HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations vs amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
Patients with cancer who are treated with chemotherapy or receive a bone marrow transplant have an increased risk of acquiring fungal infections. Such infections can be life-threatening. Antifungal drugs are therefore often given prophylactically to such patients, or when they have a fever.
OBJECTIVES:
To compare the effect and adverse effects of AmBisome and other lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.
SEARCH STRATEGY:
MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. Unpublished trials from conference proceedings and contact to industry.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised trials comparing lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, nephrotoxicity, serum creatinine and dropouts were extracted by both authors independently.
MAIN RESULTS:
AmBisome vs conventional amphotericin B (3 trials, 1149 patients): AmBisome tended to be more effective than conventional amphotericin B for invasive fungal infection (relative risk 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.01, P=0.053) whereas there was no significant difference in mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07). AmBisome decreased significantly the incidence of nephrotoxicity, defined as a 100% increase in serum creatinine (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.64). Fewer patients dropped out on AmBisome but the difference was not significant (relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1. 08). Amphotericin B in Intralipid vs conventional amphotericin B (4 trials, 145 patients): There were no significant differences in clinical effect whereas the patients treated with the lipid soluble formulation experienced significantly less nephrotoxicity (relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75) and smaller increases in serum creatinine (weighted mean difference 32 micromol/l, 95% CI 21 to 43 micromol/l). Amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) vs conventional amphotericin B (1 trial, 213 patients): There was lower nephrotoxicity with ABCD (relative risk 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.59).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS:
AmBisome is a better drug than conventional amphotericin B but its high cost prohibits routine use in most settings. Furthermore, the advantages of AmBisome may be smaller than indicated in our review if conventional amphotericin B is administered under optimal circumstances. It is not clear whether other lipid formulations of amphotericin B could offer a worthwhile advantage compared to conventional amphotericin B.
AuthorsH K Johansen, P C Gotzsche
JournalThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Cochrane Database Syst Rev) Issue 3 Pg. CD000969 ( 2000) ISSN: 1469-493X [Electronic] England
PMID10908480 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Review, Systematic Review)
Chemical References
  • Antifungal Agents
  • liposomal amphotericin B
  • Amphotericin B
Topics
  • Amphotericin B (chemistry, therapeutic use)
  • Antifungal Agents (chemistry, therapeutic use)
  • Chemistry, Pharmaceutical
  • Humans
  • Neoplasms (complications)
  • Neutropenia (complications, drug therapy)
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: