BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and other forms of @entity3 ( @entity69010 ) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and @entity166 strongly recommend @entity5626 for the first-line treatment of @entity69010 . Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for @entity69010 based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and @entity166 guidelines. METHODS: Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin @entity25928 were compared with those for @entity11794 , @entity1331 and @entity2380 . The model included non- @entity1398 @entity1 aged >= 16  years with confirmed @entity69010 who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. @entity1 were categorised as either a clinical success or failure ( @entity1 with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated @entity1 switched to oral therapy, while @entity1 categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6  weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources. RESULTS: The model indicated that first-line @entity25928 could be considered cost-effective versus @entity2380 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio   813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of @entity69010 . @entity25928 was cost-saving versus @entity11794 and @entity1331 due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success. DISCUSSION: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and @entity166 guidelines recommend @entity5626 for the first-line treatment of @entity69010 ; our model indicated that @entity25928 marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From the United Kingdom perspective, @entity25928 was cost-effective compared with @entity2380 for the treatment of @entity69010 and was cost-saving versus the other @entity5626 .

Cost-effectiveness analysis of XXXX for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of @entity3 .

@entity1331 :: ('MESH:C121905', 'Chemical') :: ['micafungin'] @entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity25928 :: ('MESH:C102786', 'Chemical') :: ['anidulafungin', 'Anidulafungin'] @entity2380 :: ('MESH:D015725', 'Chemical') :: ['fluconazole'] @entity1398 :: ('MESH:D009503', 'Disease') :: ['neutropenic'] @entity5626 :: ('MESH:D054714', 'Chemical') :: ['echinocandins'] @entity3 :: ('MESH:D009362', 'Disease') :: ['invasive candidiasis'] @entity166 :: ('MESH:D003141', 'Disease') :: ['Infectious Diseases'] @entity69010 :: ('23152', 'Gene') :: ['C/IC'] @entity11794 :: ('MESH:C105417', 'Chemical') :: ['caspofungin']
@entity25928 :: (MESH:C102786,Chemical) :: ['anidulafungin']
