Literature DB >> 26595825

Amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B: effects on kidney function.

Juan Pablo Botero Aguirre1, Alejandra Maria Restrepo Hamid.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incidence of invasive fungal infections has increased globally as a result of several factors. Conventional amphotericin B (sodium deoxycholate) has been used as standard therapy for the treatment of invasive fungal infections; however, it is associated with adverse drug reactions, including acute kidney injury (AKI). New formulations of amphotericin B have aimed to improve the safety profile of the conventional formulation.
OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B on kidney function. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 10 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared amphotericin B sodium deoxycholate with liposomal amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 12 studies (2298 participants) in this review. Of these, 10 were meta-analysed (2172 participants). Liposomal amphotericin B was found to be significantly safer than conventional amphotericin B in terms of serum creatinine increase (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59). There was significant decrease in all infusion-related reactions in the liposomal group compared with the conventional group: fever (4 studies, 1092 participants): RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.55; I(2) = 32%); chills and/or rigours (5 studies, 1081 participants): RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48; I(2) = 75%); fever and/or rigours (2 studies, 720 participants): RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90; I(2) = 58%); nausea (6 studies, 1187 participants): RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.72; I(2) = 0%); and vomiting (3 studies, 1019 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.95; I(2) = 61%). Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment and other bias (funding) tended to have a high risk of bias. The sensitivity analysis performed did not change the significance of difference in favour of the liposomal formulation. Assessment for publication bias found that review results were robust. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that liposomal amphotericin B is less nephrotoxic than conventional amphotericin B (when the effect on kidney function is measured as an increase in serum creatinine level equal to or greater than two-fold from the baseline level). We also found that there were fewer infusion-related reactions associated with the liposomal formulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26595825     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010481.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  18 in total

1.  Characteristics and Prognosis of Talaromyces marneffei Infection in Non-HIV-Infected Children in Southern China.

Authors:  Jing Guo; Bing-Kun Li; Tian-Min Li; Fang-Lin Wei; Yu-Jiao Fu; Yan-Qing Zheng; Kai-Su Pan; Chun-Yang Huang; Cun-Wei Cao
Journal:  Mycopathologia       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 2.574

2.  Adverse effects of amphotericin B in children; a retrospective comparison of conventional and liposomal formulations.

Authors:  Eden C Andrew; Nigel Curtis; Ben Coghlan; Noel Cranswick; Amanda Gwee
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Ototoxicity, a rare but reversible adverse effect of a commonly used antimicrobial agent.

Authors:  Pawan Kumar Singh; Vishal Sharma
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2019-07-12

4.  Promising New Antifungal Treatment Targeting Chorismate Synthase from Paracoccidioides brasiliensis.

Authors:  Franciele Abigail Vilugron Rodrigues-Vendramini; Cidnei Marschalk; Marina Toplak; Peter Macheroux; Patricia de Souza Bonfim-Mendonça; Terezinha Inez Estivalet Svidzinski; Flavio Augusto Vicente Seixas; Erika Seki Kioshima
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

Review 5.  Administration and Dosing of Systemic Antifungal Agents in Pediatric Patients.

Authors:  Kevin J Downes; Brian T Fisher; Nicole R Zane
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.022

Review 6.  Lipid Systems for the Delivery of Amphotericin B in Antifungal Therapy.

Authors:  Célia Faustino; Lídia Pinheiro
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 6.321

Review 7.  New Insights Into Cryptococcus Spp. Biology and Cryptococcal Meningitis.

Authors:  Elvis Temfack; Timothée Boyer-Chammard; David Lawrence; Sarah Delliere; Angela Loyse; Fanny Lanternier; Alexandre Alanio; Olivier Lortholary
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Synthesis and evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo antitrypanosomal activity of 2-styrylquinolines.

Authors:  Roger Espinosa; Sara Robledo; Camilo Guzmán; Natalia Arbeláez; Lina Yepes; Gílmar Santafé; Alex Sáez
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-05-12

9.  Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV.

Authors:  Marylou Murray; Paul Hine
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-04-28

10.  Nanomedicinal products: a survey on specific toxicity and side effects.

Authors:  Walter Brand; Cornelle W Noorlander; Christina Giannakou; Wim H De Jong; Myrna W Kooi; Margriet Vdz Park; Rob J Vandebriel; Irene Em Bosselaers; Joep Hg Scholl; Robert E Geertsma
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2017-08-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.