ArticleInternational journal of hematology2005
Economic evaluation of intravenous itraconazole for presumed systemic fungal infections in neutropenic patients in Korea.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systemic fungal infections remain a major clinical problem in immunocompromised patients. Presumed systemic fungal infections (PSFI) are treated empirically with an intravenous antifungal agent to reduce the occurrence of documented infections and associated mortality. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of intravenous itraconazole (IVitra) treatment with the current first-line empirical treatment of PSFI with conventional amphotericin B (CAB) in cases of neutropenic cancer and bone marrow transplantation (BMT). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per additional "responder" (defined as a patient without fever or major toxicity). We developed a medical decision analytical tree that included probabilities of toxicity, response and pathogen documentation, and second-line treatments. Clinical data were obtained from randomized clinical trials, and resource use data were obtained from a panel of clinical experts. The total cost of treating PSFI per neutropenic cancer patient was lower for IVitra than for CAB, and this lower cost resulted from a reduced need for second-line antifungals. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, IVitra treatment was superior to CAB treatment. Compared with current treatment with CAB, IVitra therapy was shown to be a cost-effective and cost-saving empirical treatment for PSFI in neutropenic cancer patients and BMT patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.