with an additional healthcare expenditure of nearly US$300 million annually. Recent consensus guidelines have suggested the use of newer antifungal agents, such as echinocandins, for the treatment of candidaemia and IC owing to promising clinical outcomes compared with older-generation antifungal agents, but at higher drug acquisition and administration costs. Comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for echinocandins in treating candidaemia and IC remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. Assessment of the cost efficiencies of these expensive antifungal agents is essential for maximising health outcomes within the constraints of healthcare resources. This review will explore the epidemiology of candidaemia and IC in the context of clinical and economic aspects of the antifungal agents used to treat IC, especially the echinocandins. Standardising the outcome measure, methodology and reporting of results used in economic studies is central to ensure validity and comparability of the findings. Future studies comparing the economic advantages of all available antifungal treatment options and in the context of new diagnostic tools for fungal infections are anticipated.

Antifungal step-down therapy based on hospital intravenous to oral switch policy and susceptibility testing in adult patients with candidaemia: a single centre experience.

AIMS: Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of candidaemia in moderately severe to severely ill patients. Step-down or de-escalation from echinocandin to fluconazole is advised in patients who are clinically stable but data in relation to step-down therapy are sparse. Using our hospital intravenous to oral switch therapy (IVOST) policy to guide antifungal de-escalation in patients with candidaemia, we aimed to determine what proportion of patients are de-escalated to fluconazole, the timescale to step-down, associated reduction in consumption of echinocandins and antifungal cost savings. METHODOLOGY: Patients with candidaemia were followed from April 2011 to March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 37 episodes of candidaemia were documented during the study period. Twenty-seven patients were commenced on an echinocandin or voriconazole and 19 (70.3%) were de-escalated to fluconazole based on the IVOST policy. The mean and median number of days to de-escalation of therapy was 4.6 and 5 days, respectively. One patient whose therapy was de-escalated relapsed. The overall 30 day crude mortality was 37.1%. The step-down approach led to significant saving in antifungal drug cost of £1133.88 per candidaemic episode and £2208.08 per de-escalation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of IVOST policy led to streamlining of antifungal therapy.

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections.

BACKGROUND: Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article. RESULTS: In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of £30,000.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B in empirical treatment of invasive fungal infections in Turkey.

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a major concern within healthcare systems. This pharmacoeconomic study evaluated the use of caspofungin (CAS) versus liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) in the empirical treatment of IFIs within the Turkish healthcare system. A decision-analytic model was adopted, utilising data from a randomised, non-inferiority clinical trial and a panel of clinical experts in Turkey. A five-point composite outcome measure was used to evaluate both agents. Sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base-case scenario, CAS was preferred over L-AmB by Turkish Lira (TL) 3961 per patient treated, TL 12 904 per successfully treated patient and TL 3972 per death averted. One-way sensitivity analysis did not change the study outcome. Monte Carlo simulation concluded a 71.0% chance of the outcome favouring CAS. The results were most sensitive to changes in length of stay. This is the first economic evaluation of the empirical treatment of IFIs in Turkey and suggests that CAS is more cost effective than L-AmB.

Cost-effectiveness of anidulafungin in confirmed candidaemia and other invasive Candida infections in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and invasive Candida infections can cause patient death and are expensive. Anidulafungin, a newly-licensed candin, has proven effective in treating candidaemia. Our study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of anidulafungin compared with fluconazole, the current standard of care, for treating invasive candidiasis and candidaemia in Spain. METHODS: A decision tree model from the hospital perspective was constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness of anidulafungin compared with fluconazole in treating confirmed candidaemia. Treatment success, patient treatment patterns, and patient survival were based on the results from a randomised, double-blind multicentre trial (Reboli et al., 2007 [41]). Only in-hospital (2011 €) direct costs per-patient obtained from a Spanish national database were considered. Renal toxicity probabilities and costs were extracted from the published literature. The incremental cost per successfully treated patient was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. RESULTS: The percentage of successfully treated patients was higher with anidulafungin than with fluconazole (74% versus 57%). Treatment with anidulafungin resulted in higher antifungal drug costs (5991€ versus 3149€) but lower overall costs (40047€ versus 41350€) due to reductions in other medical costs. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed that anidulafungin was the most cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Anidulafungin demonstrated improved clinical efficacy versus fluconazole in treating confirmed candidaemia. Despite increased drug costs, treating confirmed candidaemia with anidulafungin is a cost-effective strategy.