ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017
Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis caused by Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Once Weekly Rezafungin for the Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis in the United Kingdom.Mycoses · 2026Article
- Research progress on the drug resistance mechanisms ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Carbon substrates promotes stress resistance and drug tolerance in clinical isolates of Candida tropicalis.Archives of microbiology · 2024Article
- Analysis of CDR1 and MDR1 Gene Expression and ERG11 Substitutions in Clinical Candida tropicalis Isolates from Alexandria, Egypt.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Article
- Invasive candidiasis: current clinical challenges and unmet needs in adult populations.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Review
- Candida albicans antibiofilm molecules: analysis based on inhibition and eradication studies.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis and budgetary impact of anidulafungin treatment for patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis in Brazil.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2023Article
- Cost-utility analysis of caspofungin and fluconazole for primary treatment of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in Ethiopia.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- An intestinalVeterinary world · 2022Article
- Mechanisms of azole antifungal resistance in clinical isolates of Candida tropicalis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Echinocandins Accelerate Particle Transport Velocity in the Murine Tracheal Epithelium: Dependency on Intracellular CaAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Candida Pathogenicity and Interplay with the Immune System.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Severe acute pancreatitis with blood infection by Candida glabrata complicated severe agranulocytosis: a case report.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Biomarker-guided antifungal stewardship policies for patients with invasive candidiasis.Current medical mycology · 2018Review
- Fungicidal Potency and Mechanisms of θ-Defensins against Multidrug-Resistant Candida Species.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
- MDR1 overexpression combined with ERG11 mutations induce high-level fluconazole resistance in Candida tropicalis clinical isolates.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Appropriateness of antifungal prescribing in Oman.Pharmacy practiceArticle
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCost-effectiveness studies of echinocandins for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, including candidemia, are rare in Asia. No study has determined whether echinocandins are cost-effective for both Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida species. There have been no economic evaluations that compare non-echinocandins with the three available echinocandins. This study was aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of individual echinocandins, namely caspofungin, micafungin, and anidulafungin, versus non-echinocandins for C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, respectively.
methodsA decision tree model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of echinocandins and non-echinocandins for invasive candidiasis. The probability of treatment success, mortality rate, and adverse drug events were extracted from published clinical trials. The cost variables (i.e., drug acquisition) were based on Taiwan's healthcare system from the perspective of a medical payer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsFor treating invasive candidiasis (all species), as compared to fluconazole, micafungin and caspofungin are dominated (less effective, more expensive), whereas anidulafungin is cost-effective (more effective, more expensive), costing US$3666.09 for each life-year gained, which was below the implicit threshold of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in Taiwan. For C. albicans, echinocandins are cost-saving as compared to non-echinocandins. For non-albicans Candida species, echinocandins are cost-effective as compared to non-echinocandins, costing US$652 for each life-year gained. The results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the clinical efficacy of antifungal treatment.
conclusionsEchinocandins, especially anidulafungin, appear to be cost-effective for invasive candidiasis caused by C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species in Taiwan.
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.