Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9777313›Full record

ReviewDrugs1998

Amphotericin-B colloidal dispersion. A review of its use against systemic fungal infections and visceral leishmaniasis.

R N Brogden, K L Goa, A J Coukell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

R N BrogdenAdis International Limited, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
K L Goa
A J Coukell
Wolters Kluwer (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledFormulation of amphotericin B with sodium cholesteryl sulphate alters the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug, particularly reducing its distribution to the kidneys. The antifungal activity in vitro of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) is similar to that of conventional amphotericin B (C-AmB) against true pathogenic organisms including Blastomyces, Coccidioides, Histoplasma and Paracoccidioides species and the opportunistic organisms such as Candida and Cryptococcus species. In animal models, ABCD was generally less effective than an identical dose of C-AmB, but overall was more effective because of its improved therapeutic index. Although ABCD appeared to be more effective than C-AmB in resolving infection and improving survival in patients with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis, the retrospective design of the study and the greater prevalence of neutropenia in patients treated with the conventional formulation necessitate cautious interpretation of the results. ABCD has been effective and seldom caused nephrotoxicity in patients with fungal infection who had previously failed to adequately respond or had developed renal toxicity with C-AmB. Similarly, ABCD was effective in patients with proven or suspected fungal infection after bone marrow transplantation. Preliminary results from a pilot study comparing ABCD and C-AmB in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever reported similar response rates with both formulations. ABCD is an effective treatment for visceral leishmaniasis in immunocompetent patients. In 1 study, about 12% of ABCD recipients discontinued the drug because of adverse events; infusion-related events were the most common cause of discontinuation. The renal tolerability of ABCD is better than that of C-AmB. ABCD appears to be an effective alternative to conventional amphotericin B in patients with invasive aspergillosis or visceral leishmaniasis and in those with proven or suspected systemic fungal infection who are intolerant of the conventional formulation or have pre-existing renal impairment. Preliminary data also suggest that ABCD is an alternative to C-AmB when used empirically in patients with neutropenia and fever. Nevertheless, the efficacy of ABCD compared with that of the conventional formulation has yet to be adequately demonstrated and the role of ABCD relative to that of liposomal and other lipid-based formulations has not been determined.

conclusionsABCD, like other lipid-based and liposomal formulations of amphotericin B, has been designed to deliver the active drug to the target site, while reducing renal toxicity. The aim of increasing the therapeutic index compared with C-AmB has been achieved.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAnimalsAntifungal AgentsAntiprotozoal AgentsColloidsHumansLeishmaniasis, VisceralMycosesAmphotericin BAntifungal AgentsAntiprotozoal AgentsColloids

Identifiers

PMID9777313
OpenAlexW2043760949

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.