Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29352486›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018

Adverse effects of amphotericin B in children; a retrospective comparison of conventional and liposomal formulations.

Eden C Andrew, Nigel Curtis, Ben Coghlan, Noel Cranswick, Amanda Gwee

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Liposomal amphotericin B prophylaxis in paediatrics: a systematic review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Amphotericin-B in Dermatology.Indian dermatology online journal
    Article
  18. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eden C AndrewInfectious Diseases and Clinical Pharmacology Units, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-560X
Nigel CurtisInfectious Diseases and Clinical Pharmacology Units, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Ben CoghlanThe Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Noel CranswickInfectious Diseases and Clinical Pharmacology Units, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Amanda GweeInfectious Diseases and Clinical Pharmacology Units, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Royal Children's Hospital · AUBurnet Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsLipid formulations of amphotericin B, rather than conventional amphotericin (c-amB), are increasingly used despite limited data comparing these preparations in children. Data on the incidence of adverse effects with amphotericin B at standard doses are scarce. This study aimed to compare the adverse effects associated with standard doses of c-amB and liposomal amphotericin (l-amB) in children.

methodsChildren admitted to the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne and treated with c-amB or l-amB between January 2010 and September 2013 were included. Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively extracted from medical records to compare amphotericin-related infusion reactions, nephrotoxicity (glomerulotoxicity and tubulopathy) and hepatotoxicity.

resultsSeventy-six children received c-amB and 39 received l-amB. Standard drug administration (recommended dose and infusion time) occurred in 74% (56/76) of patients on c-amB and 85% (33/39) on l-amB. In these 89 children, infusion-related reactions were similar for both c-amB and l-amB (23% (13/56) vs. 9% (3/33); P = 0.15); none occurred in children aged <90 days. There was no difference in amphotericin-associated glomerulotoxicity (c-amB 14% (8/56) vs. l-amB 21% (7/33); P = 0.40) or in the median maximum potassium requirements (c-amB 3.1 vs. l-amB 2.3 mmol kg

conclusionsWhen appropriately administered, l-amB was associated with more hepatotoxicity than c-amB, with no difference in infusion-related reactions or nephrotoxicity. Differences in adverse effects between the preparations is not as marked in children as reported in adults.

Indexed as

Chemical and Drug Induced Liver InjuryDrug HypersensitivityAdolescentAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornKidney DiseasesMaleRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultAmphotericin BAntifungal Agentsliposomal amphotericin Badverse effectsAmphotericin-Bantifungalliposomalpaediatric

Identifiers

PMID29352486
PMCPMC5903243
OpenAlexW2789568353

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.