ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2009
Economic considerations in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a review of voriconazole pharmacoeconomic studies.
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.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Isavuconazole vs. Voriconazole as First-Line Treatment for Invasive Aspergillosis.Advances in therapy · 2017Trial
- Inhaled Amphotericin B as Aspergillosis Prophylaxis in Hematologic Disease: An Update.Microbiology insights · 2019Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of combination antifungal therapy with voriconazole and anidulafungin versus voriconazole monotherapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Spain.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.