COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of technology assessment in health care 2018-01, Vol.34 (3), p.343-351
Hauptverfasser: Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel, Moreira, Leila Beltrami, Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 351
container_issue 3
container_start_page 343
container_title International journal of technology assessment in health care
container_volume 34
creator Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel
Moreira, Leila Beltrami
Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires
description It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients. The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria. The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases. The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S026646231800034X
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2067542922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S026646231800034X</cupid><sourcerecordid>2067542922</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-291bb0b94668dd9769340825aa949eeb90b8ffa1d5533f44c8bf558f172defab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtPwkAUhSdGI4j-ADdmEtfVO48-xl0pU2lSWtIWkFXT6cNARLCFhf_eNqAujKt7b86530kOQrcEHggQ8zEGahjcoIxYAMD4yxnqE24SzWDcOkf9TtY6vYeummYNQBgIuEQ9KixhAtX7KHfCydSO7MSbSyxdVzrdFsg4xnYwwrHtymSJhzJZSBlgezIdh4mMPMcL8BD73tQbaW4YTWZ-SwiD-AnbOF7GiZy0t4MjOffk4hpdVNlbU96c5gDNWqoz1vzw2XNsX8sZsL1GBVEKlOCGYRWFMA3BOFhUzzLBRVkqAcqqqowUus5YxXluqUrXrYqYtCirTLEBuj9yd_X241A2-3S9PdTvbWRKwTB1TgWlrYscXXm9bZq6rNJdvdpk9WdKIO1qTf_U2v7cncgHtSmLn4_vHlsDO0GzjapXxWv5m_0_9gs2aHjE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2067542922</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel ; Moreira, Leila Beltrami ; Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</creator><creatorcontrib>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel ; Moreira, Leila Beltrami ; Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</creatorcontrib><description>It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients. The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria. The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases. The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S026646231800034X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29897025</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Amphotericin B ; Amphotericin B - adverse effects ; Amphotericin B - therapeutic use ; Antifungal agents ; Antifungal Agents - adverse effects ; Antifungal Agents - therapeutic use ; Aspergillosis ; Assessment ; Creatinine ; Dialysis ; Drugs ; Formulations ; Fungal infections ; Health risk assessment ; Hematology ; Humans ; Impairment ; Infections ; Kidneys ; Length of Stay ; Lipids ; Lymphoma ; Mortality ; Mycoses - drug therapy ; Mycoses - mortality ; Neutropenia ; Observational Studies as Topic ; Patients ; Quality assessment ; Renal Dialysis ; Renal function ; Renal Insufficiency - chemically induced ; Safety ; Statistical analysis ; Subgroups ; Systematic review ; Toxicity ; Transplants &amp; implants</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2018-01, Vol.34 (3), p.343-351</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-291bb0b94668dd9769340825aa949eeb90b8ffa1d5533f44c8bf558f172defab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-291bb0b94668dd9769340825aa949eeb90b8ffa1d5533f44c8bf558f172defab3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S026646231800034X/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29897025$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreira, Leila Beltrami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</creatorcontrib><title>COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients. The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria. The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases. The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.</description><subject>Amphotericin B</subject><subject>Amphotericin B - adverse effects</subject><subject>Amphotericin B - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Antifungal agents</subject><subject>Antifungal Agents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Antifungal Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Aspergillosis</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Creatinine</subject><subject>Dialysis</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Formulations</subject><subject>Fungal infections</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Impairment</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Lipids</subject><subject>Lymphoma</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Mycoses - drug therapy</subject><subject>Mycoses - mortality</subject><subject>Neutropenia</subject><subject>Observational Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Renal Dialysis</subject><subject>Renal function</subject><subject>Renal Insufficiency - chemically induced</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Toxicity</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtPwkAUhSdGI4j-ADdmEtfVO48-xl0pU2lSWtIWkFXT6cNARLCFhf_eNqAujKt7b86530kOQrcEHggQ8zEGahjcoIxYAMD4yxnqE24SzWDcOkf9TtY6vYeummYNQBgIuEQ9KixhAtX7KHfCydSO7MSbSyxdVzrdFsg4xnYwwrHtymSJhzJZSBlgezIdh4mMPMcL8BD73tQbaW4YTWZ-SwiD-AnbOF7GiZy0t4MjOffk4hpdVNlbU96c5gDNWqoz1vzw2XNsX8sZsL1GBVEKlOCGYRWFMA3BOFhUzzLBRVkqAcqqqowUus5YxXluqUrXrYqYtCirTLEBuj9yd_X241A2-3S9PdTvbWRKwTB1TgWlrYscXXm9bZq6rNJdvdpk9WdKIO1qTf_U2v7cncgHtSmLn4_vHlsDO0GzjapXxWv5m_0_9gs2aHjE</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel</creator><creator>Moreira, Leila Beltrami</creator><creator>Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW</title><author>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel ; Moreira, Leila Beltrami ; Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c303t-291bb0b94668dd9769340825aa949eeb90b8ffa1d5533f44c8bf558f172defab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Amphotericin B</topic><topic>Amphotericin B - adverse effects</topic><topic>Amphotericin B - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Antifungal agents</topic><topic>Antifungal Agents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Antifungal Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Aspergillosis</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Creatinine</topic><topic>Dialysis</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Formulations</topic><topic>Fungal infections</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Impairment</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Lipids</topic><topic>Lymphoma</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Mycoses - drug therapy</topic><topic>Mycoses - mortality</topic><topic>Neutropenia</topic><topic>Observational Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Renal Dialysis</topic><topic>Renal function</topic><topic>Renal Insufficiency - chemically induced</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Toxicity</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreira, Leila Beltrami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grazziotin, Luiza Raquel</au><au>Moreira, Leila Beltrami</au><au>Ferreira, Maria Angelica Pires</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>343</spage><epage>351</epage><pages>343-351</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>It is not yet established the advantages between amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) and liposomal (L-AmB) in patients with invasive fungal infections refractory to usual doses of conventional AmB (d-AmB), previous renal impairment, or unacceptable d-AmB renal toxicity. This systematic review aims to compare ABLC and L-AmB effectiveness and safety outcomes in these subgroups of patients. The search was performed on Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. treatment comparing L-AmB with ABLC; patients who had (i) refractory infection after being treated with d-AmB, (ii) previous renal impairment, or (iii) unacceptable d-AmB toxicity. Two investigators independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. A total of 1,054 articles were identified in the literature. Among those, eleven were selected for full-text reading and five met the inclusion criteria. The five articles included reported on four separate observational studies. Overall, no significant difference was found in clinical relevant outcomes as new-onset dialysis, length of hospital stay, or mortality when comparing both lipid formulations. The studies reported a trend toward lower nephrotoxicity in patients treated with L-AmB. However, the results were imprecise and heterogeneous and the studies presented important methodological biases. The studies included in this systematic review pointed toward less nephrotoxicity events in the L-AmB group. However, due to low quality of evidence and no statistically significant differences in other clinical relevant outcomes, there is no definitive evidence of overall superiority in effectiveness or safety outcomes regarding one lipid formulation or another in this population subgroup.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>29897025</pmid><doi>10.1017/S026646231800034X</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-4623
ispartof International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2018-01, Vol.34 (3), p.343-351
issn 0266-4623
1471-6348
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2067542922
source MEDLINE; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Amphotericin B
Amphotericin B - adverse effects
Amphotericin B - therapeutic use
Antifungal agents
Antifungal Agents - adverse effects
Antifungal Agents - therapeutic use
Aspergillosis
Assessment
Creatinine
Dialysis
Drugs
Formulations
Fungal infections
Health risk assessment
Hematology
Humans
Impairment
Infections
Kidneys
Length of Stay
Lipids
Lymphoma
Mortality
Mycoses - drug therapy
Mycoses - mortality
Neutropenia
Observational Studies as Topic
Patients
Quality assessment
Renal Dialysis
Renal function
Renal Insufficiency - chemically induced
Safety
Statistical analysis
Subgroups
Systematic review
Toxicity
Transplants & implants
title COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY BETWEEN AMPHOTERICIN B LIPID-FORMULATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T03%3A52%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=COMPARATIVE%20EFFECTIVENESS%20AND%20SAFETY%20BETWEEN%20AMPHOTERICIN%20B%20LIPID-FORMULATIONS:%20A%20SYSTEMATIC%20REVIEW&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Grazziotin,%20Luiza%20Raquel&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=343&rft.epage=351&rft.pages=343-351&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S026646231800034X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2067542922%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2067542922&rft_id=info:pmid/29897025&rft_cupid=10_1017_S026646231800034X&rfr_iscdi=true