ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2013
Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aligning EHR Data for Pediatric Leukemia With Standard Protocol Therapy.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLipid-based formulations of amphotericin B (LF-AMB) are indicated for treatment of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) or with refractory infections. Physicians still may choose to administer CAB to such patients. We described the use of CAB and LF-AMB in this population and quantified differences in post-amphotericin B length of stay (LOS) among survivors and hospital mortality in matched patients.
methodsData were extracted from Health Facts (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO, USA) for a retrospective cohort analysis. Inpatients aged ≥18 years with evidence of fungal infection and with orders for LF-AMB or CAB on ≥2 days from January 2001 to June 2010 were identified. Patients were required to have renal insufficiency or other relative contraindications to use of CAB, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, or evidence of a CAB-refractory infection. Multilevel (hierarchical) mixed-effects logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with initial exposure to LF-AMB versus CAB. Multivariate adjustment of outcomes was done using propensity score matching.
results655 patients were identified: 322 patients initiated therapy with CAB and 333 initiated treatment with LF-AMB. Compared to those initiating CAB, patients initiating LF-AMB had greater acuity and underlying disease severity. In unadjusted analyses, hospital mortality was significantly higher in the LF-AMB group (32.2% versus 23.7%; P = 0.02). After propensity score matching and covariate adjustment, mortality equalized and observed differences in LOS after amphotericin B initiation decreased.
conclusionAmong patients at risk for amphotericin B toxicity, differences between CAB and LF-AMB seen in crude outcomes analyses relate to channeling of sicker patients to initiate treatment with LF-AMB. Failing to account for differences among patients that drive clinical decision-making will result in inaccurate conclusions about the real-world effectiveness of different amphotericin B formulations.
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.