Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 15, 2026

Histological Quantification to Determine Lung Fungal Burden in Experimental Aspergillosis
Published on: March 9, 2018
Pharmacoeconomic assessment of therapy for invasive aspergillosis
Me-Linh Luong1, Shahid Husain, Coleman Rotstein
1Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract:
Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised hosts. Economic expenditures prompted by this invasive fungal infection (IFI) are significant. Although, the duration and associated costs of hospitalization comprise the largest proportion of costs in large surveillance studies, the newer oral antifungal agents may impact significantly on these costs. A review of the pharmacoeconomic (PE) studies is provided focussing on primary therapy, salvage therapy, empiric therapy and prophylaxis for IA. PE evaluations have demonstrated the cost effectiveness and dominance of voriconazole for targeted primary treatment of IA compared with other available agents. Differences in the drug choice and analytic methodology of the PE analyses of empiric antifungal strategy hamper definitive conclusions about the agents employed as empiric antifungal that may be directed at suspected IA although both caspofungin and voriconazole appear to be cost effective and dominant over liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB), whereas LAmB is more costly than conventional amphotericin B. Posaconazole is the most cost-effective agent for antifungal prophylaxis against IFI and IA.
Insights
Voriconazole is cost-effective for invasive aspergillosis (IA) primary treatment. Posaconazole is the most cost-effective for antifungal prophylaxis, while voriconazole and caspofungin show cost-effectiveness for empiric therapy.
Area of Science:
- Medical Mycology
- Health Economics
- Infectious Diseases
Background:
- Invasive aspergillosis (IA) significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised individuals.
- Economic expenditures associated with invasive fungal infections (IFIs), including IA, are substantial.
- Hospitalization duration and costs are major cost drivers, but newer oral antifungals may alter this.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review pharmacoeconomic (PE) studies on antifungal agents for invasive aspergillosis (IA).
- To focus on primary therapy, salvage therapy, empiric therapy, and prophylaxis for IA.
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different antifungal strategies.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of pharmacoeconomic (PE) studies.
- Analysis of cost-effectiveness and dominance of antifungal agents.
- Comparison of agents for primary, salvage, empiric therapy, and prophylaxis of IA.
Main Results:
- Voriconazole is cost-effective and dominant for targeted primary treatment of IA.
- For empiric therapy, voriconazole and caspofungin appear cost-effective over liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB).
- Posaconazole demonstrates the highest cost-effectiveness for antifungal prophylaxis against IFIs and IA.
Conclusions:
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluations support voriconazole for primary IA treatment.
- Caspoofungin and voriconazole are cost-effective empiric options, while LAmB is more expensive than conventional amphotericin B.
- Posaconazole is the preferred agent for cost-effective antifungal prophylaxis in at-risk populations.
Related Concept Videos
Impact of Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Models: Regulatory Decisions
Fungal Phylum Ascomycota
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Pathophysiologic Assessment and Liver Function Test
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Affecting Factors
