SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations vs amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Antifungal therapy for newborn infants with invasive fungal infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Antifungal treatment for invasive Candida infections: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2009Pooled it
- ESICM/ESCMID task force on practical management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- The role of medications and their management in acute kidney injury.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2015Review
- Review
- Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 1).Critical care (London, England) · 2013Review
- Section 4: Contrast-induced AKI.Kidney international supplements · 2012Article
- Section 3: Prevention and Treatment of AKI.Kidney international supplements · 2012Article
- Treatment of candidemia in adult patients without neutropenia--an inconvenient truth.Critical care (London, England) · 2011Review
- Antifungal therapy for invasive fungal diseases in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: an update.Mycopathologia · 2009Review
- Fungal infection-related mortality versus total mortality as an outcome in trials of antifungal agents.BMC medical research methodology · 2006Review
- Invasive fungal infection in very low birthweight infants: national prospective surveillance study.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients 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.
objectivesTo 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
resultsAmBisome 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
conclusionsAmBisome 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.