Economic comparison of an empirical versus diagnostic-driven strategy for treating invasive fungal disease in immunocompromised patients

Purpose Patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers at risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) are treated empirically with antifungal therapy (AFT). Early treatment using a diagnostic-driven (DD) strategy may reduce clinical and economic burdens. We compared costs and outcomes of both strategies from a UK perspective. Methods An empirical strategy with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (C-AmB), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), or caspofungin was compared with a DD strategy (initiated based on positive ELISA results for galactomannan antigen) and/or positive results for Aspergillus species on polymerase chain reaction assay) using C-AmB, voriconazole, or L-AmB in a decision-analytic model. Rates of IFD incidence, overall mortality, and IFD-related mortality in adults expected to be neutropenic for = 10 days were obtained. The empirical strategy was assumed to identify 30 of IFD and targeted AFT to improve survival by a hazard ratio of 0.589. AFT-specific adverse events were obtained from a summary of product characteristics. Resource use was obtained, and costs were estimated by using standard UK costing sources. All costs are presented in 2012 British pounds sterling. Findings Total costs were 32 lower for the DD strategy ( 1561.29) versus the empirical strategy ( 2301.93) due to a reduced incidence of adverse events and decreased use of AFT. Administration of AFT was reduced by 41 (DD strategy, 74 of 1000; empirical strategy, 125 of 1000), with similar survival rates. Implications This study suggests that a DD strategy is likely to be cost-saving versus empirical treatment for immunocompromised patients with persistent or recurrent neutropenic fevers.