Costs associated with invasive Scedosporium and Lomentospora prolificans infections: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the short- and long-term healthcare costs of invasive Scedosporium/Lomentospora prolificans infections, particularly in patient groups without haematological malignancy. This study investigated excess index hospitalization costs and cumulative costs of these infections. The predictors of excess cost and length of stay (LOS) of index hospitalization were determined. These estimates serve as valuable inputs for cost-effectiveness models of novel antifungal agents. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted at six Australian hospitals. Cases of proven/probable invasive Scedosporium/L. prolificans infections between 2011 and 2021 (n = 34) were matched with controls (n = 66) by predefined criteria. Cost data were retrieved from activity-based costing systems and analysis was performed from the Australian public hospital perspective. All costs were presented in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD). Median regression analysis was used to adjust excess costs of index hospitalization whereas cumulative costs up to 1.5 years follow-up were estimated using interval-partitioned survival probabilities. RESULTS: Invasive Scedosporium/L. prolificans infections were independently associated with an adjusted median excess cost of AUD36 422 (P = 0.003) and LOS of 16.27 days (P < 0.001) during index hospitalization. Inpatient stay was the major cost driver (42.7%), followed by pharmacy cost, of which antifungal agents comprised 23.8% of the total cost. Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant increased the excess cost (P = 0.013) and prolonged LOS (P < 0.001) whereas inpatient death within ≤28 days reduced both cost (P = 0.001) and LOS (P < 0.001). The median cumulative cost increased substantially to AUD203 292 over 1.5 years in cases with Scedosporium/L. prolificans infections. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden associated with invasive Scedosporium/L. prolificans infections is substantial.

Economic evaluation of micafungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC).

Micafungin was non-inferior to liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) in a major clinical trial. The present study investigated the economic impact of micafungin vs. LAmB in treating candidaemia and IC. A decision analytical model was constructed to capture downstream consequences of using micafungin or LAmB as primary definitive therapy. The main outcomes were treatment success and treatment failure due to mycological persistence, or death. Outcome probabilities were derived from key published sources. Resource used was estimated by an expert panel and cost inputs were from the latest Australian resources. The analysis was from an Australian hospital perspective. Sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation were conducted. Micafungin (AU$61 426) had a lower total cost than LAmB (AU$72 382), with a total net cost-saving of AU$10 957 per patient. This was primarily due to the lower cost associated with initial antifungal treatment and shorter length of stay for patients in the micafungin arm. Hospitalisation was the main cost driver for both arms. Results were robust over a wide range of variables. The uncertainty analysis demonstrated that micafungin had a 99.9% chance of being cost-saving compared with LAmB. Micafungin was associated with cost-saving relative to LAmB in the treatment of candidaemia and IC in Australia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin versus fluconazole for the treatment of invasive candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Anidulafungin was found to be non-inferior to and possibly more efficacious than fluconazole for treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in a major randomized clinical trial (RCT). There are no data comparing the cost-effectiveness between azoles and echinocandins in treating IC. This economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of anidulafungin compared with fluconazole for treatment of IC in an Australian setting. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to capture downstream consequences of using either agent for treatment of IC. The main outcomes analysed in the model were treatment success and treatment failure (observed and indeterminate). Outcome probabilities and treatment pathways were derived from a published RCT. Resources used were estimated by an expert panel and cost inputs were derived from the latest Australian resources. The analysis was based on an Australian hospital perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Anidulafungin (AU$74,587) had a higher total cost than fluconazole (AU$60,945) per successfully treated patient, primarily due to its higher acquisition cost. Hospitalization was the main cost driver for both comparators. However, when the rates of mortality in both treatment arms were considered, treatment with anidulafungin was expected to save an additional 0.53 life-years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$25 740 per life-years saved, which was below the implicit ICER threshold value for Australia. The results were robust over a wide range of variables. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first economic evaluation of anidulafungin versus fluconazole in the treatment of IC in Australia. Anidulafungin appears to be a cost-effective option.