Cost of Invasive Fungal Infections in the Era of New Diagnostics and Expanded Treatment Options
- 2 October 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy
- Vol. 32 (10), 890-901
- https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01124
Abstract
Study Objective To determine the true institutional cost of treating invasive fungal infections in light of recent advances in diagnostic techniques and antifungal therapies for both treatment and prophylaxis of these infections. Design Economic analysis. Setting Academic medical center. Patients A total of 200 patients discharged from the hospital during 2004–2005 with a diagnosis of proven, probable, or possible aspergillosis, cryptococcosis, invasive candidiasis, or zygomycosis (cases). Patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion with patients having similar underlying disease states but no invasive fungal infections (controls). Measurements and Main Results Data on demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from patients' medical records. In addition, information concerning each patient's hospitalization was recorded. Resource utilization data for a patient's entire hospitalization were collected from the hospital's charge databases and converted to costs. These data were compared between the cases and the controls. After adjusting for race‐ethnicity, sex, age, and comorbid illnesses, mean total hospital cost for cases was $32,196 more than for controls (p<0.0001). Nonpharmacy costs accounted for the majority (63%) of this difference, and an additional $3996 was attributed to systemic antifungal drugs. The mean length of hospital stay was longer for cases than controls (25.8 vs 18.4 days). Conclusion Treatment of patients with invasive fungal infections was associated with a significantly higher inpatient hospital cost compared with controls. However, due to new diagnostic techniques and effective antifungal therapy, the relative cost of these infections appears to be at least stable compared with the previous decade. These findings can help assess the utility of cost‐avoidance strategies such as antifungal prophylaxis and application of appropriate treatment.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cost-effectiveness of micafungin as an alternative to fluconazole empiric treatment of suspected ICU-acquired candidemia among patients with sepsis: a model simulationCritical Care, 2009
- Economic analysis of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidiasis in GermanyCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2008
- Cost Effectiveness of Itraconazole in the Prophylaxis of Invasive Fungal InfectionsPharmacoEconomics, 2008
- Anidulafungin versus Fluconazole for Invasive CandidiasisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Posaconazole or Fluconazole for Prophylaxis in Severe Graft-versus-Host DiseaseThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Posaconazole vs. Fluconazole or Itraconazole Prophylaxis in Patients with NeutropeniaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Evaluation of antifungals in the surgical intensive care unit: a multi‐institutional studyMycoses, 2006
- Caspofungin versus Liposomal Amphotericin B for Empirical Antifungal Therapy in Patients with Persistent Fever and NeutropeniaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2004
- Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Systemic Fungal InfectionsPharmacoEconomics, 2004
- Mortality and Costs of Acute Renal Failure Associated with Amphotericin B TherapyClinical Infectious Diseases, 2001