ArticleFuture microbiology2018
Economic impact of treating invasive mold disease with isavuconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B in the UK.
Article in Future microbiology, 2018. 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.
- Economic evaluation of treating invasive aspergillosis with isavuconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole in China.Future microbiology · 2025Article
- Real-World Financial and Clinical Impact of Diagnostic-Driven and Empirical-Treatment Strategies in High-Risk Immunocompromised Patients with Suspected Aspergillus Infection in the United Kingdom.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- Mucormycosis: risk factors, diagnosis, treatments, and challenges during COVID-19 pandemic.Folia microbiologica · 2022Review
- Isavuconazole for Treatment of Experimental Fungal Endophthalmitis Caused by Aspergillus fumigatus.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimInvasive mold diseases (IMDs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Approved treatments include voriconazole (VORI), liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB), posaconazole (POSA) and isavuconazole (ISAV). A UK-based economic model was developed to explore the cost of treating IMDs with ISAV versus L-AMB followed by POSA. MATERIALS &
methodsAs indirect comparisons have demonstrated similar efficacy between the comparators, a cost-minimization approach was taken. Drug acquisition, administration & monitoring, and hospitalization costs were evaluated from the healthcare system perspective.
resultsPer-patient costs were UK£14,842 with ISAV versus UK£18,612 with L-AMB followed by POSA. Savings were driven by drug acquisition, and administration & monitoring costs.
conclusionISAV has the potential to reduce IMD treatment costs relative to L-AMB followed by POSA.
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.