Clinical and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antifungal prophylaxis with continuous micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A six-year cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (aSCT) are at high risk to develop an invasive fungal disease (IFD). Optimisation of antifungal prophylaxis strategies may improve patient outcomes and reduce treatment costs. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the clinical and economical impact of using continuous micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis. PATIENTS/METHODS: We performed a single-centre evaluation comparing patients who received either oral posaconazole with micafungin as intravenous bridging as required (POS-MIC) to patients who received only micafungin (MIC) as antifungal prophylaxis after aSCT. Epidemiological, clinical and direct treatment cost data extracted from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut) were analysed. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirteen patients (97 and 216 patients in the POS-MIC and MIC groups, respectively) were included into the analysis. In the POS-MIC and MIC groups, median overall length of stay was 42 days (IQR: 35-52 days) vs 40 days (IQR: 35-49 days; p = .296), resulting in median overall costs of €42,964 (IQR: €35,040-€56,348) vs €43,291 (IQR: €37,281 vs €51,848; p = .993), respectively. Probable/proven IFD in the POS-MIC and MIC groups occurred in 5 patients (5%) vs 3 patients (1%; p = .051), respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved outcome of patients in the MIC group at day 100 (p = .037) and day 365 (p < .001) following aSCT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results demonstrate improved outcomes in the MIC group compared with the POS-MIC group, which can in part be explained by a tendency towards less probable/proven IFD. Higher drug acquisition costs of micafungin did not translate into higher overall costs.

Chlorhexidine-containing dressings in the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections: A cost and resource utilization analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent study reported a reduction in probable/definite central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in neutropenic high-risk patients using CVC dressings with a chlorhexidine-containing gel pad. METHODS: Based on published data, a health-economic analysis was performed to analyze the economic effect of using CVC dressings with a chlorhexidine-containing gel pad compared to non-chlorhexidine control dressings. A micro-costing approach was used to determine CRBSI-related direct treatment cost factors. RESULTS: Between February 2012 and September 2014, 356 patients (178 patients in both groups) were analyzed. Distribution of probable and definite CRBSI in the chlorhexidine group and control group were 12 (7%) vs 18 (10%) and 9 (5%) vs 21 (12%), respectively (P = .011). Median overall length of stay (25 vs 27.5 days; P = .630) and days on treatment with antibacterials (10 vs 12 days; P = .140) were similar between the chlorhexidine and control groups. The most important cost driver in both groups was treatment on general ward (€4275 [US$ 5173], interquartile range [IQR]: €592 - €6504 [US$ 716 - US$ 7871] vs €4560 [US$ 5518], IQR: €1227 - €8567 [US$ 1485 - US$ 10,367]; P = .120), resulting in median overall direct treatment costs of €13,881 (US$ 16,798) [IQR: €10,922 - €25,457 (US$ 13,217 - US$ 30,807) vs €13,929 [US$ 16,856] [IQR: €11,295 - €23,561 (US$ 13,669 - US$ 28,512); P = .640]). CONCLUSION: Our study shows similar results in overall direct treatment costs, meaning that higher acquisition costs of chlorhexidine-containing dressings did not translate into higher costs. Expenses were primarily outweighed by a lower rate of probable/definite CRBSI and reduced associated costs.

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.