Fernanda S Tonin1, Laiza M Steimbach1, Helena H Borba1, Andreia C Sanches2, Astrid Wiens3, Roberto Pontarolo3, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos4. 1. Pharmaceutical Sciences Postgraduate Program, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná, Cascavel, Brazil. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. 4. Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite its broad spectrum, conventional amphotericin B (AB) is associated with serious adverse events. Lipid-based formulations may offer safer options. We aimed to synthesize the evidence of efficacy and safety of AB formulations. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all available formulations: conventional AB; lipid complex or ABLC; colloidal dispersion or ABCD; liposomal or LAB; AB in Intralipid. Randomized controlled trials were searched in four databases. Cure, fever, chills, nephrotoxicity, death and drug discontinuation were assessed. NMA was based on Bayesian methods accounting for direct and indirect comparisons. Probability ranks estimating the best formulation were built for each outcome. The relative benefit-risk of formulations was assessed with stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses (SMAA). KEY FINDINGS: We identified 25 trials (n = 2996). No significant differences among drugs were observed for cure or death. All lipid-based formulations were safer than conventional AB for nephrotoxicity. AB-Intralipid was more tolerable than conventional AB and caused less chills than ABCD. AB-Intralipid was the best therapy (>60%) regarding nephrotoxicity, fever, chills and discontinuation. The scenario from SMAA favoured AB-Intralipid (81% acceptability). Conventional AB was secondary to all lipid-based formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Amphotericin B-Intralipid was identified as safer, cost-saving treatment in comparison with other formulations.
OBJECTIVES: Despite its broad spectrum, conventional amphotericin B (AB) is associated with serious adverse events. Lipid-based formulations may offer safer options. We aimed to synthesize the evidence of efficacy and safety of AB formulations. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare all available formulations: conventional AB; lipid complex or ABLC; colloidal dispersion or ABCD; liposomal or LAB; AB in Intralipid. Randomized controlled trials were searched in four databases. Cure, fever, chills, nephrotoxicity, death and drug discontinuation were assessed. NMA was based on Bayesian methods accounting for direct and indirect comparisons. Probability ranks estimating the best formulation were built for each outcome. The relative benefit-risk of formulations was assessed with stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses (SMAA). KEY FINDINGS: We identified 25 trials (n = 2996). No significant differences among drugs were observed for cure or death. All lipid-based formulations were safer than conventional AB for nephrotoxicity. AB-Intralipid was more tolerable than conventional AB and caused less chills than ABCD. AB-Intralipid was the best therapy (>60%) regarding nephrotoxicity, fever, chills and discontinuation. The scenario from SMAA favoured AB-Intralipid (81% acceptability). Conventional AB was secondary to all lipid-based formulations. CONCLUSIONS:Amphotericin B-Intralipid was identified as safer, cost-saving treatment in comparison with other formulations.
Authors: John E Schneider; Jonathan Romanowsky; Philipp Schuetz; Ivana Stojanovic; Henry K Cheng; Oliver Liesenfeld; Ljubomir Buturovic; Timothy E Sweeney Journal: J Health Econ Outcomes Res Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Gert-Jan Wijnant; Katrien Van Bocxlaer; Vanessa Yardley; Andy Harris; Mo Alavijeh; Rita Silva-Pedrosa; Sandra Antunes; Isabel Mauricio; Sudaxshina Murdan; Simon L Croft Journal: Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Rowena Alves Coelho; Fábio Brito-Santos; Maria Helena Galdino Figueiredo-Carvalho; Juliana Vitoria Dos Santos Silva; Maria Clara Gutierrez-Galhardo; Antonio Carlos Francesconi do Valle; Rosely Maria Zancopé-Oliveira; Luciana Trilles; Wieland Meyer; Dayvison Francis Saraiva Freitas; Rodrigo Almeida-Paes Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2018-07-26
Authors: Suresh Ambati; Emma C Ellis; Jianfeng Lin; Xiaorong Lin; Zachary A Lewis; Richard B Meagher Journal: mSphere Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 4.389
Authors: Robert J van de Peppel; Alexander Schauwvlieghe; Ruth Van Daele; Isabel Spriet; Jan W Van't Wout; Roger J Brüggemann; Bart J A Rijnders; Bart J C Hendriks; Mark G J de Boer Journal: Med Mycol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 4.076