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.

Rapid species identification of Candida directly from blood culture broths by Sepsityper-MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: impact on antifungal therapy.

Rapid identification of Candida species facilitates pathogen-directed therapy with either fluconazole or an echinocandin. METHOD: We applied Sepsityper matrix-assisted laser desorption ionisation time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) technology on positive blood culture broths for rapid species identification. RESULTS: Of the 74 patients with candidaemia, 25 had the species identified on the day of the positive blood culture directly from the broth (rapid identification group) while the remaining 49 had the species identified from culture (conventional identification group). Three (13.6%) out of 22 treated patients in the rapid identification group received echinocandin compared to 20/45 (44.4%) in the conventional identification group. The appropriateness of therapy was 90.9% in the rapid identification group and 62.2% in the conventional identification group (p = 0.01). Cost savings were more than £10,000 in the first three days of treatment. CONCLUSION: Sepsityper-MALDI-TOF-MS is a useful tool in supporting antifungal stewardship programmes.

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.

Epidemiology and cost implications of candidemia, a 6-year analysis from a developing country.

Surveillance of candidemia is essential to monitor trends in species distribution and change in the incidence and antifungal resistance. In this study, we aimed to investigate prevalence, resistance rates, antifungal utilization and costs. A 6-year retrospective analysis of the data belonging to patients with candidemia hospitalized between 2010 and 2016 was performed. The annual usage of fluconazole and caspofungin and the usage of these antifungals in different units were described in defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 patient days. In total, 351 patients of candidemia were included. Median age of the patients was 45 (0-88) and 55.1% of them were male. Overall, 48.1% of the candidemia episodes (169/351) were due to C. albicans, followed by C. parapsilosis (25.1%), C. glabrata (11.7%). Length of hospital stay was longer with a median of 20 days among patients with non-albicans candidemia. Presence of a central venous catheter was found to be an associated risk for candidemia caused by non-albicans strains. Annual incidence of candidemia increased from 0.10 to 0.30 cases/1000 patient days. Antifungal use was increased over years correlated with the cost paid for it. The policy against candidemia should be specified by each institution with respect to candidemia prevalence, resistance rates, antifungal use and costs.

Is Fluconazole or an Echinocandin the Agent of Choice for Candidemia.

OBJECTIVE: Candidemia is among the most common nosocomial bloodstream infections and is associated with high mortality, increased length of hospital stay, and significant economic burden. The introduction of the echinocandins in the 2000s has expanded the armamentarium against Candida spp and provides therapeutic options that are effective, safe, and tolerable. Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America favors echinocandins as treatment for candidemia in selected settings (at least as initial therapy), there remain divergent opinions about whether an echinocandin or fluconazole is the preferred agent for candidemia, and clinical practice guidelines are in flux. In this review, the currently available laboratory and clinical data are summarized and critically evaluated. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search of the English language literature was performed using the search terms echinocandin, fluconazole, and candidemia. References of review articles and guidelines were also screened for inclusion. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies whose primary goal was to compare echinocandins with fluconazole were evaluated as well as studies that differentiated pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties between agents. DATA SYNTHESIS: It is clear that echinocandins and fluconazole each have roles in the management of candidemia. Specific recommendations are provided that will hopefully optimize outcomes in candidemia while incorporating stewardship concepts of cost-effectiveness and limiting the emergence of resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages brought by the echinocandins and fluconazole, outcomes among patients with candidemia remain suboptimal. Improved treatment of candidemia may ultimately be achieved by optimizing the use of antifungal agents rather than the development of new drugs.

The economic impact of rapid Candida species identification by T2Candida among high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimates the cost-effectiveness and hospital budget impact of rapid candidemia identification using T2Candida, a novel diagnostic panel with same-day species-specific results. MATERIALS & METHODS: A 1-year decision-tree model estimates hospital costs (2013 US$) and effects (candidemia-related deaths) for faster diagnostics versus blood culture (BC), accounting for disease prevalence, distribution of Candida species, test characteristics (sensitivity/specificity/time to result), antifungal medication and differential length-of-stay and mortality by appropriate treatment timing. RESULTS: The model estimates a hospital with 5100 annual high-risk patients could possibly save $5,858,448 with T2Candida versus BC, a 47.6% decrease in candidemia diagnosis and treatment budget ($1149/patient tested), while averting 60.6% of candidemia-related mortality. CONCLUSION: Hospitals may observe lower candidemia-related inpatient costs and mortality with rapid Candida diagnosis.

Candidemia in the intensive care unit: analysis of direct treatment costs and clinical outcome in patients treated with echinocandins or fluconazole.

Direct treatment costs caused by candidemia in German intensive care unit (ICU) patients are currently unknown. We analyzed treatment costs and the impact of antifungal drug choice. Comprehensive data of patients who had at least one episode of candidemia while staying in the ICU between 01/2005 and 12/2010 were documented in a database using the technology of the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut). A detailed analysis of all disease-associated treatment costs was performed. Patients treated with echinocandins (i.e., anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin) or fluconazole were analyzed separately and compared. Forty-one and 64 patients received echinocandins and fluconazole, respectively. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score was 114 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 106-122) vs. 95 (95 % CI: 90-101, p = <0.001). Twenty-three (56 %) and 33 (52 %, p = 0.448) patients survived hospitalization, while 17 (41 %) and 22 (34 %, p = 0.574) survived one year after diagnosis. In the echinocandin and fluconazole groups, the mean costs per patient of ICU treatment were 20,338 (95 % CI: 12,893-27,883) vs. 11,932 (95 % CI: 8,016-15,849, p = 0.110), and the total direct treatment costs per patient were 37,995 (95 % CI: 26,614-49,376) vs. 22,305 (95 % CI: 16,817-27,793, p = 0.012), resulting in daily costs per patient of 1,158 (95 % CI: 1,036-1,280) vs. 927 (95 % CI: 828-1,026, p = 0.001). Our health economic analysis shows the high treatment costs of patients with candidemia in the ICU. Sicker patients had a prolonged hospitalization and were more likely to receive echinocandins, leading to higher treatment costs. Outcomes were comparable to those achieved in less sick patients with fluconazole.

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.

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.

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.

Attributable costs of patients with candidemia and potential implications of polymerase chain reaction-based pathogen detection on antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to calculate attributable costs of candidemia in patients with severe sepsis and to obtain preliminary data regarding the potential effects of polymerase chain reaction-based pathogen detection on antifungal therapy for these patients. METHODS: Patients treated between 2004 and 2010 because of severe sepsis were included into this retrospective analysis. The hospital management provided annual fixed costs per patient-day; data for variable intensive care unit costs were taken from the literature. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used (VYOO, SIRS-Lab, Jena, Germany) for pathogen detection in the blood. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with candidemia were identified. Of 874 patients with sepsis, propensity score matching found 32 corresponding patients with sepsis but without candida infection but similar risk factors for developing candidemia. Attributable costs of candidemia were 7713.79 Euro (cost increase, 19.4%). Initiation of antifungal therapy was reduced from 67.5 (52.4, 90) hours in the group, where candida infection was determined by blood culture, to 31.0 (28.0, 37.5; P < .01) hours after detection by multiplex PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Candidemia increases costs of care in patients with septic shock. Polymerase chain reaction-based pathogen detection significantly reduces the time to initiation of antifungal therapy. This might impact on the clinical course of the disease but need to be confirmed in further trials.

Treatment of candidemia with echinocandins: data on hospital resource use from a real world setting.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world data on patients treated with echinocandins for candidemia are limited. This study examined the effect of three echinocandin-based treatment regimens on resource utilization in patients with Candida infection. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2010 with a blood culture positive for Candida. Length of stay (LOS) following AF initiation (post-AF LOS) and total days with AF treatment were compared in patients treated with three different echinocandin regimens: patients with echinocandin only, patients who received fluconazole prior to an echinocandin (fluconazole-echinocandin), and patients who received an echinocandin prior to fluconazole (echinocandin-fluconazole). Generalized linear models were used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 647 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with echinocandin only were more acutely ill, having more organ dysfunction and sepsis. Unadjusted post-AF LOS was significantly greater in the groups that received both echinocandin and fluconazole (mean, 13.1 days for echinocandin-only vs 25.5 and 21.2 days for fluconazole-echinocandin and echinocandin-fluconazole groups, respectively, p<0.001). These groups also had a higher total number of days with AF orders. These differences remained after multivariate adjustment and in survivor-only analyses. Compared with echinocandin-only treatment, the average marginal effect of fluconazole-echinocandin and echinocandin-fluconazole regimens were associated with significantly longer adjusted post-AF LOS (by 7.2 days and 9.3 days, respectively, p<0.001) and significantly more adjusted total AF days (by 5.3 days for fluconazole-echinocandin and 6.5 days for echinocandin-fluconazole patients, p<0.001). Limitations included lack of visibility to specific reasons for therapy changes. CONCLUSIONS: Fluconazole before or after echinocandin was associated with significantly greater resource utilization than echinocandin use alone.

Impact of first-line antifungal agents on the outcomes and costs of candidemia.

Candida species are the leading causes of invasive fungal infection among hospitalized patients and are responsible for major economic burdens. The goals of this study were to estimate the costs directly associated with the treatment of candidemia and factors associated with increased costs, as well as the impact of first-line antifungal agents on the outcomes and costs. A retrospective study was conducted in a sample of 199 patients from four university-affiliated tertiary care hospitals in Korea over 1 year. Only costs attributable to the treatment of candidemia were estimated by reviewing resource utilization during treatment. Risk factors for increased costs, treatment outcome, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Approximately 65% of the patients were treated with fluconazole, and 28% were treated with conventional amphotericin B. The overall treatment success rate was 52.8%, and the 30-day mortality rate was 47.9%. Hematologic malignancy, need for mechanical ventilation, and treatment failure of first-line antifungal agents were independent risk factors for mortality. The mean total cost for the treatment of candidemia was $4,743 per patient. Intensive care unit stay at candidemia onset and antifungal switch to second-line agents were independent risk factors for increased costs. The LOS was also significantly longer in patients who switched antifungal agents to second-line drugs. Antifungal switch to second-line agents for any reasons was the only modifiable risk factor of increased costs and LOS. Choosing an appropriate first-line antifungal agent is crucial for better outcomes and reduced hospital costs of candidemia.

[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.