Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10908480›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

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

H K Johansen, P C Gotzsche

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Antifungal therapy for newborn infants with invasive fungal infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. The role of medications and their management in acute kidney injury.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2015
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Section 4: Contrast-induced AKI.Kidney international supplements · 2012
    Article
  9. Section 3: Prevention and Treatment of AKI.Kidney international supplements · 2012
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Invasive fungal infection in very low birthweight infants: national prospective surveillance study.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2006
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H K JohansenThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark. hkj@cochrane.dk
P C Gotzsche
Rigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsChemistry, PharmaceuticalHumansNeoplasmsNeutropeniaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAmphotericin BAntifungal Agentsliposomal amphotericin B

Identifiers

PMID10908480
OpenAlexW4241746836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.