Treatment of candidemia with echinocandins: data on hospital resource use from a real world setting

Abstract

Objective:

Real-world data on patients treated with echinocandins for candidemia are limited. This study examined the effect of three echinocandin-based treatment regimens on resource utilization in patients with Candida infection.

Research design and methods:

A retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized between 2005 and 2010 with a blood culture positive for Candida. Length of stay (LOS) following AF initiation (post-AF LOS) and total days with AF treatment were compared in patients treated with three different echinocandin regimens: patients with echinocandin only, patients who received fluconazole prior to an echinocandin (fluconazole-echinocandin), and patients who received an echinocandin prior to fluconazole (echinocandin-fluconazole). Generalized linear models were used to adjust for confounders.

Results:

A total of 647 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients treated with echinocandin only were more acutely ill, having more organ dysfunction and sepsis. Unadjusted post-AF LOS was significantly greater in the groups that received both echinocandin and fluconazole (mean, 13.1 days for echinocandin-only vs 25.5 and 21.2 days for fluconazole-echinocandin and echinocandin-fluconazole groups, respectively, p?<?0.001). These groups also had a higher total number of days with AF orders. These differences remained after multivariate adjustment and in survivor-only analyses. Compared with echinocandin-only treatment, the average marginal effect of fluconazole-echinocandin and echinocandin-fluconazole regimens were associated with significantly longer adjusted post-AF LOS (by 7.2 days and 9.3 days, respectively, p?<?0.001) and significantly more adjusted total AF days (by 5.3 days for fluconazole-echinocandin and 6.5 days for echinocandin-fluconazole patients, p?<?0.001). Limitations included lack of visibility to specific reasons for therapy changes.

Conclusions:

Fluconazole before or after echinocandin was associated with significantly greater resource utilization than echinocandin use alone.     

桂皮醛抗念珠菌的敏感性及对细胞壁的影响

为了研发靶向抗真菌药物,研究桂皮醛对念珠菌抗菌活性及对白念珠菌细胞壁的影响.参照CLSI的M27-A3方案,采用微量液基稀释法,测定桂皮醛对念珠菌(白念珠菌、热带念珠菌、克柔氏念珠菌)的抗菌作用.将白念珠菌的菌悬液(1×108 cfu/mL)加入到RPMI 1640液体培养基内,置于37℃孵育48 h后,离心、制片,在...     

米卡芬净药物经济学研究进展

侵袭性真菌感染发病率正在逐年上升，且死亡率高，花费大。米卡芬净是新一代的棘白菌素类抗真菌药物，对念珠菌和曲霉菌具有广谱的抗菌活性。药物经济学分析显示米卡芬净比氟康唑、两性霉素B脂质体和卡泊芬净在预防和治疗侵袭性真菌感染时具有更好的成本一效果，从而在一定程度上给临床用药以指导。     

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.