Cost-effectiveness analysis of micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Korea

Micafungin prophylaxis for acute leukemia patients undergoing induction chemotherapy

Background

Micafungin is a well-tolerated and effective prophylactic antifungal agent used in hematologic diseases. In this prospective trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic micafungin during first induction chemotherapy in patients with acute leukemia. We also compared outcomes of prophylactic micafungin with those of prophylactic posaconazole in acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Methods

Medically fit patients with newly diagnosed acute leukemia received 50 mg micafungin intravenously once daily from the initiation of first induction chemotherapy to recovery of neutrophil count, suspected fungal infection, or unacceptable drug-related toxicity (Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT02440178). The primary end point was incidence of invasive fungal infection, and the secondary end points were adverse events of prophylactic micafungin and mortality during induction therapy.

Results

The 65 patients (median age = 51 years, male:female = 34:31) enrolled in this study had diagnoses of AML (33, 50.8%), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (31, 47.7%), and acute biphenotypic leukemia (1, 1.5%). Median duration of micafungin treatment was 24 days (range 1–68), with proven invasive fungal disease in one patient (1.5%) and possible fungal infection in two patients (3.1%). Three of the patients (4.6%) experienced the following adverse events, but all events were tolerable: liver function abnormality (Grade 2, n = 1; Grade 3, n = 1) and allergic reaction (Grade 2, n = 1). Three patients died during induction therapy, and invasive aspergillosis pneumonia was the cause of death for one of those patients. Overall, 19 patients (29.2%) discontinued prophylactic micafungin, and 18 (27.7%) patients switched to another antifungal agent. We observed no fungal infections caused by amphotericin B-resistant organisms. In AML patients, outcomes of prophylactic micafungin during induction chemotherapy did not differ significantly with those of prophylactic posaconazole with regard to incidence of fungal infections, rate of discontinuation, or safety.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that prophylactic micafungin is safe and effective in patients with acute leukemia undergoing induction chemotherapy. Outcomes in patients with AML were similar to those of prophylactic posaconazole, indicating the usefulness of micafungin as a prophylactic antifungal agent during induction chemotherapy for AML.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02440178, registered May 12th 2015.

Foiling fungal disease post hematopoietic cell transplant: review of prophylactic strategies

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) offers definitive management for a wide variety of malignant and nonmalignant diseases. Conditioning regimens and therapies used to prevent and treat GvHD are immune suppressive, often increasing the risk of developing fungal disease due to yeasts or molds. Antifungal prophylaxis may be useful in preventing morbidity and mortality during and after HCT. In this article, we review the epidemiology and current literature regarding strategies for prevention of invasive fungal disease (IFD) in the pre-engraftment and post-engraftment settings, and propose future direction for scientific discovery.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of voriconazole and fluconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection in patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants

PURPOSE

The cost-effectiveness of voriconazole versus fluconazole prophylaxis against fungal infections in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients is investigated.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the drug costs associated with planned or supplemental prophylaxis and empirical therapy and the costs of treating suspected or documented invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in HCT recipients. Published clinical trial data on 599 patients who received 100-180 days of prophylactic therapy with voriconazole or fluconazole were used to model specified IFI-prevention and mortality outcomes; 6-month, 12-month, and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, with a bootstrap analysis performed to reffect the uncertainty of the clinical trial data.

RESULTS

Estimated mean total prophylaxis and IFI-related costs associated with voriconazole versus fluconazole prophylaxis over 12 months were higher in the entire study population and among patients receiving HCT for diagnoses other than acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but were not significantly different for patients with AML. The cost per IFI avoided ($66,919) and the cost per life-year gained ($5,453) were lower among patients with AML who received voriconazole relative to the full study population. ICERs were more favorable for voriconazole over a 6-month time frame and when modeling was conducted using generic price data. Assuming a threshold value of $50,000 for one year of life gained, the calculated probability of voriconazole being cost-effective was 33% for the full study population and 85% for the AML subgroup.

CONCLUSION

The decision model indicated that voriconazole prophylaxis was cost-effective for patients undergoing allogeneic HCT for AML.

Micafungin: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Invasive fungal infections have increased throughout the world. Many of these infections occur in patients with multiple comorbidities who are receiving medications with the potential for interactions with antifungal therapy that could lead to renal and hepatic dysfunction. The second marketed echinocandin, micafungin, was approved in 2005 for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis and prophylaxis of invasive Candida infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The indication for use was later expanded to include candidemia, acute disseminated candidiasis, Candida abscesses, and peritonitis. Like other echinocandins it is fungicidal against Candida species, including those that are polyene- and azole-resistant and fungistatic against Aspergillus species. Its formulation is by the intravenous route only and it is dosed once daily without a loading dose as 85% of the steady state concentration is achieved after three daily doses. It has a favorable tolerability profile with no significant drug interactions and does not need adjustment for renal or hepatic insufficiency.

Oral complications and management strategies for patients undergoing cancer therapy

With cancer survival rate climbing up over the past three decades, quality of life for cancer patients has become an issue of major concern. Oral health plays an important part in one's overall quality of life. However, oral health status can be severely hampered by side effects of cancer therapies including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Moreover, prevention and treatment of these complications are often overlooked in clinical practice. The present paper aims at drawing health care professionals' attention to oral complications associated with cancer therapy by giving a comprehensive review. Brief comments on contemporary cancer therapies will be given first, followed by detailed description of oral complications associated with cancer therapy. Finally, a summary of preventive strategies and treatment options for common oral complications including oral mucositis, oral infections, xerostomia, and dysgeusia will be given.

Antifungal therapy in European hospitals: data from the ESAC point-prevalence surveys 2008 and 2009

The study aimed to identify targets for quality improvement in antifungal use in European hospitals and determine the variability of such prescribing. Hospitals that participated in the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Point Prevalence Surveys (ESAC-PPS) were included. The WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification for 'antimycotics for systemic use' (J02) 2009 version was used. Demographic data and information about indications and diagnoses were collected in 2008 and 2009. From 99,053 patients, 29,324 (29.6%) received antimicrobials. Antifungals represented 1529 of 40,878 (3.7%) antimicrobials. Antifungals were mainly (54.2%) administered orally. Hospital-acquired infections represented 44.5% of indications for antifungals followed by medical prophylaxis at 31.2%. The site of infection was not defined in 36.0% of cases but the most commonly targeted sites were respiratory (19.2%) and gastrointestinal (18.8%). The most used antifungal was fluconazole (60.5%) followed by caspofungin (10.5%). Antifungal-antibacterial combinations were frequently used (77.5%). The predominance of fluconazole use in participating hospitals could result in an increase in prevalence of inherently resistant fungi, increasing the need for newer antifungals. Although acknowledging that antifungal prophylaxis in the immunocompromised host needs further exploration, repetitive surveys using ESAC-PPS methodology may help to monitor the effects of interventions set to regulate antifungal use.

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis to prevent invasive fungal diseases in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background:

Objectives were to compare systemic mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

Methods:

We searched OVID MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1948-August 2011) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011). Randomised controlled trials of mould-active vs fluconazole prophylaxis in cancer or HSCT patients were included. Primary outcome was proven/probable invasive fungal infections (IFI). Analysis was completed by computing relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model and Mantel–Haenszel method.

Results:

From 984 reviewed articles, 20 were included in this review. Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduced the number of proven/probable IFI (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). Mould-active prophylaxis also decreased the risk of invasive aspergillosis (IA; RR 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.75; P=0.0004) and IFI-related mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47–0.96; P=0.03) but is also associated with an increased risk of adverse events (AEs) leading to antifungal discontinuation (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.24–3.07; P=0.004). There was no decrease in overall mortality (RR 1.0; 95% CI 0.88–1.13; P=0.96).

Conclusion:

Mould-active compared with fluconazole prophylaxis significantly reduces proven/probable IFI, IA, and IFI-related mortality in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or HSCT, but increases AE and does not affect overall mortality.(PROSPERO Registration: CRD420111174)

Cost benefit and cost effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies: reviewing the available evidence

There has been a large increase in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) over the past decades, largely because of the increasing size of the population at risk. One of the major risk groups for IFIs are patients with haematological malignancies treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These IFIs are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Consequently, as the diagnosis of IFIs is difficult, antifungal prophylaxis is desirable in high-risk patients. Furthermore, as the economic impact of IFIs is also significant, it is important to assess the cost benefit and cost effectiveness of each prophylactic agent in order to aid decisions concerning which prophylactic agent provides the best value for limited healthcare resources. This article systematically reviews the available pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies. Furthermore, specific points of interest concerning economic analyses of antifungal prophylaxis are briefly discussed. Considering the available evidence, antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies seems to be an intervention with favourable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential. Furthermore, recently introduced antifungal agents seem to be attractive alternatives to fluconazole from a pharmacoeconomic point of view. However, due to wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings and study methods in the included economic studies, as well as the lack of 'head-to-head' trials, it is difficult to find clear evidence of the economic advantages of a single prophylactic agent. Furthermore, we show that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are highly dependent on several crucial factors that influence the baseline IFI incidence rates and, therefore, differ per patient population or region.

Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin and its impact on use and costs: review of the literature

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.

A systematic review of oral fungal infections in patients receiving cancer therapy

PURPOSE

The aims of this systematic review were to determine, in patients receiving cancer therapy, the prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization, to determine the impact on quality of life and cost of care, and to review current management strategies for oral fungal infections.

METHODS

Thirty-nine articles that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were independently reviewed by two calibrated reviewers, each using a standard form. Information was extracted on a number of variables, including study design, study population, sample size, interventions, blinding, outcome measures, methods, results, and conclusions for each article. Areas of discrepancy between the two reviews were resolved by consensus. Studies were weighted as to the quality of the study design, and recommendations were based on the relative strength of each paper. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection and fungal colonization.

RESULTS

For all cancer treatments, the weighted prevalence of clinical oral fungal infection was found to be 7.5% pre-treatment, 39.1% during treatment, and 32.6% after the end of cancer therapy. Head and neck radiotherapy and chemotherapy were each independently associated with a significantly increased risk for oral fungal infection. For all cancer treatments, the prevalence of oral colonization with fungal organisms was 48.2% before treatment, 72.2% during treatment, and 70.1% after treatment. The prophylactic use of fluconazole during cancer therapy resulted in a prevalence of clinical fungal infection of 1.9%. No information specific to oral fungal infections was found on quality of life or cost of care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased risk of clinically significant oral fungal infection during cancer therapy. Systemic antifungals are effective in the prevention of clinical oral fungal infection in patients receiving cancer therapy. Currently available topical antifungal agents are less efficacious, suggesting a need for better topical agents.