scholarly journals Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianwen Lai ◽  
Shaobin Wang ◽  
Zhiwei Xu ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Yun Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Allergic Asthma ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Term Efficacy ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Currently, limited information is available to clinicians regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab treatment for allergic asthma. In this report, we aimed to (i) systematically review the evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma and to (ii) discuss the cost-effectiveness evidence published for omalizumab in this patient population. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥52 weeks) was performed and six studies met our final inclusion criteria (n = 2,749). Omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in quality of life and the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness. Omalizumab also allowed patients to completely withdraw from inhaled corticosteroid therapy and did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events. However, there was insufficient evidence that omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations and the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab varied across studies. Our data indicated that omalizumab use for at least 52 weeks in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma was accompanied by an acceptable safety profile, but it lacked effect on the asthma exacerbations. Use of omalizumab was associated with a higher cost than conventional therapy, but these increases may be cost-effective if the medication is used in patients with severe allergic asthma.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an RCT to Establish Whether 5 or 10 Years of Bisphosphonate Treatment Is the Better Duration for Women With a Prior Fracture

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 678-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt D. Stevenson ◽  
Jeremy E. Oakley ◽  
Myfawny Lloyd Jones ◽  
Alan Brennan ◽  
Juliet E. Compston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Bisphosphonate Treatment ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Term Efficacy ◽  
The Cost

Purpose. Five years of bisphosphonate treatment have proven efficacy in reducing fractures. Concerns exist that long-term bisphosphonate treatment may actually result in an increased number of fractures. This study evaluates, in the context of England and Wales, whether it is cost-effective to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and what sample size may be optimal to estimate the efficacy of bisphosphonates in fracture prevention beyond 5 years. Method. An osteoporosis model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extending bisphosphonate treatment from 5 years to 10 years. Two scenarios were run. The 1st uses long-term efficacy data from published literature, and the 2nd uses distributions elicited from clinical experts. Results of a proposed RCT were simulated. The expected value of sample information technique was applied to calculate the expected net benefit of sampling from conducting such an RCT at varying levels of participants per arm and to compare this with proposed trial costs. Results. Without further information, the better duration of bisphosphonate treatment was estimated to be 5 years using the published data but 10 years using the elicited expert opinions, although in both cases uncertainty was substantial. The net benefit of sampling was consistently high when between 2000 and 5000 participants per arm were recruited. Conclusions. An RCT to evaluate the long-term efficacy of bisphosphonates in fracture prevention appears to be cost-effective for informing decision making in England and Wales.

Cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for conversion of atrial flutter in neonates

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 725-729
Author(s):  
Deepa Prasad ◽  
Joni Steinberg ◽  
Christopher Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Atrial Flutter ◽  
Direct Current ◽  
Efficient Method ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Direct Current Cardioversion ◽  
Neonatal Icu ◽  
The Cost

AbstractIntroductionNewborn atrial flutter can be treated by medications, pacing, or direct current cardioversion. The purpose is to compare the cost-effectiveness of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion for the treatment of atrial flutter in neonates.Materials and methodsA decision tree model was developed comparing the efficacy and cost of digoxin, pacing, and direct current cardioversion based on a meta-analysis of published studies of success rates of cardioversion of neonatal atrial flutter (age<2 months). Patients who failed initial attempt at cardioversion progressed to the next methodology until successful. Data were analysed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these methods with cost estimates obtained from 2015 Medicare reimbursement rates.ResultsThe cost analysis for cardioversion of atrial flutter found the most efficient method to be direct current cardioversion at a cost of $10 304, pacing was next at $11 086, and the least cost-effective was digoxin at $14 374. The majority of additional cost, regardless of method, was from additional neonatal ICU day either owing to digoxin loading or failure to covert. Direct current cardioversion remains the most cost-effective strategy by sensitivity analyses performed on pacing conversion rate and the cost of the neonatal ICU/day. Direct current cardioversion remains cost-effective until the assumed conversion rate is below 64.6%.ConclusionThe most cost-efficient method of cardioverting a neonate with atrial flutter is direct current cardioversion. It has the highest success rates based on the meta-analysis, shorter length of stay in the neonatal ICU owing to its success, and results in cost-savings ranging from $800 to $4000 when compared with alternative approaches.

scholarly journals Cost-effective Analysis of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Long-term Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Narrative Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-305
Author(s):  
Shazia Jamshed ◽  
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula ◽  
Sheikh Muhammad Zeeshan Qadar ◽  
Umaira Alauddin ◽  
Sana Shamim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Step Down ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Term Management

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common gastrointestinal disorder that results from regurgitation of acid from the stomach into the esophagus. Treatment available for GERD includes lifestyle changes, antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and anti-reflux surgery. Aim: The aim of this review is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of PPIs in the long-term management of patients with GERD. Method: We searched in PubMed to identify related original articles with close consideration based on inclusion and exclusion criteria to choose the best studies for this narrative review. The first section compares the cost-effectiveness of PPIs with H2RAs in long-term heartburn management. The other sections shall only discuss the cost-effectiveness of PPIs in 5 different strategies, namely, continuous (step-up, step-down, and maintenance), on-demand, and intermittent therapies. Results: Of 55 articles published, 10 studies published from 2000 to 2015 were included. Overall, PPIs are more effective in relieving heartburn in comparison with ranitidine. The use of PPIs in managing heartburn in long-term consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) has higher cost compared with H2RA. However, if the decision-maker is willing to pay more than US$174 788.60 per extra quality-adjusted life year (QALY), then the optimal strategy is traditional NSAID (tNSAID) and PPIs. The probability of being cost-effective was also highest for NSAID and PPI co-therapy users. On-demand PPI treatment strategy showed dominant with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$2197 per QALY gained and was most effective and cost saving compared with all the other treatments. The average cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for rabeprazole therapy than for ranitidine therapy. Conclusion: Our review revealed that long-term treatment with PPIs is effective but costly. To achieve long-term cost-effective approach, we recommend on-demand approach to treat heartburn symptoms, but if the symptoms persist, treatment with continuous step-down therapy should be applied.

Is Banning Texturized Implants to Prevent Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma a Rational Decision? A Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 721-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan V Danilla ◽  
Rocio P Jara ◽  
Felipe Miranda ◽  
Francisco Bencina ◽  
Marcela Aguirre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Large Cell ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Large Cell Lymphoma ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an emergent disease that threatens patients with texturized breast implants. Major concerns about the safety of these implants are leading to global changes to restrict the utilization of this product. The principal alternative is to perform breast augmentation utilizing smooth implants, given the lack of association with BIA-ALCL. The implications and costs of this intervention are unknown. Objectives The authors of this study determined the cost-effectiveness of smooth implants compared with texturized implants for breast augmentation surgery. Methods A tree decision model was utilized to analyze the cost-effectiveness. Model input parameters were derived from published sources. The capsular contracture (CC) rate was calculated from a meta-analysis. Effectiveness measures were life years, avoided BIA-ALCL, avoided deaths, and avoided reoperations. A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model. Results For avoided BIA-ALCL, the incremental cost was $18,562,003 for smooth implants over texturized implants. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was negative for life years, and avoided death and avoided reoperations were negative. The sensitivity analysis revealed that to avoid 1 case of BIA-ALCL, the utilization of smooth implants would be cost-effective for a risk of developing BIA-ALCL equal to or greater than 1:196, and there is a probability of CC with smooth implants equal to or less than 0.096. Conclusions The utilization of smooth implants to prevent BIA-ALCL is not cost-effective. Banning texturized implants to prevent BIA-ALCL may involve additional consequences, which should be considered in light of higher CC rates and more reoperations associated with smooth implants than with texturized implants.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (20) ◽  
pp. e2339-e2348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Sánchez Fernández ◽  
Marina Gaínza-Lein ◽  
Nathan Lamb ◽  
Tobias Loddenkemper
Keyword(s):  
Status Epilepticus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiepileptic Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Convulsive Status Epilepticus ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveCompare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).MethodsDecision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.ResultsWe included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.ConclusionVPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of an Obesity Management Program for 6- to 15-Year-Old Children in Poland: Data from Over Three Thousand Participants

Obesity Facts ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 487-498
Author(s):  
Ewa Bandurska ◽  
Michał Brzeziński ◽  
Paulina Metelska ◽  
Marzena Zarzeczna-Baran
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Management Program ◽  
Obesity And Overweight ◽  
School Programs ◽  
Overweight Group ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Public Health Challenge ◽  
The Cost

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Obesity and overweight, including childhood obesity and overweight, pose a public health challenge worldwide. According to the available research findings, long-term interventions focusing on dietary behavior, physical activity, and psychological support are the most effective in reducing obesity in children aged 6–18 years. There are limited studies showing the financial effectiveness of such interventions. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of the present study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of the 6-10-14 for Health weight management program using pharmacoeconomic indicators, i.e., cost-effectiveness analysis using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We used anthropometric data of 3,081 children included in a 1-year-long intervention with a full financial cost assessment. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The cost of removing a child from the overweight group (BMI &#x3e;85th percentile) was PLN 27,758 (EUR 6,463), and the cost of removing a child from the obese group (BMI &#x3e;95th percentile) was slightly lower, i.e., PLN 23,601 (EUR 5,495). Given the obesity-related medical costs calculated in the life-long perspective, these results can be considered encouraging. At the same time, when comparing the total costs per participant with the costs of other interventions, it can be noted that they are similar to the costs of school programs containing more than 1 type of intervention. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The 6-10-14 for Health program can be considered cost-effective. As a result of committing financial resources in the approximate amount of EUR 1,790 per child, around half of the children participating in the program have improved their weight indicators.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Problem-Solving Intervention Aimed to Prevent Sickness Absence among Employees with Common Mental Disorders or Occupational Stress

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5234
Author(s):  
Marijke Keus Van De Poll ◽  
Gunnar Bergström ◽  
Irene Jensen ◽  
Lotta Nybergh ◽  
Lydia Kwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Production Loss ◽  
The Cost

The cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of a work-directed intervention implemented by the occupational health service (OHS) for employees with common mental disorders (CMD) or stress related problems at work were investigated. The economic evaluation was conducted in a two-armed clustered RCT. Employees received either a problem-solving based intervention (PSI; n = 41) or care as usual (CAU; n = 59). Both were work-directed interventions. Data regarding sickness absence and production loss at work was gathered during a one-year follow-up. Bootstrap techniques were used to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) from both an employer and societal perspective. Intervention costs were lower for PSI than CAU. Costs for long-term sickness absence were higher for CAU, whereas costs for short-term sickness absence and production loss at work were higher for PSI. Mainly due to these costs, PSI was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. However, PSI was cost-beneficial from a societal perspective. CEA showed that a one-day reduction of long-term sickness absence costed on average €101 for PSI, a cost that primarily was borne by the employer. PSI reduced the socio-economic burden compared to CAU and could be recommended to policy makers. However, reduced long-term sickness absence, i.e., increased work attendance, was accompanied by employees perceiving higher levels of production loss at work and thus increased the cost for employers. This partly explains why an effective intervention was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. Hence, additional adjustments and/or support at the workplace might be needed for reducing the loss of production at work.

scholarly journals Use of levosimendan versus dobutamine when inotropic support is needed in patients with severe acute decompensated chronic heart failure

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 47-60
Author(s):  
M. A. Aristov ◽  
O. M. Melnychuk
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Total Budget ◽  
Cost Of Drugs ◽  
The Cost

The aim – to conduct clinical effectiveness, meta-analysis of 30 and 120-days mortality data, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with severe acute decompensated chronic heart failure (ADCHF) who require inotropic support. Materials and methods. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for direct randomized clinical trials of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with ADCHF. The clinical efficacy of levosimendan and dobutamine was analyzed. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out using the cost-effectiveness method with an assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A decision tree model of levosimendan or dobutamine treatments was constructed. The efficacy endpoints and impact on the budget were analyzed in terms of long-term effectiveness of levosimendan and dobutamine use. Discounted was conducted with rate of 3 %. Sensitivity analysis was carried out in terms of price changing of drugs, the cost of drugs in mg, the likelihood of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon and survival in the long term.Results and discussion. Analysis of clinical data and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials found that mortality rates with levosimendan and dobutamine in the 30-day period were 9.6 % and 13.8 %, RR 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53–0.95) and in the 120-day period – 13.5 % and 25.2 %, RR 0.54 (95 % CI 0.32–0.92), respectively. The total cost of the course of treatment, taking into account the price of the drug, medical devices, staff services, diagnostic procedures and treatment of adverse reactions when using levosimendan, was 34 003.02 UAH per patient and 18 787.28 UAH when treated with dobutamine. The weighted average hospital stay was 6.4 days in case of levosimendan treatment and 7.5 days of dobutamine treatment. Extrapolation of the data from clinical trials to the 3-year survival rate of patients allowed us to determine an additional indicator of efficacy – the number of life years saved with levosimendan – 2.64 and 2.37 with dobutamine treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that levosimendan is more efficient but more expensive technology compare to dobutamine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the additional life year saved of a patient with severe CHF is 43,473.55 UAH, which is 6 times less than the likely threshold of willingness to pay in Ukraine.Conclusions. The multivariate sensitivity analysis detected the model sustainability to the most crucial parameters of the model – drug price; the cost of drugs associated with their actual use in mg, the possibility of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon, and long-term survival, which is associated with the time horizon of the model. The total cost of a cohort of patients with ADCHF in Ukraine when using scenario 1 (100 % distribution of costs for dobutamine treatment) over 5 years is 268 188 351.94 UAH, when using scenario 2 (100 % distribution for treatment with levosimendan) total budget costs will be in amount of 485 393 073.09 UAH, if scenario 3 is applied (gradual 5 % transition in the treatment of patients with ADCHF with dobutamine for treatment with levosimendan within 5 years), the total budget costs will amount to 289 916 431.92 UAH

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (22) ◽  
pp. 3837-3840
Author(s):  
Faridah Baroroh ◽  
Andriana Sari ◽  
Noviana Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hypertension Therapy ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole vs Fluconazole in the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections among Patients with Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) in the US.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3336-3336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy K. O’Sullivan ◽  
Milton C. Weinstein ◽  
Ankur Pandya ◽  
David Thompson ◽  
Amelia Langston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Graft Versus Host Disease ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Graft Versus Host ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Abstract Trial data suggest that posaconazole is similar to fluconazole in preventing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among allogeneic progenitor cell transplant recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We estimated the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole in this population in the US. A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained, and incremental cost per life-year gained of prophylaxis (2006 US$). The model extrapolates the trial results to a lifetime horizon to include long-term mortality due to GVHD. In the model, patients are assumed to receive posaconazole or fluconazole; efficacy data were obtained from the clinical trial. Long-term mortality and prophylaxis drug and IFI treatment costs were estimated from secondary sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Posaconazole is associated with fewer IFIs (0.05 vs. 0.09), increased life years (7.87 vs. 7.66), and higher IFI-related costs (prophylaxis and IFI treatment) ($8,750 vs. $5,530) per patient relative to fluconazole. Costs for treatment of IFIs comprised 95% of the total cost for fluconazole and 35% for posaconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole is estimated to be $15,700 per life-year saved. Results are most sensitive to changes in the cost of treating an IFI and the efficacy of prophylaxis. Results from the probabilistic analysis indicate that there is an 88% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a $50,000 per life year saved threshold. We conclude that posaconazole is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFIs in patients with GVHD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document