Cargando…
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 f...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623895/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26503366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-015-1143-1 |
_version_ | 1782397756724215808 |
---|---|
author | Auzinger, Georg Playford, E. Geoffrey Graham, Christopher N. Knox, Hediyyih N. Weinstein, David Kantecki, Michal Schlamm, Haran Charbonneau, Claudie |
author_facet | Auzinger, Georg Playford, E. Geoffrey Graham, Christopher N. Knox, Hediyyih N. Weinstein, David Kantecki, Michal Schlamm, Haran Charbonneau, Claudie |
author_sort | Auzinger, Georg |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4623895 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46238952015-10-29 Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis Auzinger, Georg Playford, E. Geoffrey Graham, Christopher N. Knox, Hediyyih N. Weinstein, David Kantecki, Michal Schlamm, Haran Charbonneau, Claudie BMC Infect Dis Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2015-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4623895/ /pubmed/26503366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-015-1143-1 Text en © Auzinger et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Auzinger, Georg Playford, E. Geoffrey Graham, Christopher N. Knox, Hediyyih N. Weinstein, David Kantecki, Michal Schlamm, Haran Charbonneau, Claudie Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title | Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623895/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26503366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-015-1143-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT auzingergeorg costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT playfordegeoffrey costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT grahamchristophern costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT knoxhediyyihn costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT weinsteindavid costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT kanteckimichal costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT schlammharan costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis AT charbonneauclaudie costeffectivenessanalysisofanidulafunginforthetreatmentofcandidaemiaandotherformsofinvasivecandidiasis |