title: Resource utilization and cost of treatment with anidulafungin or fluconazole for candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: focus on critically ill patients.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) are serious and costly events for hospitalized patients, particularly those in the ICU. Both fluconazole and the echinocandins are recommended as first-line therapy for C/IC. Resource use and cost considerations are important in selecting appropriate treatment but little information is available on the economic implications of using echinocandins in this setting.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare resource utilization and treatment costs (in $US) associated with the echinocandin anidulafungin (200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 100 mg intravenously daily) versus those of fluconazole (800 mg intravenously on day 1, then 400 mg intravenously daily) as first-line treatment for C/IC.
  
  
  METHODS
  Available charts from patients enrolled in a recent clinical trial comparing anidulafungin and fluconazole for C/IC were reviewed. Patients who were in the ICU at study entry were identified, and the following data, collected during the 13-week study period, were compared between treatment groups: global response at end of study treatment, number of days patients survived after hospital discharge ('hospital-free' days), hospital resource use, and C/IC-related costs (year 2008 values) to a US hospital payer. These comparisons were also conducted for all non-ICU hospitalized patients, and for survivors in both study populations. Sensitivity analyses explored the cost impact of variability in the hospitalization costs between ICUs and non-ICU wards and of reduced duration intravenous therapy. Statistical comparisons between the two treatment groups were conducted for clinical outcomes, resource use and cost measures, using regression models. All statistical comparisons were adjusted for baseline co-variates (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, absolute neutrophil count and catheter removal status).
  
  
  RESULTS
  For ICU patients with C/IC (n = 63), global response was significantly higher for anidulafungin than fluconazole (68.6% vs 42.9%; p = 0.03). ICU patients treated with anidulafungin had an average of 13.9 more hospital-free days (18.2 vs 4.3 days; p = 0.04) than those treated with fluconazole. After adjustment for co-variates, although lower costs were observed for anidulafungin vs fluconazole in ICU patients and in ICU patients who survived, no statistical differences were found. For all hospitalized patients (n = 159), global response was also higher for anidulafungin (78.3% vs 60.5%; p < 0.01). There was no difference in average length of hospitalization (29.6 days) or hospital-free days. After adjustment for co-variates, anidulafungin treatment resulted in an incremental C/IC-related cost of $US2680 (p = 0.73). For hospitalized patients who survived (anidulafungin 81.9%, fluconazole 69.7%), anidulafungin treatment was associated with an incremental cost of $US231 (p = 0.98).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Anidulafungin as first-line treatment of C/IC appears to be of particular benefit to ICU patients, improving clinical outcomes and possibly decreasing costs, driven by reduced ICU and hospital stay, when compared with fluconazole. Anidulafungin also yielded significantly improved treatment outcomes in the general inpatient population, with total costs similar to fluconazole.
authors: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Camden, New Jersey, USA. Reboli@rowan.edu
authors: Annette C
authors: AC
authors: Reboli
authors: Coleman
authors: C
authors: Rotstein
authors: Daniel H
authors: DH
authors: Kett
authors: Michael
authors: M
authors: Maschio
authors: Shannon
authors: S
authors: Cartier
authors: Richard
authors: R
authors: Chambers
authors: Miriam
authors: M
authors: Tarallo
references: Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Mar 1;48(5):503-35
references: 19191635
references: Health Econ. 1998 Sep;7(6):481-93
references: 9809707
references: Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jun;20(6):1526-30
references: 7548503
references: Transpl Infect Dis. 2007 Sep;9(3):182-8
references: 17605747
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jun;24(6):1743-53
references: 18477422
references: Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008 Nov;32 Suppl 2:S87-91
references: 19013346
references: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Dec;59(4):407-14
references: 17888614
references: Lancet. 2005 Oct 22-28;366(9495):1435-42
references: 16243088
references: Pharmacotherapy. 2004 Feb;24(2 Pt 2):4S-28S; quiz 29S-32S
references: 14992487
references: J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Apr;47(4):461-70
references: 17389555
references: Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 1;39(3):309-17
references: 15306996
references: Clin Ther. 2005 Jun;27(6):960-9
references: 16117996
references: Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;41(10):1455-60
references: 16231257
references: Chest. 2003 May;123(5 Suppl):500S-3S
references: 12740235
references: Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jan;35(1):55-62
references: 18972101
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Mar;53(3):1149-56
references: 19029327
references: N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 14;356(24):2472-82
references: 17568028
references: J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):76-86
references: 16422782
references: Am J Med. 2002 Oct 15;113(6):480-5
references: 12427497
references: Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Nov 1;37(9):1172-7
references: 14557960
references: Future Microbiol. 2008 Aug;3(4):463-72
references: 18651817
references: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Jul;25(7):419-25
references: 16773391
references: Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2007 Aug;8(11):1643-50
references: 17685882
references: Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Oct;27(4):781-8
references: 9798034
references: Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Aug;29(2):239-44
references: 10476719
references: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004 Apr;23(4):323-30
references: 15024623
references: Value Health. 2002 Jan-Feb;5(1):26-34
references: 11873380