Treatment and economic burden of mucormycosis in China: Case report review and burden estimation.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Mucormycosis is an opportunistic fungal infection associated with low incidence but high mortality. Few studies have shown the treatment and disease burden of mucormycosis in China. This study aims at collecting all the reported cases to describe the characteristics and treatment patterns and to assess the economic burden of mucormycosis in China. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of mucormycosis case reports in Chinese patients to summarize the characteristics and treatment patterns of the disease in China. An economic model was built to evaluate the total cost of mucormycosis per person, including direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost and indirect cost. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 676 case reports showed that the most common type of mucormycosis was pulmonary mucormycosis (299/676, 44.2%), and rhinocerebral mucormycosis had the highest case fatality rate (122/185, 68.5%). Among those who used empiric therapies, 48.8% (231/473) did not include anti-mucor drugs; 79.8% (336/421) of the therapies include amphotericin B (AMB) or AMB-lipo after detection of mucormycetes; 98.6% (69/70) of the reported adverse events were associated with AMB and AMB-lipo. The duration of treatment ranged from 90 to 180 days; the length of stay ranged from 22 to 95 days. The average total cost per patient was 166 thousand Chinese Yuan (CNY), of which 93.1% was the direct medical cost (155 thousand CNY). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: There are a limited number of antifungal treatment options for mucormycosis in China. This study highlights the critical need to introduce innovative and broader spectrum antifungal drugs with improved safety, better clinical efficacy, easier administration and reduced economic burden to Chinese mucormycosis patients.

Data in Brief of: Clinical benefits of moxifloxacin as initial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: Data from meta-analyses.

Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China by clinical guidelines and widely used in clinical settings. Several clinical outcomes comparing the efficacy and safety profiles of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin through a meta-analysis were reported in paper 'Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of moxifloxacin as initial treatment for community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis and economic evaluation'. In this dataset, we aimed at investigating more clinical endpoints comparing the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment of CAP.

Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Moxifloxacin as Initial Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis and Economic Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China according to guidelines. Most studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in treating CAP as initial empirical treatment were single-centered trials assessing different clinical end points. In addition, there is limited research investigating moxifloxacin's clinical benefits in the context of health care resource utilization and reimbursement from the payer's perspective in China. Hence, this study was aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin by conducting a meta-analysis and assessing their economic value from the China payer's perspective through a cost-utility analysis model. METHODS: For the meta-analysis, 6 bibliographic databases were searched for relevant publications from January 2000 to August 2020, and studies were assessed for eligibility under predetermined criteria. Meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model when analyses included >2 trials. For the economic evaluation, a decision-tree model was constructed to investigate the cost-utility of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin as initial regimens in the treatment of CAP inpatients. Parameter values were derived from meta-analysis, published literature, and clinician survey. The outcome was reported in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken to assess the robustness of the model. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the clinical response rate at the test-of-cure visit with initial treatment of moxifloxacin was significantly higher than that of levofloxacin (3441 patients; random effects model; I2 = 49%; odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.35-4.77; P < 0.001). In terms of the safety profile, total adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (2770 patients; random effects model; I2 = 40%; odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06; P = 0.11). Output of the cost-utility model showed that under the willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time China gross domestic product per capita, moxifloxacin is dominant over levofloxacin, being less costly and more efficacious (0.002 quality-adjusted life year gained, CNY 844 [US$131] saved in total cost, negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sensitivity analyses indicated the robustness of the model as moxifloxacin remained dominant when model parameter values fluctuated. IMPLICATIONS: Moxifloxacin is more efficacious than levofloxacin as the initial empirical treatment for CAP. In addition, treatment of CAP with moxifloxacin instead of levofloxacin is expected to be cost-saving from the perspective of payers in China. However, for the cost-utility analysis, in the absence of a national representative database on costs for hospitalization in China, inputs in the cost-utility model could be underestimated or overestimated due to estimating errors applied to both treatment arms.