Trial reportAnnals of hematology2008
Economic evaluation of caspofungin vs liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy of suspected systemic fungal infection in the German hospital setting.
Trial report in Annals of hematology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The expenditures related to the use of antifungal drugs in patients with hematological cancers: a cost analysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2015Article
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of voriconazole vs. liposomal amphotericin B in empiric treatment of invasive fungal infections in Turkey.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Article
- Antifungal management and resource use in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia after chemotherapy--retrospective analysis of changes over 3 yr in a German hospital.European journal of haematology · 2012Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As antifungal agents are frequently used in hematology and oncology, economic data on the empirical therapy of suspected systemic fungal infection are pivotal. Data were analyzed according to: (1) the rate of nephrotoxicity related to treatment with caspofungin in comparison to liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) from a randomized clinical trial, (2) the effect of nephrotoxicity on length of hospital stay from a European observational study, and (3) an example of total bottom-up cost in a department of hematology in Germany. All estimates include 95% confidence intervals (CI) using two-stage Monte Carlo simulation on binominal and Gaussian random variables from separate studies with comparable populations. Overall, 8.9 (95% CI 5.9-12.1) fewer patients (of 100 randomized) experienced worsening of renal function with caspofungin vs L-AmB, giving a number needed to treat for one patient to be harmed by L-AmB of 12 (95% CI 8-17). This was estimated to translate into 5.3 extra days in hospital (95% CI 1.6-9.1) per event or 0.48 days (95% CI 0.14-0.88) worth 298 euro (95% CI 89-554) per patient receiving L-AmB rather than caspofungin. From the hospital perspective, use of caspofungin was estimated to be cost-neutral compared to L-AmB at a per diem total hospital cost of 428 euro with, and 1284 euro without, consideration of supplementary reimbursement (Zusatzentgelt) of both L-AmB and caspofungin. The data presented in this scenario show that use of caspofungin in hematology-oncology departments in Germany results in shorter hospital stays and is at least cost-neutral compared to use of L-AmB.
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.