ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
A real-world study based on the FAERS database evaluating adverse drug reactions in three amphotericin B lipid formulations.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating adverse events of antibacterials in infants: insights from FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) data.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- A comprehensive study on drug-related Raynaud's phenomenon based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amphotericin B (AmB) remains the cornerstone in the treatment of severe fungal infections. However, selecting an appropriate lipid-based formulation for different clinical scenarios remains a challenge for clinicians and clinical pharmacists. Methods: Adverse event (AE) reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database (Q1 2004-Q3 2024) were retrospectively analysed to assess the safety profiles of three lipid formulations of AmB: liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). The baseline patient characteristics, AE distributions, and prognostic outcomes of severe AEs were examined. SPSS software was used to compare AE occurrences among the three groups. Results: A total of 3284 patient reports were included, comprising 3108 in the L-AmB group, 142 in the ABLC group, and 34 in the ABCD group. Within 30 days, AEs were reported in 666 cases (L-AmB), 72 cases (ABLC), and 13 cases (ABCD) ( Conclusion: The safety profiles of L-AmB, ABLC, and ABCD differ among organ systems. These findings highlight the need for individualised treatment strategies based on drug-specific safety characteristics and patient-specific clinical conditions to ensure optimal drug selection and patient safety.
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.