Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK.
ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Article: Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin and its impact on use and costs: review of the literature.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.European journal of medical research 04/2011; 16(4):180-6. · 1.13 Impact Factor