Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8851579›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy1996

Pharmacokinetics of conventional formulation versus fat emulsion formulation of amphotericin B in a group of patients with neutropenia.

A Ayestarán, R M López, J B Montoro, A Estíbalez, L Pou, A Julià, A López, B Pascual

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A AyestaránServicio de Farmacia, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
R M López
J B Montoro
A Estíbalez
L Pou
A Julià
A López
B Pascual
Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B administered in a conventional 5% dextrose (glucose) (5% D) solution and in a 20% fat emulsion formulation (Intralipid; 20% IL) were compared in 16 patients (mean age, 42 years [range, 18 to 70 years]) who had been hospitalized for hematological malignancies and with proven or suspected fungal infections. All of the patients received 50 mg (approximately 1 mg/kg of body weight per day) of amphotericin B daily in random order, either as a 50-ml lipid emulsion (20% IL) (group I) or in 500 ml of 5% D (group II). Five serum samples were taken during the 24 h after drug administration, and the levels of amphotericin B were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Serum amphotericin B concentrations declined rapidly during the first 6 h, and subsequent measurements revealed a slow terminal elimination phase in both groups. The maximum serum amphotericin B concentration was significantly lower when the drug was administered in 20% IL (1.46 +/- 0.61 versus 2.83 +/- 1.17 micrograms/ml; P = 0.02). The area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h was also much lower in group I (17.22 +/- 11.15 versus 28.98 +/- 15.46 micrograms.h/ml). The half-life of the distribution phase was approximately three times longer in group I (2.92 +/- 2.34 h versus 0.64 +/- 0.24 h; P = 0.011). Conversely, the half-lives of the elimination phase were approximately equal in the two groups (11.44 +/- 5.18 versus 15.23 +/- 5.25 h). The mean residence times were also similar in both groups (19.41 +/- 11.13 versus 19.65 +/- 7.86 h). The clearance and the steady-state volume of distribution of amphotericin B in group I were about twice as great as those in group II (62.97 +/- 35.51 versus 33.01 +/- 14.33 ml/kg/h and 1,043.92 +/- 512.10 versus 562.32 +/- 152.05 ml/kg [P = 0.034], respectively). Finally, the volume of distribution in the central compartment was greater in group I than in group II (618.17 +/- 231.80 versus 328.19 +/- 151.71 ml/kg; P = 0.013), but there were no differences in the volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (425.75 +/- 352.87 versus 234.14 +/- 75.92 ml/kg). These results suggest that amphotericin B has a different pharmacokinetic profile when it is administered in 20% IL than when it is administered in the standard 5% D form and that the main difference is due to a clear-cut difference in the steady-state volume of distribution, especially that in the central compartment.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsFat Emulsions, IntravenousFemaleHalf-LifeHumansMaleMiddle AgedMycosesNeutropeniaProspective StudiesSolutionsAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsFat Emulsions, IntravenousSolutions

Identifiers

PMID8851579
PMCPMC163166
OpenAlexW2101656115

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.