SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2011
Medical cost analysis for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic simulation analysis.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Micafungin: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.Core evidence · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
goals of workWe assessed the medical costs of different antifungal agents for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients in Japan with a cost simulation model designed for the study. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe used probabilities of prophylaxis failure, possible cases for empiric therapy, probable proportions of infections caused by fungus species among prophylaxis failure patients, and incidence of adverse events caused by any reason, based on systematic analysis of previously reported randomized trials identified by a computerized search of the PubMed database. Antifungal agents were limited to oral fluconazole, oral itraconazole, micafungin, and liposomal amphotericin B. The range of the expected medical cost was simulated as a sensitivity analysis using 95% of confidence interval of a mean. MAIN
resultsFifteen studies were identified for our analysis. The prophylactic efficacy was comparable between the four agents. The simulated expected cost for invasive fungal infection prophylaxis and treatment of the infection was $1,035.74 when oral itraconazole was used for prophylaxis, $1,552.81 with oral fluconazole, $2,245.96 with micafungin, and $3,028.10 with liposomal amphotericin B. The total cost including treatment cost for adverse events related to each drug was $2,742.14, $3,547.91, $3,034.57, and $3,028.10, respectively. This result was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis in which IFI incidence and therapy duration were tested as parameters.
conclusionsOur analysis results suggest that oral itraconazole is the most cost-effective prophylactic antifungal agent for invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies, and this result was robust by sensitivity analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20830490What 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.