Objective: To investigate the economic impact of introducing micafungin (MICA) for the treatment of systemic candida infections (SCIs) (including invasive candidiasis and candidaemia) in the UK, a health economic analysis was performed comparing MICA with liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB). Methods: The model was based on data from a phase III, randomised, double-blind trial which compared MICA with L-AMB. The model period entails 14-20 weeks starting from initiation of treatment and was analysed from a UK hospital perspective. Hospitalisation and primary medication costs were included in the current analysis. Unit costs of these resources were taken from appropriate UK costing sources. As the price for MICA was not available at the time of analysis, the price per recommended daily dose (RDD) of MICA (100 mg) was assumed to be equal to the price per RDD of caspofungin (50 mg). The model endpoint was defined as the percentage of patients that achieved complete or partial clinical and mycological response after initial treatment, and were alive after the 12-week follow-up period. The model was analysed using cohort and second order Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Results: The analysis shows that with MICA 52.9% of patients were successfully treated and survived 12 weeks after treatment ends compared to 49.1% for L-AMB. MICA was also less expensive than L-AMB costing £26,838 and £29,549 per patient, respectively. Because the costs are lower and the effectiveness is higher for MICA (cost-effectiveness [C/E] ratio = £50,755) in comparison with L-AMB (C/E ratio = £60,197), MICA dominates L-AMB. The results of the MC simulation and the sensitivity analyses showed that MICA remained the most cost-effective option. Conclusion: The lower costs and higher effectiveness reported for MICA versus L-AMB in this analysis indicate MICA is the more cost-effective therapy in the treatment of SCIs in the UK when compared to L-AMB.