• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Nov 2015

    Review Meta Analysis

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

    • Juan Pablo Botero Aguirre and Alejandra Maria Restrepo Hamid.
    • Hospital Pablo Tobon Uribe, Calle 78B #69-240, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia, 05001000.
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 23; 2015 (11): CD010481CD010481.

    BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesThis review aimed to assess the effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate versus liposomal amphotericin B on kidney function.Search MethodsWe 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 CriteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared amphotericin B sodium deoxycholate with liposomal amphotericin B.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation.Main ResultsWe 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' ConclusionsCurrent 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.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…