Observational studyAIDS research and therapy2024
Safety of different amphotericin B formulations among AIDS patients with invasive fungal disease: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in AIDS research and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liposomal amphotericin B as an antifungal prophylaxis in bilateral lung transplantation: a safety analysis.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Observational
- A real-world study based on the FAERS database evaluating adverse drug reactions in three amphotericin B lipid formulations.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Amphotericin B Colloidal Dispersion is Efficacious and Safe for the Management of Talaromycosis in HIV-Infected Patients: Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study in China.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We conducted a retrospective, observational study among acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients with cryptococcal meningitis or talaromycosis to assess AmB formulations-related adverse events (AEs). Total 205 eligible patients were enrolled. Of them, 139 received AmB therapy, 51 received liposomal AmB (L-AmB) therapy, and 15 received AmB cholesteryl sulfate complex (ABCD) therapy. The incidences of total AEs between the AmB, L-AmB and ABCD group had no significant differences. The ABCD group had significantly higher incidences of hepatotoxicity and hematological toxicity than the AmB and L-AmB groups. The incidence of grade 3-4 hematological toxicity in the ABCD group was significantly higher than that in the AmB and L-AmB groups. Multinomial logistic regression models showed that compared with AmB, ABCD had a higher risk for the occurrence of grade 3-4 hematological toxicity (aOR = 43.924, 95%CI 6.296-306.418; p < 0.001). We demonstrated that ABCD was more prone to hepatotoxicity and hematological toxicity than AmB and L-AmB among AIDS patients, which is worth noting.
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.