STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the usage patterns of the lipid-based amphotericin B formulations at our institution and to compare the observed nephrotoxicity and efficacy of these formulations. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study SETTING: Urban 350-bed teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven nonhemodialysis patients who were prescribed greater than 3 days of amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) or liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) from 1996-1999. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Forty-six patients received ABLC and 21 received L-AmB. Oncology patients accounted for most prescriptions of both formulations. Amphotericin B lipid complex most frequently was prescribed for treatment of documented fungal infections (50%), followed by treatment of neutropenic fever (33%). Liposomal amphotericin B most frequently was prescribed for treatment of neutropenic fever (62%), followed by treatment of documented fungal infections (29%). Seventy-eight percent of patients treated with ABLC and 90% of those who received L-AmB were started on the lipid-based formulation due to being refractory or intolerant to prior antifungal therapy. Two (4.4%) patients receiving ABLC and four (19%) patients receiving L-AmB experienced nephrotoxicity at the end of therapy (NS). Of the patients with a documented fungal infection, 20 out of 23 (87%) of those treated with ABLC and 4 out of 5 (80%) of those treated with L-AmB had a complete or partial response to therapy (NS). One patient with febrile neutropenia had a breakthrough fungal infection while receiving L-AmB. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in nephrotoxicity or efficacy were found between ABLC and L-AmB. Until further studies indicate clinically significant differences in nephrotoxicity between the two liposomal amphotericin B formulations, it is recommended that economics continue to be the major determinant for product selection.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the usage patterns of the lipid-based amphotericin B formulations at our institution and to compare the observed nephrotoxicity and efficacy of these formulations. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study SETTING: Urban 350-bed teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven nonhemodialysis patients who were prescribed greater than 3 days of amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) or liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) from 1996-1999. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Forty-six patients received ABLC and 21 received L-AmB. Oncology patients accounted for most prescriptions of both formulations. Amphotericin B lipid complex most frequently was prescribed for treatment of documented fungal infections (50%), followed by treatment of neutropenic fever (33%). Liposomal amphotericin B most frequently was prescribed for treatment of neutropenic fever (62%), followed by treatment of documented fungal infections (29%). Seventy-eight percent of patients treated with ABLC and 90% of those who received L-AmB were started on the lipid-based formulation due to being refractory or intolerant to prior antifungal therapy. Two (4.4%) patients receiving ABLC and four (19%) patients receiving L-AmB experienced nephrotoxicity at the end of therapy (NS). Of the patients with a documented fungal infection, 20 out of 23 (87%) of those treated with ABLC and 4 out of 5 (80%) of those treated with L-AmB had a complete or partial response to therapy (NS). One patient with febrile neutropenia had a breakthrough fungal infection while receiving L-AmB. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in nephrotoxicity or efficacy were found between ABLC and L-AmB. Until further studies indicate clinically significant differences in nephrotoxicity between the two liposomal amphotericin B formulations, it is recommended that economics continue to be the major determinant for product selection.
Authors: Joseph L Kuti; Srividya Kotapati; Peter Williams; Blair Capitano; Charles H Nightingale; David P Nicolau Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2004 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: P M Olaechea; M Palomar; C León-Gil; F Alvarez-Lerma; R Jordá; J Nolla-Salas; M A León-Regidor Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2004-03-13 Impact factor: 3.267