Recent advances in AIDS-related cryptococcal meningitis treatment with an emphasis on resource limited settings.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in the treatment and prevention of cryptococcal meningitis have the potential to decrease AIDS-related deaths. Areas covered: Targeted screening for asymptomatic cryptococcal antigenemia in persons with AIDS is a cost effective method for reducing early mortality in patients on antiretroviral therapy. For persons with symptomatic cryptococcal meningitis, optimal initial management with amphotericin and flucytosine improves survival compared to alternative therapies; however, amphotsericin is difficult to administer and flucytosine has not been available in middle or low income countries, where cryptococcal meningitis is most prevalent. Expert commentary: Improved care for cryptococcal meningitis patients in resource-limited settings is possible, and new treatment possibilities are emerging.

Antifungal step-down therapy based on hospital intravenous to oral switch policy and susceptibility testing in adult patients with candidaemia: a single centre experience.

AIMS: Echinocandins are recommended for the treatment of candidaemia in moderately severe to severely ill patients. Step-down or de-escalation from echinocandin to fluconazole is advised in patients who are clinically stable but data in relation to step-down therapy are sparse. Using our hospital intravenous to oral switch therapy (IVOST) policy to guide antifungal de-escalation in patients with candidaemia, we aimed to determine what proportion of patients are de-escalated to fluconazole, the timescale to step-down, associated reduction in consumption of echinocandins and antifungal cost savings. METHODOLOGY: Patients with candidaemia were followed from April 2011 to March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 37 episodes of candidaemia were documented during the study period. Twenty-seven patients were commenced on an echinocandin or voriconazole and 19 (70.3%) were de-escalated to fluconazole based on the IVOST policy. The mean and median number of days to de-escalation of therapy was 4.6 and 5 days, respectively. One patient whose therapy was de-escalated relapsed. The overall 30 day crude mortality was 37.1%. The step-down approach led to significant saving in antifungal drug cost of £1133.88 per candidaemic episode and £2208.08 per de-escalation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of IVOST policy led to streamlining of antifungal therapy.

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.

Posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) present a major issue in clinical practice, due to their high morbidity and mortality rates. In a pivotal multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, posaconazole prophylaxis prevented IFIs more effectively than did either fluconazole or itraconazole, and improved overall survival. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the aforementioned therapeutic strategies for IFI prophylaxis in neutropenic patients, in the Greek healthcare setting. METHOD: A decision analytic model was developed, which described the course of neutropenic patients under posaconazole or standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) treatment. Effectiveness data for each treatment regimen were derived from published results of a pivotal, multi-centre, randomized clinical trial. Cost and healthcare resources utilization data depict Greek clinical practice and are derived from official Greek sources, from a third party payer perspective. RESULTS: Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in fewer IFIs (0.05 vs 0.11 per patient) compared to treatment with fluconazole or itraconazole, during the first 100 days from initiation of prophylaxis treatment. The cost per avoided IFI with posaconazole was €6455, while the incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) was estimated at €24,196. Extensive sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case results. Possible limitations of the study are the exclusion of indirect and outpatient costs from the analysis and the inherent uncertainty with regards to the transferability of the clinical efficacy results of the clinical trial to the Greek healthcare setting. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of posaconazole for prophylaxis of IFIs neutropenic patients is a therapeutic strategy that provides superior clinical efficacy, while being cost-effective compared to alternative therapies.

[Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylactic treatment of invasive fungal infections in Mexico]. / Costo efectividad de posaconazol versus fluconazol/itraconazol en el tratamiento profiláctico de las infecciones fúngicas invasivas en México.

UNLABELLED: Cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness and long-term combined effects of Posaconazole versus fluconazole/itraconazole (standard azole) therapy in the prophylaxis against invasive fungal Infections among high-risk neutropenic patients in Mexico. METHODS: A previously validated Markov model was used to compare the projected lifetime costs and effects of two theoretical groups of patients, one receiving Posaconazole and the other receiving standard azole. The model estimates total costs, numbers of IFIs, and QALY per patient in each prophylaxis group. To extrapolate trial results to a lifetime horizon, the model was extended with one-month Markov cycles in which mortality risk is specific to the underlying disease. Data on the probabilities of IFI were obtained from Study Protocol PO1899. Drug costs were taken from average wholesale drug reports for 2009. Cost and health effects were discounted at 5% according to the Mexican guideline. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2008 unit cost prices. RESULTS: Our model projects an accumulated cost to the Mexican healthcare system per patient receiving the Posaconazol regimen of $US 5,634 compared to $US 7,463 for the standard azole regimen. The accumulated discounted effect is 3.13 LY or 2.25 QALYs per patient receiving Posaconazol, compared to 2.96 LY or 2.13 QALYs per patient receiving standard azole. Posaconazol remained the dominant strategy across each scenario. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes. CONCLUSION: Posaconazole provides modest incremental benefits compared with standard azole therapy in the prophylaxis against IFIs among high-risk neutropenic patients. Routine Posaconazole use appears a cost saving when the likelihood of IFIs or the cost of treatment medications is high.