Trial reportEuropean journal of haematology2007
A cost-effectiveness analysis of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.
Trial report in European journal of haematology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Treatment and prophylaxis of invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin and its impact on use and costs: review of the literature.European journal of medical research · 2011Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of caspofungin vs liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy of suspected systemic fungal infection in the German hospital setting.Annals of hematology · 2008Trial
- Article
- Inter-laboratory variability of caspofungin MICs forAccess microbiology · 2023Article
- Real-World Financial and Clinical Impact of Diagnostic-Driven and Empirical-Treatment Strategies in High-Risk Immunocompromised Patients with Suspected Aspergillus Infection in the United Kingdom.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Mangiferin enhances the antifungal activities of caspofungin by destroying polyamine accumulation.Virulence · 2021Article
- Article
- Review on Current Status of Echinocandins Use.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Biomarker-guided antifungal stewardship policies for patients with invasive candidiasis.Current medical mycology · 2018Review
- Biomimetically engineered Amphotericin B nano-aggregates circumvent toxicity constraints and treat systemic fungal infection in experimental animals.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Should cost considerations be included in medical decisions? No.Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
- Self-assembled amphotericin B-loaded polyglutamic acid nanoparticles: preparation, characterization and in vitro potential against Candida albicans.International journal of nanomedicine · 2015Article
- Clinical and economic burden of invasive fungal diseases in Europe: focus on pre-emptive and empirical treatment of Aspergillus and Candida species.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014Review
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of voriconazole vs. liposomal amphotericin B in empiric treatment of invasive fungal infections in Turkey.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Article
- Accounting for the relationship between per diem cost and LOS when estimating hospitalization costs.BMC health services research · 2012Article
- Amphotericin B lipid complex in the management of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients.Clinical drug investigation · 2011Review
- Pharmacology and metabolism of anidulafungin, caspofungin and micafungin in the treatment of invasive candidosis: review of the literature.European journal of medical research · 2011Review
- Review
- Echinocandins: A ray of hope in antifungal drug therapy.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.
methodsThe cost-effectiveness of caspofungin vs. liposomal amphotericin B was evaluated using a decision-tree model. The decision tree was populated using both data and clinical definitions from published clinical studies. Model outcomes included success in terms of resolution of fever, baseline infection, absence of breakthrough infection, survival and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Discontinuation due to nephrotoxicity or other adverse events were included in the model. Efficacy and safety data were based on additional analyses of a randomised, double blind, multinational trial of caspofungin compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Information on life expectancy, quality of life, medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from peer-reviewed published data.
resultsThe caspofungin mean total treatment cost was 9762 pounds (95% uncertainty interval 6955-12,577), which was 2033 pounds (-2489; 6779) less than liposomal amphotericin B. Treatment with caspofungin resulted in 0.40 (-0.12; 0.94) additional QALYs saved in comparison with liposomal amphotericin B. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 95% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within the generally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness (30,000 pounds). Additional analyses with varying dose of caspofungin and liposomal amphotericin B confirmed these findings.
conclusionGiven the underlying assumptions, caspofungin is cost-effective compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of suspected fungal infections in the UK.
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.