ObjectivesFidaxomicin was non-inferior to vancomycin with respect to clinical cure rates in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in two Phase III trials, but was associated with significantly fewer recurrences than vancomycin. This economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in patients with severe CDI and in patients with their first CDI recurrence.MethodsA 1 year time horizon Markov model with seven health states was developed from the perspective of Scottish public healthcare providers. Model inputs for effectiveness, resource use, direct costs and utilities were obtained from published sources and a Scottish expert panel. The main model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin; ICERs were interpreted using willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000/QALY and £30 000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTotal costs were similar with fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with severe CDI (£14 515 and £14 344, respectively) and in patients with a first recurrence (£16 535 and £16 926, respectively). Improvements in clinical outcomes with fidaxomicin resulted in small QALY gains versus vancomycin (severe CDI, +0.010; patients with first recurrence, +0.019). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective in severe CDI (ICER £16 529/QALY) and dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) in patients with a first recurrence. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000/QALY was 60% for severe CDI and 68% in a first recurrence.ConclusionsFidaxomicin is cost-effective in patients with severe CDI and in patients with a first CDI recurrence versus vancomycin.

The lower costs and higher effectiveness reported for MICA versus L-AMB in this analysis indicate that MICA may be a more cost-effective therapy in the treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidaemia when compared with L-AMB.

Costs and effects of micafungin compare to those of caspofungin in the treatment of systemic Candida infections in the UK. The results indicate that micafungin is cost-effective compared to caspofungin, although the difference was not found to be significant.

No abstract

No abstract