A cost and resource utilization analysis of micafungin bridging for hemato-oncological high-risk patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation

BackgroundIntravenous bridging strategies increase exposure of antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk hematological patients. The cost-effectiveness of such strategies has not been analyzed. MethodsA recent study compared the impact of oral posaconazole (POS) and oral posaconazole with intravenous micafungin bridging (POS-MIC) as prophylactic antifungal regimens in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (aSCT). Based on data from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut), a health economic evaluation of direct treatment costs was performed to analyze the economic impact of micafungin bridging. Analysis was undertaken based on current guidelines for the German societal perspective with an annual discount rate of 5%, whereby indirect costs were disregarded due to the severity of the underlying disease. Sensitivity analysis of cost calculation with different discount rates was performed to improve robustness of our health economic evaluation. ResultsA retrospective case-control analysis of patients undergoing aSCT between 05/2006 and 07/2011 was performed; 106 patients each in the POS and POS-MIC group were included. In the POS and POS-MIC group, mean costs per patient for the treatment on bone marrow transplant ward were Euro27228 (95% CI: Euro24932-Euro29525) vs. Euro27894 (95% CI: Euro26414-Euro29375; P=0.629), for diagnostic measures Euro2124 (95% CI: Euro1823-Euro2425) vs. Euro1269 (95% CI: Euro1168-Euro1370; P0.001), for laboratory findings Euro10612 (95% CI: Euro9681-Euro11544) vs. Euro8836 (95% CI: Euro8198-Euro9475; P=0.002), and for overall antifungal treatment Euro6105 (95% CI: Euro4703-Euro7508) vs. Euro6943 (95% CI: Euro5393-Euro8493; P=0.428), resulting in mean overall costs per patient of Euro60304 (95% CI: Euro53969-Euro66639) vs. Euro58089 (95% CI: Euro51736-64442; P=0.625). ConclusionsOur health economic evaluation shows micafungin bridging in aSCT patients did not result in excess cost. Higher acquisition costs of antifungal prophylaxis were balanced by a reduced incidence of possible IFD and lower costs for empirical, preemptive, and targeted antifungal therapy as well as lower costs for diagnostic measures and laboratory tests in the micafungin bridging group.