Cost-effectiveness of micafungin as an alternative to fluconazole empiric treatment of suspected ICU-acquired candidemia among patients with sepsis: a model simulation

Questioning the 14-day dogma in candidemia treatment duration

The growing threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global concern. With AMR directly causing 1.27 million deaths in 2019 and projections of up to 10 million annual deaths by 2050, optimising infectious disease treatments is imperative. Prudent antimicrobial use, including treatment duration, can mitigate AMR emergence. This is particularly critical in candidemia, a severe condition with a 45% crude mortality rate, as the 14-day minimum treatment period has not been challenged in randomised comparison. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in August 2023, revealing seven original articles and two case series discussing treatment durations of less than 14 days for candidemia. No interventional trials or prospective observational studies assessing shorter durations were found. Historical studies showed varying candidemia treatment durations, questioning the current 14-day minimum recommendation. Recent research observed no significant survival differences between patients receiving shorter or longer treatment, emphasising the need for evidence-based guidance. Treatment duration reduction post-blood culture clearance could decrease exposure to antifungal drugs, limiting selection pressure, especially in the context of emerging multiresistant Candida species. Candidemia's complexity, emerging resistance and potential for shorter in-hospital stays underscore the urgency of refining treatment strategies. Evidence-driven candidemia treatment durations are imperative to balance efficacy with resistance prevention and ensure the longevity of antifungal therapies. Further research and clinical trials are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for candidemia treatment duration.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Cost-Effectiveness Studies in the ICU: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

SETTING

Critical care units.

PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS

Critical care patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.

Angiotensin II for the treatment of distributive shock in the intensive care unit: A US cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with distributive shock who are unresponsive to traditional vasopressors are commonly considered to have severe distributive shock and are at high mortality risk. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of adding angiotensin II to the standard of care (SOC) for severe distributive shock in the US critical care setting from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

Short-term mortality outcomes were based on 28-day survival rates from the ATHOS-3 study. Long-term outcomes were extrapolated to lifetime survival using individually estimated life expectancies for survivors. Resource use and adverse event costs were drawn from the published literature. Health outcomes evaluated were lives saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using utility estimates for the US adult population weighted for sepsis mortality. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty around results. We analyzed patients with severe distributive shock from the ATHOS-3 clinical trial.

RESULTS

The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC saved .08 lives at Day 28 compared to SOC alone. The cost per life saved was estimated to be $108,884. The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC was projected to result in a gain of .96 life-years and .66 QALYs. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,843 per QALY. The probability of angiotensin II being cost-effective at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY was 86 percent.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of severe distributive shock, angiotensin II is cost-effective at acceptable thresholds.

Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review

Background

Sepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

We identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

There is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42018095980

Cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin versus escalation from fluconazole for invasive candidiasis in China

AIMS

Guidelines on treating invasive candidiasis recommend initial treatment with a broad-spectrum echinocandin (e.g. micafungin), then switching to fluconazole if isolates prove sensitive (de-escalation strategy). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin vs escalation from fluconazole from a Chinese public payers perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a decision analytic model, in which patients begin treatment with fluconazole 400 mg/day (escalation) or micafungin 100 mg/day (de-escalation). From Day 3, when susceptibility results are available, patients are treated with either fluconazole (if isolates are fluconazole-sensitive/dose-dependent) or micafungin (if isolates are resistant). The total duration of (appropriate) treatment is 14 days. Model inputs are early (Day 3) and end-of-treatment mortality rates, treatment success rates, and health resource utilization. Model outputs are costs of health resource utilization over 42 days, incremental cost per life-year, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the de-escalation strategy was associated with longer survival and higher treatment success rates compared with escalation, at a lower overall cost (-¥1,154; -175 United States Dollars). Life-years and QALYs were also better with de-escalation. Thus, this strategy dominated the escalation strategy for all outcomes. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99% of 10,000 simulations were below the very cost-effective threshold (1 × gross domestic product).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of the study was the lack of real-world input data for clinical outcomes on treatment with micafungin in China; data from other countries were included in the model.

CONCLUSION

A de-escalation strategy is cost-saving from the Chinese public health payer perspective compared with escalation. It improves outcomes and reduces costs to the health system by reducing hospitalization, due to an increase in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment.

"De-escalation" strategy using micafungin for the treatment of systemic Candida infections: budget impact in France and Germany

Background

The incidence of azole-resistant Candida infections is increasing. Consequently, guidelines for treating systemic Candida infection (SCI) recommend a “de-escalation” strategy: initial broad-spectrum antifungal agents (e.g., echinocandins), followed by switching to fluconazole if isolates are fluconazole sensitive, rather than “escalation” with initial fluconazole treatment and then switching to echinocandins if isolates are fluconazole resistant. However, fluconazole may continue to be used as first-line treatment in view of its low acquisition costs. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the budget impact of the de-escalation strategy using micafungin compared with the escalation strategy in France and Germany.

Methods

A budget impact model was used to compare de-escalation to escalation strategies. As well as survival, clinical success (resolution/reduction of symptoms and radiographic abnormalities associated with fungal infection), was considered, as was mycological success (eradication of Candida from the bloodstream). Health economic outcomes included cost per health state according to clinical success and mycological success, and budget impact. A 42-day time horizon was used.

Results

For all patients with SCI, the budget impact of using de-escalation rather than escalation was greater, but improved rates of survival, clinical success and mycological success were apparent with de-escalation. In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, clinical success rates and survival were improved by ~72% with de-escalation versus escalation, producing cost savings of €6,374 and €356 per patient in France and Germany, respectively; improvements of ~72% in mycological success rates with de-escalation versus escalation did not translate into cost savings.

Conclusion

Modeling provides evidence that when treating SCI in individuals at risk of azole-resistant infections, de-escalation from micafungin has potential cost savings associated with improved clinical success rates.

Cost Effectiveness of Candida Polymerase Chain Reaction Detection and Empirical Antifungal Treatment among Patients with Suspected Fungal Peritonitis in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Mortality from intra-abdominal candidiasis in intensive care units (ICUs) is high. It takes many days for peritoneal-fluid fungal culture to become positive, and the recommended empirical antifungal therapy involves excessive costs. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) should produce results more rapidly than fungal culture.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the combination of several diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to manage Candida peritonitis in non-neutropenic adult patients in ICUs.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree model to evaluate the cost effectiveness. Cost and effectiveness were taken into account in a 1-year time horizon and from the French National Health Insurance perspective. Six strategies were compared: fluconazole or echinocandin as an empirical therapy, plus diagnosis by fungal culture or detection by PCR of all Candida species, or use of PCR to detect most fluconazole-resistant Candida species (i.e., Candida krusei and Candida glabrata).

RESULTS

The use of fluconazole empirical treatment and PCR to detect all Candida species is more cost effective than using fluconazole empirical treatment without PCR (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,055/quality-adjusted life-year). Empirical treatment with echinocandin plus PCR to detect C. krusei and C. glabrata is the most effective strategy, but has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €93,776/quality-adjusted life-year. If the cost of echinocandin decreases, then strategies involving PCR plus empirical echinocandin become more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection by PCR of all Candida species and of most fluconazole-resistant Candida species could improve the cost-effectiveness of fluconazole and echinocandin given to non-neutropenic patients with suspected peritoneal candidiasis in ICUs.

Echinocandins in antifungal pharmacotherapy

Objectives

Echinocandins are the newest addition of the last decade to the antifungal armamentarium, which, owing to their unique mechanism of action, selectively target the fungal cells without affecting mammalian cells. Since the time of their introduction, they have come to occupy an important niche in the antifungal pharmacotherapy, due to their efficacy, safety, tolerability and favourable pharmacokinetic profiles. This review deals with the varying facets of echinocandins such as their chemistry, in-vitro and in-vivo evaluations, clinical utility and indications, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, and pharmacoeconomic considerations.

Key findings

Clinical studies have demonstrated that the echinocandins – caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafungin – are equivalent, if not superior, to the mainstay antifungal therapies involving amphotericin B and fluconazole. Moreover, echinocandin regimen has been shown to be more cost-effective and economical. Hence, the echinocandins have found favour in the management of invasive systemic fungal infections.

Conclusions

The subtle differences in echinocandins with respect to their pharmacology, clinical therapy and the mechanisms of resistance are emerging at a rapid pace from the current pool of research which could potentially aid in extending their utility in the fungal infections of the eye, heart and nervous system.

A Prospective Surveillance Study of Candidaemia: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Antifungal Treatment and Outcome in Hospitalized Patients

This study provide an up-to-date overview of the epidemiology and risk factors for Candida bloodstream infection in Scotland in 2012/2013, and the antifungal susceptibility of isolates from blood cultures from 11 National Health Service boards within Scotland. Candida isolates were identified by chromogenic agar and confirmed by MALDI–TOF methods. Survival and associated risk factors for patients stratified as albicans and non-albicans cases were assessed. Information on the spectrum of antifungals used was collected and summarized. The isolates sensitivity to different antifungals was tested by broth microdilution method and interpreted according to CLSI/EUCAST guidelines. Forty one percent of candidaemia cases were associated with Candida albicans, followed by C. glabrata (35%), C. parapsilosis (11.5%), and remainder with other Candida spp. C. albicans and C. glabrata infections were associated with 20.9 and 16.3% mortality, respectively. Survival of patients with C. albicans was significantly lower compared to non-C. albicans and catheter line removal in C. albicans patients significantly increases the survival days. Predisposing factors such as total parenteral nutrition, and number of days on mechanical ventilation or in intensive care, were significantly associated with C. albicans infections. Fluconazole was used extensively (64.5%) for treating candidaemia cases followed by echinocandins (33.8%). Based on CLSI breakpoints, MIC test found no resistance to any antifungals tested except 5.26% fluconazole resistance among C. glabrata isolates. Moreover, by comparing to EUCAST breakpoints we found 3.95% of C. glabrata isolates were resistant to anidulafungin. We have observed a shift in Candida spp. with an increasing isolation of C. glabrata. Delay and choice of antifungal treatment are associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Treatment of invasive candidiasis: between guidelines and daily clinical practice

Invasive candidiasis, including candidemia (IC/C), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. While incidence is higher in intensive care units, the majority of cases of candidemia are documented in medical wards. Although Candida albicans is still the most frequently isolated species, IC/C due to non-albicans species, usually less susceptible to fluconazole, is increasing. Early identification of patients at risk, knowledge of local epidemiology and prompt efforts to define etiologic diagnosis play a pivotal role for appropriateness. Starting therapy with an echinocandin, switching then to fluconazole when possible, seems to represent a potentially useful strategy for the management of IC/C. The choice between the three echinocandins should be based on the specific indications, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, clinical experience and relative cost.

How to select an antifungal agent in critically ill patients

Fungal infections are common in critically ill patients and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Candida spp are the most commonly isolated fungal pathogens. The last 2 decades have seen an increased incidence of fungal infections in critical illness and the emergence of new pathogenic fungal species and also the development of more effective (better bioavailability) and safer (less toxicity, fewer drug interactions) drugs. The distinction between colonization and infection can be difficult, and problems diagnosing infection may delay initiation of antifungal treatment. A number of factors have been identified that can help to distinguish patients at high risk for fungal infection. The antifungal agents that are most frequently used in the intensive care unit are the first- and second-generation azoles and the echinocandins; amphotericin B derivatives (mainly the liposomal agents) are less widely used because of adverse effects. The choice of antifungal agent in critically ill patients will depend on the aim of therapy (prophylaxis, pre-emptive, empiric, definitive), as well as on local epidemiology and specific properties of the drug (antifungal spectrum, efficacy, toxicity, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, cost). In this article we will review all these aspects and propose an algorithm to guide selection of antifungal agents in critically ill patients.

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.

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections

BACKGROUND

Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article.

RESULTS

In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of £30,000.

The value of critical care

The primary focus of this review is on the cost-effectiveness of critical care. The rapid growth in health care expenditures has engendered careful scrutiny of the practice of medicine with regard not only to effectiveness but also to efficiency. This shift necessitates that physicians understand the effectiveness of their interventions and the cost at which this effectiveness is obtained. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses have become crucial evaluative tools in medicine. Explicit articulation of comparative cost-effectiveness facilitates the allocation of limited resources. Physicians and policy-makers must evaluate such studies with caution, skepticism, and attention to the methods used.

Impact of first-line antifungal agents on the outcomes and costs of candidemia

Candida species are the leading causes of invasive fungal infection among hospitalized patients and are responsible for major economic burdens. The goals of this study were to estimate the costs directly associated with the treatment of candidemia and factors associated with increased costs, as well as the impact of first-line antifungal agents on the outcomes and costs. A retrospective study was conducted in a sample of 199 patients from four university-affiliated tertiary care hospitals in Korea over 1 year. Only costs attributable to the treatment of candidemia were estimated by reviewing resource utilization during treatment. Risk factors for increased costs, treatment outcome, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Approximately 65% of the patients were treated with fluconazole, and 28% were treated with conventional amphotericin B. The overall treatment success rate was 52.8%, and the 30-day mortality rate was 47.9%. Hematologic malignancy, need for mechanical ventilation, and treatment failure of first-line antifungal agents were independent risk factors for mortality. The mean total cost for the treatment of candidemia was $4,743 per patient. Intensive care unit stay at candidemia onset and antifungal switch to second-line agents were independent risk factors for increased costs. The LOS was also significantly longer in patients who switched antifungal agents to second-line drugs. Antifungal switch to second-line agents for any reasons was the only modifiable risk factor of increased costs and LOS. Choosing an appropriate first-line antifungal agent is crucial for better outcomes and reduced hospital costs of candidemia.

Pharmacology and metabolism of anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin in the treatment of invasive candidosis: review of the literature

Echinocandins represent the newest class of antifungal agents. Currently, three echinocandins, anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin are licensed for clinical use in various indications. They act as inhibitors of β-(1,3)-glucan synthesis in the fungal cell wall and have a favorable pharmacological profile. They have a broad spectrum of activity against all Candida species. Higher MIC's have been observed against C. parapsilosis and C. guilliermondii. Data from clinical trials for invasive Candida infections/candidaemia suggest that the clinical outcome of patients treated with either drug may be very similar. A comparison has been done between caspofungin and micafungin but for anidulafungin a comparative trial with another echinocandin is still lacking. All three drugs are highly effective if not superior to treatment with either fluconazole or Amphotericin B, particularly in well-defined clinical settings such as invasive Candida infections, Candida oesophagitis and candidaemia. Differences between the three echinocandins with regard to the route of metabolism, requirement for a loading dose, dose adjustment in patients with moderate to severe hepatic disease and different dosing schedules for different types of Candida infections have to be considered. Relevant drug-drug interactions of Caspofungin and Micafungin are minimal. Anidulafungin has no significant drug interactions at all. However, echinocandins are available only for intravenous use. All three agents have an excellent safety profile.

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.

De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND

Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock ranges from 27% to 54%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy and thus reducing mortality. However, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment with a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by either changing the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination according to the patient's microbial culture results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock caused by any micro-organism.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 8); MEDLINE via PubMed (from inception to August 2010); EMBASE (from inception to August 2010); LILACS (from inception to August 2010); Current Controlled Trials and bibliographic references of relevant studies. We also contacted the main authors in the area. We applied no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomized controlled trials comparing de-escalation (based on culture results) versus standard therapy for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality (at 28 days, hospital discharge or the end of the follow-up period). Studies including patients initially treated with an empirical but not adequate antimicrobial therapy were not considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors planned to independently select and extract data and evaluate methodological quality of all studies. We planned to use relative risk (risk ratio) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to use the random-effects statistical model when the estimate effects of two or more studies could be combined in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 436 references via the search strategy. No randomized controlled trials testing de-escalation antimicrobial treatment for adult patients diagnosed with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock could be included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no adequate, direct evidence as to whether de-escalation of antimicrobial agents is effective and safe for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. Therefore, it is not possible to either recommend or not recommend the de-escalation of antimicrobial agents in clinical practice for septic patients. This uncertainty warrants further research via randomized controlled trials or cohort studies.

Year in review 2009: Critical Care--infection

In 2009 Critical Care provided important and clinically relevant research data for management and prevention of infections in critically ill patients. The present review summarises the results of these observational studies and clinical trials and discusses them in the context of the current relevant scientific and clinical background. In particular, we discuss recent epidemiologic data on nosocomial infections in intensive care units, present new approaches to prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, describe recent advances in biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship and attempt to briefly summarise specific challenges related to the management of infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms and influenza A (H1N1).

Empiric anti-Candida therapy for patients with sepsis in the ICU: how little is too little?

Prior analyses suggest that empiric fluconazole for ICU patients with sepsis is cost-effective. Using updated estimates of efficacy and cost, Zilberberg and colleagues compare the use of micafungin with that of fluconazole. The authors conclude that micafungin is an attractive alternative to fluconazole. This conclusion is driven by recent reduction in micafungin's cost and by better activity of micafungin against azole-resistant Candida species. Their results are limited by inflated estimates of efficacy, life expectancy and risk of Candida sepsis. This commentary explores the rationale for early anti-Candida strategies in the ICU and highlights the contribution and limitations of the article by Zilberberg and colleagues.