Clinical and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antifungal prophylaxis with continuous micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A six-year cohort analysis
- PMID: 33354800
- DOI: 10.1111/myc.13232
Clinical and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antifungal prophylaxis with continuous micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A six-year cohort analysis
Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (aSCT) are at high risk to develop an invasive fungal disease (IFD). Optimisation of antifungal prophylaxis strategies may improve patient outcomes and reduce treatment costs.
Objectives: To analyse the clinical and economical impact of using continuous micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis.
Patients/methods: We performed a single-centre evaluation comparing patients who received either oral posaconazole with micafungin as intravenous bridging as required (POS-MIC) to patients who received only micafungin (MIC) as antifungal prophylaxis after aSCT. Epidemiological, clinical and direct treatment cost data extracted from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut) were analysed.
Results: Three hundred and thirteen patients (97 and 216 patients in the POS-MIC and MIC groups, respectively) were included into the analysis. In the POS-MIC and MIC groups, median overall length of stay was 42 days (IQR: 35-52 days) vs 40 days (IQR: 35-49 days; p = .296), resulting in median overall costs of €42,964 (IQR: €35,040-€56,348) vs €43,291 (IQR: €37,281 vs €51,848; p = .993), respectively. Probable/proven IFD in the POS-MIC and MIC groups occurred in 5 patients (5%) vs 3 patients (1%; p = .051), respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved outcome of patients in the MIC group at day 100 (p = .037) and day 365 (p < .001) following aSCT.
Conclusions: Our study results demonstrate improved outcomes in the MIC group compared with the POS-MIC group, which can in part be explained by a tendency towards less probable/proven IFD. Higher drug acquisition costs of micafungin did not translate into higher overall costs.
Keywords: allogeneic stem cell transplantation; antifungal prophylaxis; cost savings; micafungin; pharmacoeconomic evaluation; posaconazole.
© 2020 The Authors. Mycoses published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Neofytos D, Horn D, Anaissie E, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of invasive fungal infection in adult hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: analysis of Multicenter Prospective Antifungal Therapy (PATH) Alliance registry. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(3):265-273.
-
- Herbrecht R, Caillot D, Cordonnier C, et al. Indications and outcomes of antifungal therapy in French patients with haematological conditions or recipients of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(11):2731-2738.
-
- Menzin J, Meyers JL, Friedman M, et al. Mortality, length of hospitalization, and costs associated with invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(19):1711-1717.
-
- Rieger CT, Cornely OA, Hoppe-Tichy T, et al. Treatment cost of invasive fungal disease (Ifd) in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (Aml) or myelodysplastic syndrome (Mds) in German hospitals. Mycoses. 2012;55(6):514-520.
-
- Heimann SM, Vehreschild M, Cornely OA, et al. Healthcare burden of probable and proven invasive mucormycosis: a multicenter cost-of-illness analysis of patients treated in tertiary care hospitals between 2003-2016. J Hosp Infect. 2018;101(3):339-346.
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical