ArticleJournal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics2014
Evaluation of treatment of invasive fungal infections.
Article in Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Posaconazole Prophylaxis for Fungal Disease in Hematology Patients Treated With Chemotherapy and Transplantation: An Open-Label, Prospective, Observational Study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Potentially inappropriate drug prescribing in elderly hospitalized patients: an analysis and comparison of explicit criteria.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the risk factors associated with invasive fungal infections (IFI) in immunocompromised patients (IP), and monitor antifungal therapy appropriateness and costs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe 1-year observational retrospective study was performed on 101 IP, who received antifungal intravenous therapy with fluconazole (F), liposomal amphotericin-B (A), caspofungin (C), itraconazole (I) for ≥4 days. Patient therapy was divided into three groups: Prophylactic, empirical, and target. Immunosuppressive therapy (IT), total parenteral nutrition (TPN), dialysis, central line, steroid therapy, stent use, neutropenia, and mechanical ventilation were evaluated. Variables were therapy duration, defined daily dose (DDD) consumption, DDD average cost.
resultsMain risk factors were central line (65.3%), TPN (56.4%), dialysis (46.5%), IT (42.6%), mechanical ventilation (32.7%), neutropenia (24.8%), steroid therapy (23.8%), and stent use (14.9%). Average duration of prophylaxis was 7 days; F (61%), A (26%), and C (13%) were used. Average duration of empirical therapy was 8 days; F (52.9%), A (26.5%), C (8.8%), I (2.9%), and in association A + C, A + F, C + F (8.9%) were used. Average duration of target therapy was 9 days; F (40.4%), A (23.1%), C (15.4%), I (7.7%), and in association A + C, A + F, C + F (13.4%) were used. DDD consumption and DDD average-cost were: C 50 mg vial: 273 DDD, €381.1; C 70 mg vial: 33.6 DDD, €389.6; F 200 mg vial: 768 DDD, €11.8; F 100 mg vial: 89 DDD, €10.6; I 250 mg vials: 62.5 DDD, €68.8; and A 50 mg vial: 2200 DDD, €93.4; respectively.
conclusionsData showed an appropriate use of antifungals. Best alternative therapy (cheaper antifungal drug) was prescribed for most patients. The high cost of A and C was justified by IFI resolution.
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.