ArticleClinical drug investigation2014
Economic evaluation of posaconazole versus fluconazole or itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infection in high-risk neutropenic patients in Sweden.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2014. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole vs. First-Generation Triazoles for the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections Among High-Risk Patients With Hematological Malignancies in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Budget Impact of Microbial Cell-Free DNA Testing Using the KariusApplied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Antifungal prophylaxis during 7 + 3 induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia is associated with improved survival, in a setting with low incidence of invasive mold infections.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Prevention of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: the role of delayed-release posaconazole.Infection and drug resistance · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), posaconazole has been proven more effective in the prevention of invasive fungal infection (IFI) than fluconazole or itraconazole (standard azoles) The current analysis seeks to estimate the cost effectiveness of prophylactic posaconazole compared with standard azoles in AML or MDS patients with severe chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in Sweden.
methodsA decision-analytic model was used to estimate life expectancy, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy data were derived from a phase III clinical trial. Life expectancy and quality of life data were collected from the literature. A modified Delphi method was used to gather expert opinion on resource use for an IFI. Unit costs were captured from hospital and pharmacy pricelists. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to investigate the impact of uncertainty in the model parameters on the cost-effectiveness results.
resultsThe estimated mean direct cost per patient with posaconazole prophylaxis was 46,893 Swedish kronor (SEK) (€5,387) and SEK50,017 (€5,746) with standard azoles. Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in 0.075 QALYs gained compared with standard azoles. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of SEK500,000/QALY the PSA demonstrated a more than 95 % probability that posaconazole is cost effective versus standard azoles for the prevention of IFI in high-risk neutropenic patients in Sweden.
conclusionGiven the assumptions, methods, and data used, posaconazole is expected to be cost effective compared with standard azoles when used as antifungal prophylaxis in AML or MDS patients with chemotherapy-induced prolonged neutropenia in Sweden.
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.