ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2013
Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two approaches for empirical antifungal therapy in hematological patients with persistent febrile neutropenia.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2022Article
- 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
- Economic analysis of empiric versus diagnostic-driven strategies for immunocompromised patients with suspected fungal infections in the People's Republic of China.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New approaches of empirical antifungal therapy (EAT) in selected hematological patients with persistent febrile neutropenia (PFN) have been proposed in recent years, but their cost-effectiveness has not been studied. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two different approaches of EAT in hematological patients with PFN: the diagnosis-driven antifungal therapy (DDAT) approach versus the standard approach of EAT. A decision tree to assess the cost-effectiveness of both approaches was developed. Outcome probabilities and treatment pathways were extrapolated from two studies: a prospective cohort study following the DDAT approach and a randomized clinical trial following the standard approach. Uncertainty was undertaken through sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation. The average effectiveness and economic advantages in the DDAT approach compared to the standard approach were 2.6% and €5,879 (33%) per PFN episode, respectively. The DDAT was the dominant approach in the 99.5% of the simulations performed with average cost-effectiveness per PFN episode of €32,671 versus €52,479 in the EAT approach. The results were robust over a wide range of variables. The DDAT approach is more cost-effective than the EAT approach in the management of PFN in hematological patients.
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.