ArticleTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Voriconazole versus isavuconazole for invasive aspergillosis: a retrospective analysis in a medically insured U.S. population (2017-2020).
Article in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While isavuconazole (ISA) has demonstrated non-inferiority to voriconazole (VCZ) for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in clinical trials, real-world comparisons are limited. Objectives: To compare treatment completion, adverse events, hospitalizations, and healthcare costs in patients treated with VCZ versus ISA for IA. Design: Retrospective cohort study using Merative MarketScan claims data (2017-2020). Methods: Adults (⩾18 years) diagnosed with IA (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes) who received VCZ or ISA monotherapy were included. Treatment completion was defined as ⩾42 days of therapy. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to assess outcomes and predictors of antifungal selection, adverse events, hospitalizations, and treatment completion. Results: Among 335 patients, 84% ( Conclusion: VCZ was prescribed five times more frequently than ISA for IA, despite similar treatment durations and completion rates. VCZ was associated with lower costs and did not increase the risk of adverse events or treatment discontinuation. These findings suggest that VCZ remains commonly used and potentially more cost-effective treatment option for IA.
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.