Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Leading Article

Cost Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Antifungal Prophylaxis in Immunocompromised Patients Treated for Haematological Malignancies

Reviewing the Available Evidence

Authors: Mr Petros Pechlivanoglou, Robin De Vries, Simon M.G.J. Daenen, Maarten J. Postma

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

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 costsaving 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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mcneil MM, Nash SL, Hajjeh RA, et al. Trends in mortality due to invasive mycotic diseases in the United States, 1980–1997. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 641–7PubMedCrossRef Mcneil MM, Nash SL, Hajjeh RA, et al. Trends in mortality due to invasive mycotic diseases in the United States, 1980–1997. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 641–7PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Martino R, Subira M. Invasive fungal infections in hematology: new trends. Ann Hematol 2002; 81: 233–43PubMedCrossRef Martino R, Subira M. Invasive fungal infections in hematology: new trends. Ann Hematol 2002; 81: 233–43PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Richardson MD. Changing patterns and trends in systemic fungal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56 Suppl. 1: 5–11CrossRef Richardson MD. Changing patterns and trends in systemic fungal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56 Suppl. 1: 5–11CrossRef
5.
go back to reference O’Brien SN, Blijlevens NMA, Mahfouz TH, et al. Infections in patients with hematological cancer: recent developments. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2003; 438–72 O’Brien SN, Blijlevens NMA, Mahfouz TH, et al. Infections in patients with hematological cancer: recent developments. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2003; 438–72
6.
go back to reference Hamza NS, Ghannoum MA, Lazarus HM. Choices aplenty: antifungal prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2004; 34 (5): 377–89PubMedCrossRef Hamza NS, Ghannoum MA, Lazarus HM. Choices aplenty: antifungal prophylaxis in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2004; 34 (5): 377–89PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nosari A, Barberis M, Landonio G, et al. Infections in haematologic neoplasms: autopsy findings. Haematologica 1991; 76: 135–40PubMed Nosari A, Barberis M, Landonio G, et al. Infections in haematologic neoplasms: autopsy findings. Haematologica 1991; 76: 135–40PubMed
8.
go back to reference Warnock DW. Trends in epidemiology of invasive fungal infections. Jpn J Med Mycol 2007; 48: 1–12CrossRef Warnock DW. Trends in epidemiology of invasive fungal infections. Jpn J Med Mycol 2007; 48: 1–12CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Maertens J. Evaluating prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematologic malignancies. Eur J Haematology 2007; 78: 275–82CrossRef Maertens J. Evaluating prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematologic malignancies. Eur J Haematology 2007; 78: 275–82CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Marr KA. Invasive Candida infections: the changing epidemiology. Oncology 2004; 18: 9–14PubMed Marr KA. Invasive Candida infections: the changing epidemiology. Oncology 2004; 18: 9–14PubMed
11.
go back to reference Erjavec Z, Kluin-Nelemans H, Verweij PE. Trends in invasive fungal infections, with emphasis on invasive aspergillosis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15: 625–33PubMedCrossRef Erjavec Z, Kluin-Nelemans H, Verweij PE. Trends in invasive fungal infections, with emphasis on invasive aspergillosis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2009; 15: 625–33PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Marr KA, Carter RA, Crippa F, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of mold infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 909–17PubMedCrossRef Marr KA, Carter RA, Crippa F, et al. Epidemiology and outcome of mold infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 909–17PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lin SJ, Schranz J, Teutsch SM. Aspergillosis case-fatality rate: systematic review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 358–66PubMedCrossRef Lin SJ, Schranz J, Teutsch SM. Aspergillosis case-fatality rate: systematic review of the literature. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32: 358–66PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Stolpman M, et al. The direct costs and incidence of systematic fungal infections. Value Health 2002; 5 (1): 26–34PubMedCrossRef Wilson LS, Reyes CM, Stolpman M, et al. The direct costs and incidence of systematic fungal infections. Value Health 2002; 5 (1): 26–34PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Meis JF, Blijlevens NM, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (10): 1535–46PubMedCrossRef Jansen JP, Meis JF, Blijlevens NM, et al. Economic evaluation of voriconazole in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21 (10): 1535–46PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Michallet M, Itzo JI. Approaches to the management of invasive fungal infections in hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3389–409CrossRef Michallet M, Itzo JI. Approaches to the management of invasive fungal infections in hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3389–409CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Upton A, Kirby KA, Carpenter P, et al. Invasive aspergillosis following hematopoietic cell transplantation: outcomes and prognostic factors associated with mortality. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 531–40PubMedCrossRef Upton A, Kirby KA, Carpenter P, et al. Invasive aspergillosis following hematopoietic cell transplantation: outcomes and prognostic factors associated with mortality. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 531–40PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kanda Y, Yamamoto R, Chizuka A, et al. Prophylactic action of oral fluconazole against fungal infection of neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized, controlled trials. Cancer 2000; 89: 1611–25PubMedCrossRef Kanda Y, Yamamoto R, Chizuka A, et al. Prophylactic action of oral fluconazole against fungal infection of neutropenic patients: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized, controlled trials. Cancer 2000; 89: 1611–25PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Rogers TR, Frost S. Newer antifungal agents for invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy. Br J Haematol 2008; 144: 629–41PubMedCrossRef Rogers TR, Frost S. Newer antifungal agents for invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancy. Br J Haematol 2008; 144: 629–41PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Joseph JM, Jain R, Danziger LH. Micafungin: a new echinocandin antifungal. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 53–67PubMedCrossRef Joseph JM, Jain R, Danziger LH. Micafungin: a new echinocandin antifungal. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 53–67PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Torres HA, Hachem RY, Chemaly RF, et al. Posaconazole: a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 775–85PubMedCrossRef Torres HA, Hachem RY, Chemaly RF, et al. Posaconazole: a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 775–85PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Stewart A, Powles R, Hewetson M, et al. Costs of antifungal prophylaxis after bone marrow transplantation: a model comparing oral fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin and oral polyenes as prophylaxis against oropharyngeal infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (4): 350–61PubMedCrossRef Stewart A, Powles R, Hewetson M, et al. Costs of antifungal prophylaxis after bone marrow transplantation: a model comparing oral fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin and oral polyenes as prophylaxis against oropharyngeal infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (4): 350–61PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Poirier JM, Hardy S, Isnard F, et al. Plasma itraconazole concentrations in patients with neutropenia: advantages of a divided daily dose regimen. Ther Drug Monit 1997; 19 (5): 525–9PubMedCrossRef Poirier JM, Hardy S, Isnard F, et al. Plasma itraconazole concentrations in patients with neutropenia: advantages of a divided daily dose regimen. Ther Drug Monit 1997; 19 (5): 525–9PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sajben P, Minarik T, Tomasik E, et al. Fluconazol plus ofloxacin in prophylaxis of infections in patients with acute leukemia: a comparative study. Support Care Cancer 1993; 1: 214–6PubMedCrossRef Sajben P, Minarik T, Tomasik E, et al. Fluconazol plus ofloxacin in prophylaxis of infections in patients with acute leukemia: a comparative study. Support Care Cancer 1993; 1: 214–6PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Al-Badriyeh D, Slavin M, Liew D, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of voriconazole versus posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukaemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (5): 1052–61PubMedCrossRef Al-Badriyeh D, Slavin M, Liew D, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of voriconazole versus posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukaemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65 (5): 1052–61PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Schaffner A, Schaffner M. Effect of prophylactic fluconazole on the frequency of fungal infections, amphotericin B use, and health care costs in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for hematologic neoplasis. J Infect Dis 1995; 172 (4): 1035–41PubMedCrossRef Schaffner A, Schaffner M. Effect of prophylactic fluconazole on the frequency of fungal infections, amphotericin B use, and health care costs in patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy for hematologic neoplasis. J Infect Dis 1995; 172 (4): 1035–41PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Wakerly L, Craig AM, Malek M, et al. Fluconazole versus oral polyenes in the prophylaxis of immunocompromised patients: a cost-minimization analysis. J Hosp Dis 1996; 33: 35–48CrossRef Wakerly L, Craig AM, Malek M, et al. Fluconazole versus oral polyenes in the prophylaxis of immunocompromised patients: a cost-minimization analysis. J Hosp Dis 1996; 33: 35–48CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Nomura K, Kawasugi K, Morimoto T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antifungal treatment for patients on chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care 2006; 15: 44–50CrossRef Nomura K, Kawasugi K, Morimoto T. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antifungal treatment for patients on chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care 2006; 15: 44–50CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Penack O, Reinhold T, Thiel E, et al. Cost-benefit of antifungal prophylaxis with liposomal amphotericin B in neutropenic patients. Onkologie 2007; 30 (12): 621–6PubMedCrossRef Penack O, Reinhold T, Thiel E, et al. Cost-benefit of antifungal prophylaxis with liposomal amphotericin B in neutropenic patients. Onkologie 2007; 30 (12): 621–6PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference de Vries R, Daenen S, Tolley K, et al. Cost effectiveness of itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (1): 75–90PubMedCrossRef de Vries R, Daenen S, Tolley K, et al. Cost effectiveness of itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (1): 75–90PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Sohn HS, Lee TJ, Kim J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mycafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation inKorea. Clin Ther 2009; 31 (5): 1105–15PubMedCrossRef Sohn HS, Lee TJ, Kim J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mycafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation inKorea. Clin Ther 2009; 31 (5): 1105–15PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Schonfeld W, Cheng JW, Tong KB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antifungal prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Ther 2008; 30 (5): 964–73PubMedCrossRef Schonfeld W, Cheng JW, Tong KB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antifungal prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Ther 2008; 30 (5): 964–73PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Stam WB, O’Sullivan AK, Rijnders B, et al. Economic evaluation of posaconazole vs. standard azole prophylaxis in high risk neutropenic patients in the Netherlands. Eur J Haematol 2008; 81 (6): 467–74PubMedCrossRef Stam WB, O’Sullivan AK, Rijnders B, et al. Economic evaluation of posaconazole vs. standard azole prophylaxis in high risk neutropenic patients in the Netherlands. Eur J Haematol 2008; 81 (6): 467–74PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Collins CD, Ellis JJ, Kaul DR. Comparative cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008; 65 (1): 2237–43PubMedCrossRef Collins CD, Ellis JJ, Kaul DR. Comparative cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with prolonged neutropenia. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008; 65 (1): 2237–43PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference O’Sullivan AK, Pandya A, Papadopoulos G, et al. Costeffectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among neutropenic patients in the United States. Value Health 2009; 12 (5): 666–73PubMedCrossRef O’Sullivan AK, Pandya A, Papadopoulos G, et al. Costeffectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections among neutropenic patients in the United States. Value Health 2009; 12 (5): 666–73PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Greiner RA, Meier Y, Papadopoulos G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole compared with standard azole therapy for prevention of invasive fungal unfections in patients at high risk in Switzerland. Oncology 2010; 78 (3-4): 172–80PubMedCrossRef Greiner RA, Meier Y, Papadopoulos G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole compared with standard azole therapy for prevention of invasive fungal unfections in patients at high risk in Switzerland. Oncology 2010; 78 (3-4): 172–80PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Van Burik JAH, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 1407–16PubMedCrossRef Van Burik JAH, Ratanatharathorn V, Stepan DE, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 1407–16PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston D, et al. Posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (4): 348–59PubMedCrossRef Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston D, et al. Posaconazole vs fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (4): 348–59PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
43.
go back to reference Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRef Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–47PubMedCrossRef Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–47PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Briggs AH, Mooney CZ, Wonderling DE. Pulling costeffectiveness analysis up by its bootstrap: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40PubMedCrossRef Briggs AH, Mooney CZ, Wonderling DE. Pulling costeffectiveness analysis up by its bootstrap: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Dixon S, McKeen E, Tabberer M, et al. Economics evaluations of treatment of systematic fungal infections: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (7): 421–33PubMedCrossRef Dixon S, McKeen E, Tabberer M, et al. Economics evaluations of treatment of systematic fungal infections: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (7): 421–33PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Moeremans K, Annemans L. Economic evaluation of prevention and management of systematic fungal infections in neutropenic patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2006; 7 (14): 1931–43PubMedCrossRef Moeremans K, Annemans L. Economic evaluation of prevention and management of systematic fungal infections in neutropenic patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2006; 7 (14): 1931–43PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference de Vries R, Kolk RM, Brouwers JR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a potential future Helicobacter pylori vaccine in the Netherlands: the impact of varying the discount rate for health. Vaccine 2009; 27 (6): 846–52PubMedCrossRef de Vries R, Kolk RM, Brouwers JR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a potential future Helicobacter pylori vaccine in the Netherlands: the impact of varying the discount rate for health. Vaccine 2009; 27 (6): 846–52PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Bos JM, Postma MJ. Using pharmacoeconomics for policy making: is rational decision making enhanced by applying thresholds for cost-effectiveness? Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2004; 4: 247–50CrossRef Bos JM, Postma MJ. Using pharmacoeconomics for policy making: is rational decision making enhanced by applying thresholds for cost-effectiveness? Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2004; 4: 247–50CrossRef
50.
go back to reference Tortorano AM, Kibbler C, Peman J, et al. Candidaemia in Europe: epidemiology and resistance. Int J Anitmicrob Agents 2006; 27: 359–66CrossRef Tortorano AM, Kibbler C, Peman J, et al. Candidaemia in Europe: epidemiology and resistance. Int J Anitmicrob Agents 2006; 27: 359–66CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Pasqualotto AC, Denning DW. New and emerging treatments for fungal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61 Suppl. 1: i19–30CrossRef Pasqualotto AC, Denning DW. New and emerging treatments for fungal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61 Suppl. 1: i19–30CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–67PubMedCrossRef Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (9): 753–67PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Mills EJ, Perri D, Cooper C, et al. Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2009; 8: 23–33PubMedCrossRef Mills EJ, Perri D, Cooper C, et al. Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2009; 8: 23–33PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cost Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Antifungal Prophylaxis in Immunocompromised Patients Treated for Haematological Malignancies
Reviewing the Available Evidence
Authors
Mr Petros Pechlivanoglou
Robin De Vries
Simon M.G.J. Daenen
Maarten J. Postma
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11588370-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

PharmacoEconomics 9/2011 Go to the issue

Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation

Cinacalcet

Original Research Article

To Fund or Not to Fund