ReviewClinical drug investigation2011
Amphotericin B lipid complex in the management of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- The recombinant protein of scorpion venom phospholipase A2 exhibits potential anti-leishmanial activity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of antifungal effect of amphotericin B in comparison with nystatin on Candida species derived from patients undergoing head-and-neck radiotherapy.Dental research journal · 2024Article
- Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2013Article
- Mucormycosis (zygomycosis) of renal allograft.Clinical kidney journal · 2012Article
- Mucormycosis and acute kidney injury.Journal of nephropathology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections are associated with a poor outcome and their incidence is rising. Amphotericin B has for a long time been the gold standard for treatment of these infections, but the conventional formulation is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Lipid formulations of amphotericin, developed to overcome these drawbacks, are now routinely used in clinical practice for the treatment of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients. Amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) is prepared from amphotericin complexed to two phospholipids, a process that confers a number of important pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties compared with conventional amphotericin B. The results of retrospective observational studies and the analysis of databases, including the large Collaborative Exchange of Antifungal Research (CLEAR) database, have shown ABLC to be associated with response rates of up to about 80% in patients with confirmed fungal infections and around 60% in those treated empirically. Intranasal administration of ABLC for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infection in immunocompromised patients is safe and appears to be a promising treatment strategy for the future. ABLC is associated with a substantially lower incidence of nephrotoxicity than conventional amphotericin. Infusion-related reactions also occur less frequently than with conventional amphotericin and can be managed using premedication protocols. When direct and indirect costs are measured, ABLC appears to be less expensive than conventional amphotericin. The number of approved antifungal agents that are effective treatments for invasive fungal infections is increasing. However, lipid formulations of amphotericin, such as ABLC, are effective and well tolerated and remain the standard of care in the treatment of invasive fungal infections. Treatment strategies such as intranasal administration for prophylaxis and combination therapy with newer agents are future directions for these agents.
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.