Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29959610›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018

Economic evaluation of micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) for treating patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC) in Turkey.

Chin Fen Neoh, Esin Senol, Ates Kara, Ener Cagri Dinleyici, Stuart J Turner, David C M Kong

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Chin Fen NeohCollaborative Drug Discovery Research (CDDR) Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 42300, Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Esin SenolDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ates KaraDepartment of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ener Cagri DinleyiciDepartment of Paediatrics, Paediatric Intensive Care and Paediatric Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, 26480, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Stuart J TurnerNorvatis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, 07936, USA.
David C M KongCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia. david.kong@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5022-9060
Eskişehir Osmangazi University · TRGazi University · TRHacettepe University · TRPeter Doherty Institute · AUTris Pharma (United States) · USUniversiti Teknologi MARA · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Micafungin was reported to be non-inferior to liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) in treating patients with candidaemia and invasive candidiasis (IC). The current study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of using micafungin versus LAmB for treatment of candidaemia and IC in Turkey. A decision analytic model, which depicted economic consequences upon administration of micafungin or LAmB for treating patients with candidaemia and IC in the Turkish hospitals, was constructed. Patients were switched to an alternative antifungal agent if initial treatment failed due to mycological persistence. All patients were followed up until treatment success or death. Outcome probabilities were obtained from published literature and cost inputs were derived from the latest Turkish resources. Expert panels were used to estimate data that were not available in the literature. Cost per patient treated for each intervention was then calculated. Sensitivity analyses including Monte Carlo simulation were performed. For treatment of candidaemia and IC, micafungin (€4809) was associated with higher total cost than LAmB (€4467), with an additional cost of €341 per treated patient. Cost of initial antifungal treatment was the major cost driver for both comparators. The model outcome was robust over a wide variation in input variables except for drug acquisition cost and duration of initial antifungal treatment with micafungin or LAmB. LAmB is cost-saving relative to micafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and IC from the Turkish hospital perspective, with variation in drug acquisition cost of the critical factor affecting the model outcome.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsCandidemiaCandidiasis, InvasiveCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesHumansMicafunginTreatment OutcomeTurkeyAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsMicafunginAntifungalsCandida spp.CostInvasive fungal infectionsModelling

Identifiers

PMID29959610
OpenAlexW2809979030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.