A clinical-economic study of caspofungin use in the treatment of invasive candidiasis in intensive care units
https://doi.org/10.22625/2072-6732-2010-2-1-42-50
Abstract
Candida spp. are the fourth on the list of sepsis pathogens in patients in intensive care units. Currently the physician’s armamentarium includes a whole range of antifungal medicines that have demonstrated high clinicalmycological effectiveness in clinical trials. The aim of this study to evaluate the clinical-economic usefulness of caspofungin therapy in the treatment of invasive candidiasis versus standard and alternative treatments in patients in
intensive care units. The first time in the Russian clinical-economic analysis for targeted IC treatment in non-neutropenic patients in intensive care units who have not received primary prophylaxis with azole antimycotics, as well as in those with low (< 20%) occurrence of in vitro Candida spp. resistance to fluconazole according to national or local study results, yielded the following findings: the best strategy is initial amphotericin B therapy with subsequent switching to caspofungin in patients with ineffective initial amphotericin B therapy or those with severe adverse events.
About the Authors
A. S. Kolbin
Saint-Petersburg state university, Saint-Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. A. Koroleva
Saint-Petersburg state university, Saint-Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
N. N. Klimko
Saint-Petersburg Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Saint-Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Fridkin, S.K. The changing face of fungal infections in health care settings / S.K. Fridkin // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2005. – 41. – Р. 1455–1460.
2. Wisplinghoff, H. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study / H. Wisplinghoff [et al.] // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2004. – 39. P. 309–317.
3. Pappas, P. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the In-fectious Diseases Society of America / P. Pappas [et al.] // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2009. – 48(5). – P. 503–535.
4. Guery, B. Management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in adult non-neutropenic intensive care unit patients: Part II. Treatment / B. Guery [et al.] // Intensive Care Med. – 2008.
5. Zaoutis, T.E. The epidemiology and attributable outcomes of candidemia in adults and children hospitalized in the United States: a propensity analysis / T.E. Zaoutis [et al.] // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2005. – 41. – Р. 1232–1239.
6. Gilbert, D.N. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy (thirty-ninth edition) / D.N. Gilbert [et al.]. – USA; 2009.
7. Gold, M.R. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine /M.R. Gold [et al.]. – New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
8. Walley, T. Pharmacoeconomics / T. Walley [et al.] //Elsevier Health Sciences. – 2004.
9. Система стандартизации в здравоохранении Российской Федерации. Отраслевой стандарт клинико-экономического исследования. Общие положения 91500.14.0001- 2002. Министерство Здравоохранения Российской Федерации. Приказ от 27 мая 2002 г. № 163.
10. Бюллетень для оптовых покупателей и поставщиков медикаментов «Фарминдекс» (www.pharmindex.ru).
11. Weinstein, M. Principles of good practice of decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies / M. Weinstein [et al.] // Value Health. – 2003. – 6. – Р. 9–17.
12. Веселов, А.В. In vitro активность флуконазола и вориконазола в отношении более 10 000 штаммов дрожжей: результаты 5-летнего проспективного исследования ARTEMIS Disc в России / А.В. Веселов [и др.] // Клин. Микробиол. Антимикроб. Химиотер. – 2008. – Т. 10, № 4. – С. 345–354.
13. Kujath, P. Comparative study of the efficacy of fluconazole versus amphotericin B / flucytosine in surgical patients with systemic mycoses / P. Kujath [et al.] // Infection. – 1993. – 21(6). – 376–382.
14. Phillips, P. Multicenter randomized trial of fluconazole versus amphotericin B for treatment of candidemia in nonneutropenic patients. Canadian Candidemia Study Group / P. Phillips [et al.] // Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. – 1997. – 16. – Р. 337–345.
15. Mora-Duarte, J. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis / J. Mora-Duarte [et al.] // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2002. – 347. – Р. 2020–2029.
16. Rex, J. A randomized and blinded multicenter trial of high-dose fluconazole plus placebo versus fluconazole plus amphotericin B as therapy for candidemia and its consequences in nonneutropenic subjects / J. Rex [et al.] // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2003. – 36. – Р. 1221–1228.
17. Ostrosky-Zeichner, L. Voriconazole salvage treatment of invasive candidiasis / L. Ostrosky-Zeichner [et al.] // Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. – 2003. – 22. – Р. 651–655.
18. Kullberg, B. Voriconazole versus a regimen of amphotericin B followed by fluconazole for candidaemia in non-neutropenic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial / B. Kullberg [et al.] // Lancet. – 2005. – 366(9495). – Р. 1435– 1442.
19. Reboli, A. Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis / A. Reboli [et al.] // N. Engl. J. Med. – 2007. – 356. – Р. 2472–2482.
20. Pappas, P. Micafungin versus caspofungin for treatment of candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis /P. Pappas // Clin. Infect. Dis. – 2007. – 45. – Р. 883–893.
21. Bruynesteyn, K. A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK / K. Bruynesteyn [et al.] // Eur. J. Haematol. – 2007. – 78(6). – Р. 532–539.
Review
For citations:
Kolbin A.S., Koroleva O.A., Klimko N.N. A clinical-economic study of caspofungin use in the treatment of invasive candidiasis in intensive care units. Journal Infectology. 2010;2(1):42-50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22625/2072-6732-2010-2-1-42-50
Views:
1879
.png)
.png)
Email this article 