New sustainable alternatives to reduce the production costs for surfactin 50 years after the discovery.

In 1968, Arima et al. discovered the heptapeptide, known as surfactin, which belongs to a family of lipopeptides. Known for its ability to reduce surface tension, it also has biological activities such as antimicrobial and antiviral. Its non-ribosomal synthesis mechanism was later discovered (1991). Lipopeptides represent an important class of surfactants, which can be applied in many industrial sectors such as food, pharmaceutical, agrochemicals, detergents, and cleaning products. Currently, 75% of the surfactants used in the various industrial sectors are from the petrochemical industry. Nevertheless, there are global current demands (green chemistry concept) to replace the petrochemical products with environmentally friendly products, such as surfactants by biosurfactants. The production biosurfactants still are costly. Thus, an alternative to reduce the production costs is using agro-industrial waste as a culture medium associated with an efficient and scalable purification process. This review puts a light on the agro-industrial residues used to produce surfactin and the techniques used for its recovery.

In situ downstream strategies for cost-effective bio/surfactant recovery.

Since 60-80% of total costs of production are usually associated with downstream collection, separation, and purification processes, it has become advantageous to investigate how to replace traditional methods with efficient and cost-effective alternative techniques for recovery and purification of biosurfactants. In the traditional techniques, large volumes of organic solvents are usually used for increasing production cost and the overall environmental burden. In addition, traditional production and separation methods typically carried out in batch cultures reduce biosurfactant yields due to product inhibition and lower biosurfactants activity as a result of interaction with the organic solvents used. However, some in situ recovery methods that allow continuous separation of bioproducts from culture broth leading to an improvement in yield production and fermentation efficiency. For biosurfactants commercialization, enhancement of product capacity of the separation methods and the rate of product removal is critical. Recently, interest in the integration of separation methods with a production step as rapid and efficient techniques has been increasing. This review focuses on the technology gains and potentials for the most common methods used in in situ product removal: foam fractionation and ultrafiltration, especially used to recover and purify two well-known biosurfactants: glycolipids (rhamnolipids) and lipopeptides (surfactins).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Improvement of surfactin production in Bacillus subtilis using synthetic wastewater by overexpression of specific extracellular signaling peptides, comX and phrC.

Surfactin is a biological surfactant with numerous potential applications. In this study, Bacillus subtilis was engineered to improve surfactin production by the activation of two competence-stimulating pheromones, ComX and competence and sporulation factor (CSF) to stimulate the transcription of srfA operon. Both signaling factors, encoded by comX and phrC, were successfully overexpressed and subsequently increased surfactin production. Surfactin produced by engineered strains showed functional groups similar to the commercially available surfactin analyzed via Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Surfactin production in the B. subtilis (pHT43-comXphrC) strain was 6.4-fold greater than in the wild strain, with approximately 135.1 mg/L surfactin produced after 48 h cultivation. To reduce the production costs of surfactin, synthetic wastewater was used, from which the B. subtilis (pHT43-comXphrC) strain produced approximately 140.2 mg/L surfactin. The results obtained demonstrated the production of surfactin from synthetic wastewater, which is beneficial in lowering the overall production costs.

[Cost analysis of 3 candins in the treatment of invasive candidiasis in adult non-neutropaenic patients in Spain]. / Análisis de costes de tres candinas en el tratamiento de la candidiasis invasora en pacientes adultos no neutropénicos en España.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of 3 candins (anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin) in the treatment of adult non-neutropaenic patients with invasive candidiasis (IC) in a Spanish hospital pharmacy setting. METHODS: The overall cost impact was evaluated by varying the percentage dosage required of each candin in different possible scenarios. The prices (in euros) for each presentation were obtained from the Drug Catalogue (in August 2010). Only drug purchase costs were considered. The results are expressed as total cost for each of the 3 candins. RESULTS: The cost per episode (14 days) of anidulafungin was constant at €5400 per patient. The cost of caspofungin varied from €4281 to €7991, depending on patient weight and liver dysfunction. The cost of micafungin varied from €6000 (100mg/day) to €9000 (when increasing the dose due to inadequate response). Based on a hypothetic cohort of 100 patients with IC, the total cost of anidulafungin treatment would be €540,000, for caspofungin it would be €631,459, and for micafungin it would be €632,998, depending on any dose adjustment required. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with anidulafungin did not require dose adjustment, unlike those treated with caspofungin or micafungin. The use of anidulafungin is a cost-saving treatment for adult non-neutropaenic patients with IC, which would result in better control of the Spanish pharmacy budget.

Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin and its impact on use and costs: review of the literature.

Invasive fungal infections are on the rise. Echinocandins are a relatively new class of antifungal drugs that act by inhibition of a key enzyme necessary for integrity of the fungal cell wall. Currently there are three available agents: caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafungin. While the individual echinocandin antifungals have a different spectrum of licensed indications, basically all of them are available for the treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis. Antifungal treatment modalities basically include in therapy for suspected or proven infection and prophylaxis. All three drugs are comparatively expensive. Therefore a systematic review of the literature was performed to investigate the following aspects: * General aspects of cost-effectiveness in the treatment of invasive fungal infections * Cost-effectiveness of the treatment with the above-mentioned antifungals * Cost-effectiveness in two settings: therapy and prophylaxis - Early initiation of antifungal therapy, adjustment after availability of microbiological results, duration of therapy, success and occurrence of severe complications (e.g. renal failure) are the most important cost drivers in antifungal therapy. - Considering the specific antifungals, for caspofungin the best evidence for cost-effectiveness is found in treatment of invasive candidiasis and in empiric therapy of suspected infections. Favourable economic data are available for micafungin as a cost-effective alternative to LAmB for prophylaxis in patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). For anidulafungin, cost-effectiveness was demostrated in a pharmacoeconomic model. Net savings - yet not significant - were observed in a retrospective chart review of 234 patients. Generally, however, most analyses are still based on pharmacoeconomic modelling rather than direct analysis of trial data or real-life clinical populations. - As an overall conclusion, using caspofungin, micafungin, or anidulafungin is not more expensive than using other established therapies. Micafungin has proven to be cost-effective in prophylaxis if the local fungal epidemiology indicates a high level of resistance to fluconazole. Switch strategies involving early initiation of broadly active therapy with switch to cheaper alternatives according to microbiology results and clinical status and early initiation of an appropriate therapy have been proven to be cost-efficient independent of the antifungal agent.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of micafungin compared to caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections (SCIs) in the UK, including invasive candidiasis and candidaemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of both echinocandin antifungal drugs was estimated using decision analysis. Response to treatment, resource utilisation, and costs in the model were derived from a phase 3, head-to-head comparative trial. The model includes only data directly related to the treatment of the systemic Candida infection over the study duration (a maximum period of 14 weeks). Transition probabilities were calculated based on the efficacy results from the clinical trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The model's effectiveness outcome is surviving patients who are successfully treated, based on the absence of signs and symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and culture/histologic evidence associated with the fungal infection. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed to identify cost-effectiveness in several specific patient groups. RESULTS: The total medical treatment costs for the micafungin group were pound 29,095, which is similar to the total costs for the caspofungin group (pound 29,953). In the micafungin arm 60% of the patients and in the caspofungin arm 58% of the patients were successfully treated and alive. Cost-effectiveness ratio of micafungin was pound 48,771, and of caspofungin pound 52,066 per successfully treated patient. Because the costs are lower and the effectiveness is higher for micafungin in comparison with caspofungin, micafungin is more cost-effective than caspofungin. However, probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis show that the differences cannot be considered significant due to a large variance although micafungin remained the most cost-effective option throughout all but one of the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and effects of micafungin compare to those of caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK. The results indicate that micafungin is cost-effective compared to caspofungin, although the difference was not found to be significant.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections are often fatal complications in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and prophylactic antifungal treatment has been recommended. Within budget-limited health care environments, choosing a cost-effective drug is very important. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to analyze the cost-effectiveness of micafungin and fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections from the payer's perspective in patients undergoing HSCT in a Korean health care setting. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate both total costs for each state of health and outcomes (such as the fungal-infection prevention rate and life expectancy) for 2 alternatives in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients undergoing HSCT. The target population was aged 43 years, weighed >50 kg, and had normal renal function. For prophylaxis against systemic fungal infections, patients were administered either micafungin 50 mg/d or fluconazole 400 mg/d, without dose adjustment, as a 1-hour infusion for a mean of 19 consecutive days. Depending on the clinical outcomes with prophylactic therapy, different treatments were assumed. Patients with proven/ probable fungal infection received acute antifungal therapy, and those with suspected fungal infection received empiric antifungal therapy. All patients received general medical care during the analysis period. Results are expressed as Korean won (KW; US $1 = KW 925 as of December 1, 2007). RESULTS: The base-case analysis found that micafungin treatment, compared with fluconazole, saved KW 95,511,000, increased the number of infection-free patients by 0.5, and saved 4.8 life-years per 100 patients. Results with micafungin as the dominant strategy were found to be robust in sensitivity analyses for several parameters, including treatment success and failure rates; mortality risk ratio; and costs for general care, empiric therapy, and acute antifungal therapy. CONCLUSION: Micafungin was a cost-effective prophylactic antifungal strategy by providing lower medical costs and longer life expectancy than fluconazole from the payer's perspective in a hypothetical cohort of Korean adults undergoing HSCT.