Clinical and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antifungal prophylaxis with continuous micafungin in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation: A six-year cohort analysis

Background Patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation (aSCT) are at high risk to develop an invasive fungal disease (IFD). Optimisation of antifungal prophylaxis strategies may improve patient outcomes and reduce treatment costs. Objectives To analyse the clinical and economical impact of using continuous micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis. Patients/Methods We performed a single-centre evaluation comparing patients who received either oral posaconazole with micafungin as intravenous bridging as required (POS-MIC) to patients who received only micafungin (MIC) as antifungal prophylaxis after aSCT. Epidemiological, clinical and direct treatment cost data extracted from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut) were analysed. Results Three hundred and thirteen patients (97 and 216 patients in the POS-MIC and MIC groups, respectively) were included into the analysis. In the POS-MIC and MIC groups, median overall length of stay was 42 days (IQR: 35-52 days) vs 40 days (IQR: 35-49 days; p = .296), resulting in median overall costs of euro42,964 (IQR: euro35,040-euro56,348) vs euro43,291 (IQR: euro37,281 vs euro51,848; p = .993), respectively. Probable/proven IFD in the POS-MIC and MIC groups occurred in 5 patients (5%) vs 3 patients (1%; p = .051), respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved outcome of patients in the MIC group at day 100 (p = .037) and day 365 (p < .001) following aSCT. Conclusions Our study results demonstrate improved outcomes in the MIC group compared with the POS-MIC group, which can in part be explained by a tendency towards less probable/proven IFD. Higher drug acquisition costs of micafungin did not translate into higher overall costs.

Automated summary

This study analyzed the clinical and economic impact of using continuous micafungin as antifungal prophylaxis following aSCT. The results showed improved outcomes in patients who received only micafungin compared to those who received both posaconazole and micafungin, potentially due to a lower incidence of probable/proven IFD. Despite the higher drug acquisition costs of micafungin, it did not result in higher overall treatment costs.