Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21935305›Full record

ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2009

Economic considerations in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a review of voriconazole pharmacoeconomic studies.

Kem P Krueger, A Christie Nelson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kem P KruegerSchool of Pharmacy, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA.
A Christie Nelson
University of Wyoming · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Invasive aspergillosis is a life-threatening fungal infection predominately affecting immunocompromised individuals. The incidence of inpatient-treated aspergillosis cases in the US is estimated to be between 3.02 and 3.80 per 10,000 hospitalized patients. The estimated difference in hospital costs of patients with an aspergillosis infection is US$36,867 to US$59,356 higher than those of patients without the infection. Voriconazole is a synthetic, broad spectrum triazole antifungal agent, with FDA-approved indications for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis, esophageal candidiasis, candidemia in nonneutropenic patients, invasive candidiasis, and infections due to Scedosporium apiospermum and Fusarium species in patients refractory to or intolerant of other therapy. Eight cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-minimization analysis, and one cost analysis were identified from a Medline search. The 10 pharmacoeconomic analyses were conducted in six different countries comparing voriconazole to conventional amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, itraconazole, and caspofungin. All the cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization analyses identified voriconazole as the most cost-effective therapy. The cost analysis demonstrated voriconazole cost-savings. While the acquisition costs of voriconazole are higher than those of conventional amphotericin B, the toxicity profile and rate of treatment success associated with voriconazole result in lower total treatment costs per successfully treated patient.

Indexed as

antifungal agentsinvasive aspergillosispharmacoeconomicsvoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID21935305
PMCPMC3169992
OpenAlexW2152809299

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.