Economic analysis of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis in Germany

Abstract

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.

Treatment of invasive candidiasis: between guidelines and daily clinical practice

“…Caspofungin has been proved to be more cost-effective than liposomal amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of invasive fungal infections and the treatment of candidemia, not only for a lower cost of drug, but also for a lower incidence of renal failure [33,34]; similar data have been reported for micafungin [35].…”

Accumulated safety data of micafungin in therapy and prophylaxis in fungal diseases

“…An an alternative treatment option, amphotericin B exhibits broad spectrum antifungal activity but is associated with nephrotoxicity and serious adverse events (AEs) [16][17][18]. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B show an improved toxicity profile relative to conventional amphotericin B but may have higher acquisition costs compared with other antifungals [19,20].…”

An update on the pharmacoeconomics of antifungal pharmacotherapy

“…Recently, the cost of micafungin was compared with the cost of L-AmB for the treatment of candidemia in medical centers in Germany [31]. These investigators sought to determine the number of patients who experienced both a clinical and mycologic response after treatment, those who survived, and total treatment-related costs.…”