The Economic Burden of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Candidemia or invasive candidiasis (IC) is an increasingly common fungal infection and has been associated with high mortality, particularly among the immunocompromised and critically ill. Although several studies have been conducted to estimate the cost of managing candidemia and IC, quality assessment on the methodological aspects of these cost studies was not performed. To date, no systematic review focusing on the economic burden of candidemia and IC has ever been conducted. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence on the economic burden of candidemia and IC worldwide. METHODS: Databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, EconLit, HEORO, and Ovid/Embase) were searched through June 2018. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the eligible studies. Costs reported in the included studies were converted to 2016 USD using Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group-the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (CCEMG-EPPI)-Centre Cost Converter software. RESULTS: Eight articles were included in this systematic review. The mean total cost per patient with candidemia and IC ranged from $48 487 to $157 574, whereas the mean cost per hospitalization associated with candidemia and IC was from $10 216 to $37 715. All studies were from developed Western countries and reported only direct costs of candidemia and IC. Hospitalization was the main cost driver, contributing to more than half of the total costs. CONCLUSION: Quality cost studies on candidemia and IC based on standardized methods to provide informed decision making among healthcare authorities in implementing appropriate strategies is anticipated, in particular in developing countries.

Economic evaluation of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) for treating patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey.

Micafungin was reported to be non-inferior to liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) in treating patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC). The current study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of using micafungin versus LAmB for treatment of candidaemia and IC in Turkey. A decision analytic model, which depicted economic consequences upon administration of micafungin or LAmB for treating patients with candidaemia and IC in the Turkish hospitals, was constructed. Patients were switched to an alternative antifungal agent if initial treatment failed due to mycological persistence. All patients were followed up until treatment success or death. Outcome probabilities were obtained from published literature and cost inputs were derived from the latest Turkish resources. Expert panels were used to estimate data that were not available in the literature. Cost per patient treated for each intervention was then calculated. Sensitivity analyses including Monte Carlo simulation were performed. For treatment of candidaemia and IC, micafungin (€4809) was associated with higher total cost than LAmB (€4467), with an additional cost of €341 per treated patient. Cost of initial antifungal treatment was the major cost driver for both comparators. The model outcome was robust over a wide variation in input variables except for drug acquisition cost and duration of initial antifungal treatment with micafungin or LAmB. LAmB is cost-saving relative to micafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and IC from the Turkish hospital perspective, with variation in drug acquisition cost of the critical factor affecting the model outcome.

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.

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 Analysis of Fluconazole Prophylaxis for Prevention of Neonatal Invasive Candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole prophylaxis (FP) in premature infants is well studied and has been shown to decrease invasive candidiasis (ICs). IC in neonates has significant financial costs; determining the cost-benefit of FP may provide additional justification for targeting high-risk neonates. We aimed to determine the IC rate in premature infants at which FP is cost-beneficial. METHODS: A decision tree cost-analysis model using cost of FP related to costs associated with IC was used. We searched PubMed for all papers that used intravenous FP and reported rates of IC in very low birth weight neonates. Average IC rates in those who received FP (2.0%; range, 0-6.1%) and in those who did not receive FP (9.2%; range, 0-20.5%) were used. Incremental hospital costs because of IC and for FP were retrieved from the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the incremental cost of FP across the range of published IC rates. RESULTS: The average cost per patient attributed to IC in patients receiving FP was $785 versus $2617 in those not receiving FP. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates the rate of IC would need to be <2.8% for FP to lose its cost-benefit. In Monte Carlo simulation, targeting infants <1000 g would lead to $50,304,333 in cost savings per year in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: FP provides a cost-advantage across most IC rates seen in the youngest premature infants. Using a rate of 2.8% for their individual high-risk neonatal intensive care unit patients, providers can determine if FP is cost-beneficial in determining for whom to provide IC prophylaxis.

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.

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.

Do follow-on therapeutic substitutes induce price competition between hospital medicines? Evidence from the Danish hospital sector.

OBJECTIVE: The pricing of follow-on drugs, that offer only limited health benefits over existing therapeutic alternatives, is a recurring health policy debate. This study investigates whether follow-on therapeutic substitutes create price competition between branded hospital medicines. METHODS: New follow-on drugs and their incumbent therapeutic competitors were identified from Danish sales and product registration data on hospital pharmaceuticals using medically relevant criteria. We examined whether follow-on drugs adopt lower prices than their incumbent competitors, and whether incumbent competitors react to entry of follow-ons through price adjustments using a random intercept panel model. RESULTS: We found no evidence that follow-on drugs adopt lower prices than their incumbent competitors. Furthermore, potentially due to low sample size, we found no evidence that prices for incumbent pioneer products were significantly reduced as a reaction to competition from follow-on drugs. CONCLUSION: Competition between patented therapeutic substitutes did not seem to increase price competition and containment of pharmaceutical expenditures in the Danish hospital market. Strengthening hospitals' incentives to consider the price of alternative treatment options paired with a more active formulary management may increase price competition between therapeutic substitutes in the Danish hospital sector in the future.

Economic evaluation of micafungin versus caspofungin for the treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Micafungin demonstrated non-inferiority to caspofungin as definitive therapy for candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) in a major randomised clinical trial. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate if micafungin is a cost-saving option compared with caspofungin for treating candidaemia and IC. METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed to capture downstream consequences of using either agent as initial therapy for candidaemia and IC. The main outcomes were treatment success and treatment failure (i.e. death, mycological persistence, emergent infection, clinical failure but microbiological success). Outcome probabilities and treatment pathways were derived from the literature. Cost inputs were from the latest Australian resources, and resource use was estimated by expert panel. The analysis was from the Australian hospital perspective. Sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation were conducted. RESULTS: Micafungin (AU$52 816) was associated with a lower total cost than caspofungin (AU$52 976), with a net cost-saving of $160 per patient. This was primarily due to the lower cost associated with alternative antifungal treatment in the micafungin arm. Hospitalisation was the main cost-driver for both arms. The model outcome was most sensitive to the proportion of treatment success in the micafungin arm. Uncertainty analysis demonstrated that micafungin had a 58% chance of being cost-saving compared with caspofungin. CONCLUSIONS: Micafungin was cost-equivalent to caspofungin in treating candidaemia and IC, with variation in drug acquisition cost the critical factor.

Cost of invasive fungal infections in the era of new diagnostics and expanded treatment options.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the true institutional cost of treating invasive fungal infections in light of recent advances in diagnostic techniques and antifungal therapies for both treatment and prophylaxis of these infections. DESIGN: Economic analysis. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 200 patients discharged from the hospital during 2004-2005 with a diagnosis of proven, probable, or possible aspergillosis, cryptococcosis, invasive candidiasis, or zygomycosis (cases). Patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion with patients having similar underlying disease states but no invasive fungal infections (controls). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from patients' medical records. In addition, information concerning each patient's hospitalization was recorded. Resource utilization data for a patient's entire hospitalization were collected from the hospital's charge databases and converted to costs. These data were compared between the cases and the controls. After adjusting for race-ethnicity, sex, age, and comorbid illnesses, mean total hospital cost for cases was $32,196 more than for controls (p<0.0001). Nonpharmacy costs accounted for the majority (63%) of this difference, and an additional $3996 was attributed to systemic antifungal drugs. The mean length of hospital stay was longer for cases than controls (25.8 vs 18.4 days). CONCLUSION: Treatment of patients with invasive fungal infections was associated with a significantly higher inpatient hospital cost compared with controls. However, due to new diagnostic techniques and effective antifungal therapy, the relative cost of these infections appears to be at least stable compared with the previous decade. These findings can help assess the utility of cost-avoidance strategies such as antifungal prophylaxis and application of appropriate treatment.

[Candidemia and invasive candidiasis in the adult: clinical forms and treatment]. / Candidemia y candidiasis invasora en el adulto. Formas clínicas y tratamiento.

Invasive candidiasis is progressively increasing in frequency as a complication of the hospitalised adult patient. The availability of new antifungal drugs with lower toxicity and high efficacy has increased the complexity of managing of these infections. In parallel, the costs of the treatment of invasive fungal infections have considerably increased. Finding of a balance between the best benefit for the patient with the less costs is, nowadays, one of the main objectives of the current recommendations for the management of invasive candidiasis. In this review, the recommendations for the management of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (esophagitis, peritonitis, ocular, cardiovascular and osteoarticular candidiasis, central nervous system and urinary tract candidiasis, and chronic disseminated candidiasis) are analysed.

Resource utilization and cost of treatment with anidulafungin or fluconazole for candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: focus on critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) are serious and costly events for hospitalized patients, particularly those in the ICU. Both fluconazole and the echinocandins are recommended as first-line therapy for C/IC. Resource use and cost considerations are important in selecting appropriate treatment but little information is available on the economic implications of using echinocandins in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare resource utilization and treatment costs (in $US) associated with the echinocandin anidulafungin (200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 100 mg intravenously daily) versus those of fluconazole (800 mg intravenously on day 1, then 400 mg intravenously daily) as first-line treatment for C/IC. METHODS: Available charts from patients enrolled in a recent clinical trial comparing anidulafungin and fluconazole for C/IC were reviewed. Patients who were in the ICU at study entry were identified, and the following data, collected during the 13-week study period, were compared between treatment groups: global response at end of study treatment, number of days patients survived after hospital discharge ('hospital-free' days), hospital resource use, and C/IC-related costs (year 2008 values) to a US hospital payer. These comparisons were also conducted for all non-ICU hospitalized patients, and for survivors in both study populations. Sensitivity analyses explored the cost impact of variability in the hospitalization costs between ICUs and non-ICU wards and of reduced duration intravenous therapy. Statistical comparisons between the two treatment groups were conducted for clinical outcomes, resource use and cost measures, using regression models. All statistical comparisons were adjusted for baseline co-variates (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, absolute neutrophil count and catheter removal status). RESULTS: For ICU patients with C/IC (n = 63), global response was significantly higher for anidulafungin than fluconazole (68.6% vs 42.9%; p = 0.03). ICU patients treated with anidulafungin had an average of 13.9 more hospital-free days (18.2 vs 4.3 days; p = 0.04) than those treated with fluconazole. After adjustment for co-variates, although lower costs were observed for anidulafungin vs fluconazole in ICU patients and in ICU patients who survived, no statistical differences were found. For all hospitalized patients (n = 159), global response was also higher for anidulafungin (78.3% vs 60.5%; p < 0.01). There was no difference in average length of hospitalization (29.6 days) or hospital-free days. After adjustment for co-variates, anidulafungin treatment resulted in an incremental C/IC-related cost of $US2680 (p = 0.73). For hospitalized patients who survived (anidulafungin 81.9%, fluconazole 69.7%), anidulafungin treatment was associated with an incremental cost of $US231 (p = 0.98). CONCLUSION: Anidulafungin as first-line treatment of C/IC appears to be of particular benefit to ICU patients, improving clinical outcomes and possibly decreasing costs, driven by reduced ICU and hospital stay, when compared with fluconazole. Anidulafungin also yielded significantly improved treatment outcomes in the general inpatient population, with total costs similar to fluconazole.

Cost and resource utilization associated with fluconazole as first-line therapy for invasive candidiasis: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluconazole is a standard first-line therapy for candidemia/invasive candidiasis (C/IC), based on its efficacy, safety profile, and comparatively low acquisition cost. However, little is known about the total costs associated with fluconazole treatment for this indication, particularly in cases of clinical failure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine overall costs, resource use, and treatment outcomes associated with fluconazole as first-line therapy for invasive Candida infections in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from a US hospital-based (>500 hospitals), service-level database was performed. All patients aged >16 years with primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for IC or septicemia, receiving intravenous fluconazole treatment, and discharged between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2005 were selected. Costs and resource use were calculated from the start of antifungal therapy until discharge. Two groups were analyzed: patients who received fluconazole only and those who required a second-line antifungal. Separate analyses for the survivor subpopulations were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 7170 patients met the inclusion criteria; 21.2% required an additional antifungal agent. Overall mortality was 27.1%, and total mean treatment cost for all patients was $44,482 (in 2005 US dollars). Patients treated with fluconazole alone incurred mean costs of $36,319. Mean hospital and intensive care unit stays in the fluconazole monotherapy group were 17.9 days and 7.1 days, respectively. Patients requiring additional therapy had a mortality rate of 34.5% and a mean treatment cost of $76,329; in this group, the mean hospital and intensive care unit stays were 31.7 days and 14.8 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall resource use associated with fluconazole as first-line treatment for C/IC was high, especially in patients who required additional antifungal therapy. Future studies should examine the patterns of care and costs associated with alternative treatment options as first-line C/IC therapy.