Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21657801›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2011

Cost benefit and cost effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies: reviewing the available evidence.

Petros Pechlivanoglou, Robin De Vries, Simon M G J Daenen, Maarten J Postma

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of voriconazole and fluconazole for prevention of invasive fungal infection in patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2013
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Estimation of Direct Healthcare Costs of Fungal Diseases in the United States.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Petros PechlivanoglouDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics (PE2), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.pechlivanoglou@rug.nl
Robin De Vries
Simon M G J Daenen
Maarten J Postma
University of Groningen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a large increase in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) over the past decades, largely because of the increasing size of the population at risk. One of the major risk groups for IFIs are patients with haematological malignancies treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These IFIs are associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Consequently, as the diagnosis of IFIs is difficult, antifungal prophylaxis is desirable in high-risk patients. Furthermore, as the economic impact of IFIs is also significant, it is important to assess the cost benefit and cost effectiveness of each prophylactic agent in order to aid decisions concerning which prophylactic agent provides the best value for limited healthcare resources. This article systematically reviews the available pharmacoeconomic evidence regarding antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies. Furthermore, specific points of interest concerning economic analyses of antifungal prophylaxis are briefly discussed. Considering the available evidence, antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients treated for haematological malignancies seems to be an intervention with favourable cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential. Furthermore, recently introduced antifungal agents seem to be attractive alternatives to fluconazole from a pharmacoeconomic point of view. However, due to wide heterogeneity in patient characteristics, underlying diseases, hospital settings and study methods in the included economic studies, as well as the lack of 'head-to-head' trials, it is difficult to find clear evidence of the economic advantages of a single prophylactic agent. Furthermore, we show that the results of cost-effectiveness analyses are highly dependent on several crucial factors that influence the baseline IFI incidence rates and, therefore, differ per patient population or region.

Indexed as

Immunocompromised HostAntifungal AgentsAntineoplastic AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisEconomics, PharmaceuticalHematologic NeoplasmsHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansMycosesAntifungal AgentsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID21657801
OpenAlexW2006592745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.