Economic Evaluation of Caspofungin versus Liposomal Amphotericin B for Empiric Antifungal Treatment in Patients with Neutropenic Fever in Italy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B as empiric antifungal treatment in patients with neutropenic fever in Italy.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients were stratified by presence or absence of baseline infection. Model outcomes included success in terms of resolution of fever, resolution of baseline infection, absence of breakthrough infection, survival, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Discontinuation because of nephrotoxicity or other adverse events were included in the model. Efficacy and safety data were based on a randomized, double-blind, multinational trial of caspofungin compared to liposomal amphotericin B (Walsh 2004). Information on life expectancy, quality of life, medical resource consumption, and costs was obtained from the literature.ResultsThe caspofungin estimated total treatment cost amounted to €8351 (95% uncertainty interval €7801– €8903), which is €3470 (€2575–€4382) less than with liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment with caspofungin resulted in 0.25 (−0.11; 0.59) QALYs saved in comparison to treatment with liposomal amphotericin B. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 93% probability that caspofungin was economically dominant, i.e., cost and QALY saving, and a probability of more than 99% that the costs per QALY saved were below €20,000, a commonly accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness. Additional analyses with alternative doses of liposomal amphotericin B confirmed these findings.ConclusionGiven the underlying assumptions, our economic evaluation demonstrated that caspofungin is cost-effective compared to liposomal amphotericin B in empiric antifungal treatment of patients with neutropenic fever in Italy.