SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 5 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
51 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- [Effect of bladder irrigation with amphotericin B for treatment of urinary tract fungal infection: a meta-analysis].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Pooled it
- Nanomedicinal products: a survey on specific toxicity and side effects.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Pooled it
- Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Liposomal amphotericin B as an antifungal prophylaxis in bilateral lung transplantation: a safety analysis.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Observational
- Non-Interventional, Retrospective, Multicenter Study on the Renal Safety of Liposomal Amphotericin B in Critically Ill Patients with Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Contribution of fungal diseases to the U.S. chronic disease burden.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion Is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis in Chinese Patients with Hematologic Disease: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational, Real-World Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Observational
- Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Liposomal Amphotericin B for Invasive Fungal Disease in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Management of mould pneumonia in resource-limited settings in Asia: A Delphi-based consensus statement by the Asia Fungal Working Group.Medical mycology · 2025Article
- Emergence, function, and therapeutic strategies to target the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint during pathogenic fungal infections.Virulence · 2025Review
- Raman Imaging of an Amphotericin B Potentiator in Single-CellThe journal of physical chemistry. B · 2025Article
- Role of liposomal amphotericin B in intensive care unit: an expert opinion paper.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- Voriconazole is inferior to amphotericin B deoxycholate as the initial induction therapy for HIV-associated Talaromyces marneffei fungemia: A multicenter retrospective study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Coinfection byClinical case reports · 2025Article
- The evolution of antifungal therapy: Traditional agents, current challenges and future perspectives.Current research in microbial sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Research Progress on Liposome Pulmonary Delivery ofJournal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2024Review
- Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of invasive fungal infections has increased globally as a result of several factors. Conventional amphotericin B (sodium deoxycholate) has been used as standard therapy for the treatment of invasive fungal infections; however, it is associated with adverse drug reactions, including acute kidney injury (AKI). New formulations of amphotericin B have aimed to improve the safety profile of the conventional formulation.
objectivesThis review aimed to assess the effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B on kidney function. SEARCH
methodsWe searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 10 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared amphotericin B sodium deoxycholate with liposomal amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. MAIN
resultsWe included 12 studies (2298 participants) in this review. Of these, 10 were meta-analysed (2172 participants). Liposomal amphotericin B was found to be significantly safer than conventional amphotericin B in terms of serum creatinine increase (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59). There was significant decrease in all infusion-related reactions in the liposomal group compared with the conventional group: fever (4 studies, 1092 participants): RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; I(2) = 32%); chills and/or rigours (5 studies, 1081 participants): RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48; I(2) = 75%); fever and/or rigours (2 studies, 720 participants): RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90; I(2) = 58%); nausea (6 studies, 1187 participants): RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.72; I(2) = 0%); and vomiting (3 studies, 1019 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95; I(2) = 61%). Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment and other bias (funding) tended to have a high risk of bias. The sensitivity analysis performed did not change the significance of difference in favour of the liposomal formulation. Assessment for publication bias found that review results were robust. AUTHORS'
conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that liposomal amphotericin B is less nephrotoxic than conventional amphotericin B (when the effect on kidney function is measured as an increase in serum creatinine level equal to or greater than two-fold from the baseline level). We also found that there were fewer infusion-related reactions associated with the liposomal formulation.
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.