ArticleThe Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale2004
An economic evaluation of voriconazole versus amphotericin B for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Canada.
Article in The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of first-line monotherapies in primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Budget Impact of Microbial Cell-Free DNA Testing Using the KariusApplied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2014Article
- Economic considerations in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a review of voriconazole pharmacoeconomic studies.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvasive aspergillosis (IA) is a serious fungal infection that affects immunocompromised patients. The Global Comparative Aspergillosis study demonstrated that voriconazole, a new broad-spectrum triazole, had better responses and improved survival compared with conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (CAB) and other licensed antifungal therapy (OLAT) for the treatment of definite or probable aspergillosis.
objectivesTo compare costs and outcomes of voriconazole and CAB for the treatment of definite or probable aspergillosis in Canada.
methodsA cost-consequence decision tree model was designed to reflect the treatment pathways used in clinical practice when using voriconazole or CAB as primary therapy for IA. Therapy included initial treatment with either voriconazole or CAB and then switched to an OLAT in the event of an inadequate response, severe toxicity or intolerance. The principal data source used was the Global Comparative Aspergillosis study.
resultsThe total cost of voriconazole when compared with CAB as initial therapy for IA was $38,319 versus $42,495 per patient, respectively, representing a 9.8% cost reduction for each patient treated with voriconazole. The higher mean cost in the CAB arm was primarily due to the high proportion of patients (73.7%) who were switched to an OLAT due to severe side effects or an inadequate response. Treating with voriconazole was a dominant strategy. The number of patients that had to be treated with voriconazole instead of CAB to save one additional life was eight.
conclusionsVoriconazole as primary treatment for IA increased the chances of successful treatment, improved survival and may represent a potential cost saving strategy in Canada.
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.