Systematic review and meta-analysis: epidemiology of invasive mycosis in immunocompromised patients
Fragmented evidence was undermining the brand's epidemiological argument
Invasive fungal infections represent a significant and underappreciated cause of morbidity in immunocompromised patient populations — but the published epidemiological literature was inconsistent. Studies varied in design, patient populations, diagnostic criteria, and outcome definitions, making it difficult to synthesise a coherent picture of disease burden.
For a brand in the antifungal space, this fragmentation had direct consequences. Payer bodies and guideline committees asked for epidemiological data to support the product's positioning, and the brand's Medical Affairs team was unable to point to a single authoritative source. Individual studies could be cited, but each came with significant caveats about generalisability.
When the evidence base is fragmented, you cannot wait for someone else to synthesise it. A methodologically sound systematic review becomes the scientific foundation your entire market access argument rests on.
The solution was to create that authoritative source — a pre-registered systematic review with meta-analysis that would become the standard epidemiological reference for the condition.
What we did
Measurable impact
The systematic review was accepted by a peer-reviewed infectious disease journal after one round of revisions. The paper was subsequently cited in national guideline documents and HTA submissions across Europe. The Medical Affairs team adopted it as the primary epidemiological reference in all payer-facing materials.
evidence synthesis
after publication
updated
Tell us what you’re working on — we’ll show you relevant cases and suggest the fastest path forward.
From the field:
evidence & practice
AI-powered.
Expert-validated.
We built AI workflows into our daily practice — not as a marketing claim, but as the infrastructure that lets our medical experts deliver faster without cutting corners.