Meta-Analysis and Cost Comparison of Empirical versus Pre-Emptive Antifungal Strategies in Hematologic Malignancy Patients with High-Risk Febrile Neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal disease (IFD) causes significant morbidity and mortality in hematologic malignancy patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia (FN). These patients therefore often receive empirical antifungal therapy. Diagnostic test-guided pre-emptive antifungal therapy has been evaluated as an alternative treatment strategy in these patients. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search for literature comparing empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal strategies in FN among adult hematologic malignancy patients. We systematically reviewed 9 studies, including randomized-controlled trials, cohort studies, and feasibility studies. Random and fixed-effect models were used to generate pooled relative risk estimates of IFD detection, IFD-related mortality, overall mortality, and rates and duration of antifungal therapy. Heterogeneity was measured via Cochran's Q test, I2 statistic, and between study τ2. Incorporating these parameters and direct costs of drugs and diagnostic testing, we constructed a comparative costing model for the two strategies. We conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis on pooled estimates and one-way sensitivity analyses on other key parameters with uncertain estimates. RESULTS: Nine published studies met inclusion criteria. Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive strategies were associated with significantly lower antifungal exposure (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85) and duration without an increase in IFD-related mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36-1.87) or overall mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46-1.99). The pre-emptive strategy cost $324 less (95% credible interval -$291.88 to $418.65 pre-emptive compared to empirical) than the empirical approach per FN episode. However, the cost difference was influenced by relatively small changes in costs of antifungal therapy and diagnostic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive antifungal therapy in patients with high-risk FN may decrease antifungal use without increasing mortality. We demonstrate a state of economic equipoise between empirical and diagnostic-directed pre-emptive antifungal treatment strategies, influenced by small changes in cost of antifungal therapy and diagnostic testing, in the current literature. This work emphasizes the need for optimization of existing fungal diagnostic strategies, development of more efficient diagnostic strategies, and less toxic and more cost-effective antifungals.

Posaconazole: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease in immunocompromised hosts.

Posaconazole (Noxafil®) is an oral, second-generation, extended-spectrum triazole whose approved indications include prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD) in immunocompromised patients. In pivotal head-to-head trials, posaconazole was significantly more effective in preventing IFD than standard azole therapy (i.e. oral fluconazole or itraconazole) in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and was noninferior to treatment with fluconazole in patients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) who were receiving intensive immunosuppressive therapy following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In both indications, prophylactic posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of IFD-related mortality. The overall tolerability profile of posaconazole was generally similar to that of the other prophylactic treatments. The large body of modelled cost-effectiveness analyses from a healthcare payer perspective on the use of prophylactic posaconazole suggest that it is a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard azole therapy in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS, and fluconazole in patients with GVHD. Based on clinical trial data in these patient groups, antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole was predicted to be a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles, with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained, life-year (LY) gained and/or other outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses in numerous countries. In those analyses in which posaconazole did not dominate the comparator, posaconazole was considered cost effective, as the incremental cost per QALY or LY gained with posaconazole was lower than assumed willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated that these results were robust to plausible changes in key model assumptions. In conclusion, prophylactic treatment with posaconazole is clinically effective in preventing IFD in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS and patients with GVHD. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of posaconazole as a dominant or cost-effective prophylactic antifungal treatment relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles in these patient populations at high risk of developing IFD.