Pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voriconazole is a second-generation triazole that is a synthesized derivative of fluconazole. It first appeared in the US market in 2002. Voriconazole is available in oral and intravenous dosage forms, and does have excellent bioavailability. It comes with wide-spectrum antifungal activity, including high effectiveness against a range of fungal organisms, including Candida, Fusarium, Paecilomyces and Scedosporium species, but voriconazole is especially known for its activity against Aspergillus species. Voriconazole is used in practice for three types of management strategies, which are: targeted, empirical and prophylactic. But voriconazole is a high-cost antifungal agent and, hence, its performance should be evaluated against its cost, especially in relation to the costs of other comparable antifungal agents. This chapter aims at summarizing 22 peer-reviewed pharmacoeconomics studies on voriconazole, which were identified in the English literature, up to April 2014. The studies took place in a number of countries, including the USA, Canada, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Belgium and Turkey. All evaluations were retrospective in nature, with the majority suggesting that voriconazole is a cost-effective option against invasive fungal diseases, via the different treatment strategies, as compared to other commonly used antifungal agents, which included conventional amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, caspofungin, posaconazole and fluconazole. Interestingly, half of the identified publications (n=11) were only related to the economic impact of targeted voriconazole against invasive aspergillosis. Economic data to help guide the utilization of voriconazole as prophylaxis or empirical therapy, as well as targeted therapy against invasive candidiasis, remain lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".