↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness of three echinocandins and fluconazole in the treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis in nonneutropenic adult patients

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of three echinocandins and fluconazole in the treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis in nonneutropenic adult patients
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s91587
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Grau, JC Pozo, E Romá, M Salavert, JA Barrueta, C Peral, I Rodriguez, D Rubio-Rodríguez, C Rubio-Terrés

Abstract

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of three echinocandins (anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin) and generic fluconazole in the treatment of nonneutropenic adult patients with candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis in intensive care units in Spain. A decision-tree model was applied. The success and safety (hepatic and renal adverse effects) of first-line treatments were obtained from meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials. In the case of failure, a second-line treatment (liposomal amphotericin B after the echinocandins, or one of the echinocandins after fluconazole) was administered. The duration of the treatments (14 days total) was established by a panel of clinical experts using the Delphi method and according to Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines. The cost of the medications and renal toxicity were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations were carried out. The total cost of the treatment of candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin, and fluconazole was €5,483, €5,968, €6,231, and €2,088, respectively. Anidulafungin was the dominant treatment (more effective, less expensive) compared to micafungin and caspofungin. The cost of achieving one more patient successfully treated with anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin compared to fluconazole was €17,199, €23,962, and €27,339, respectively. The result remained stable, despite modification of the duration of the first-line and second-line treatments, as well as most of the dosing regimens. The probabilistic analysis also remained stable. In accordance with this economic study, anidulafungin would produce savings and would be the dominant treatment compared with micafungin and caspofungin in nonneutropenic adult patients with candidemia and/or invasive candidiasis in intensive care units in Spain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#8,618,954
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#198
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,705
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.