ArticleMycoses2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Once Weekly Rezafungin for the Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis in the United Kingdom.
Article in Mycoses, 2026. 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.
- Rezafungin Versus Caspofungin for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis: Results from the Double-blind, Randomized, Phase 3 ReSTORE Trial Including the China Extension Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Treatment Outcomes Among Patients With a Positive Candida Culture Close to Randomization Receiving Rezafungin or Caspofungin in the ReSTORE Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Once Weekly Rezafungin for the Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis in the United Kingdom.Mycoses · 2026Article
- The Importance of Early Mycological Clearance of Uncomplicated Candidaemia and Its Implications for Clinical Practice.Mycoses · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvasive candidiasis (IC), life-threatening fungal infections with high economic burden, are often treated first-line with daily intravenous echinocandins. A new once weekly echinocandin, rezafungin, demonstrated statistically non-inferior efficacy and numerically shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay compared to caspofungin in clinical trials, offering potential for earlier discharge.
objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of rezafungin versus daily echinocandins for the treatment of IC from a UK healthcare perspective.
methodsAn economic model was developed including a short-term decision tree (treatment duration ≤ 30 days) and a long-term Markov model (for lifetime outcomes). Considering the impact IC has on a patient's life expectancy and quality of life, a cost-utility analysis was performed. A cost-minimisation analysis assuming similar efficacy among echinocandins was included as scenario analysis. Treatment response was assessed at days 5/14 with nonresponders switching to second-line treatment. Patients with negative repeat blood cultures could step down to oral fluconazole. Rezafungin's weekly administration was estimated to lead to early discharge for 16% of patients. Risk of death was included. Efficacy and resource use estimates were from pooled trial data. Unit costs, utilities, long-term mortality were from published literature and UK databases.
resultsRezafungin was estimated to be cost-saving compared to daily echinocandins (discounted incremental costs: -£6028 to -£6727 vs. daily echinocandins). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (incremental QALY: 0.03 vs. daily echinocandins), resulting in rezafungin being cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to varying mortality and ICU length of stay.
conclusionOnce weekly rezafungin is a cost-saving and cost-effective treatment option in IC from the UK healthcare perspective.
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.