Continuous versus Conventional Infusion of Amphotericin B Deoxycholate: A Meta-Analysis

Matthew E Falagas, Drosos E Karageorgopoulos and Giannoula S Tansarli

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 10, 1-7

Abstract: Background: Treatment with Amphotericin B (AmB) deoxycholate, which is still used widely, particularly in low-resource countries, has been challenged due to nephrotoxicity. We sought to study whether continuous infusion of AmB deoxycholate reduces nephrotoxicity retaining, however, the effectiveness of the drug. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of patients receiving 24-h infusion of AmB (“continuous group”) and those receiving 2–6-h infusion of AmB (“conventional group”). Nephrotoxicity and all-cause mortality were the primary outcomes of the review, while treatment failure was the secondary outcome. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria; one randomized controlled trial, two prospective cohort studies, and two retrospective cohort studies. The majority of patients were neutropenic with an underlying hematologic malignancy. All 5 studies (392 patients) provided data regarding the development of nephrotoxicity. A non-significant trend towards lower nephrotoxicity was observed for patients receiving continuous infusion of AmB compared with those receiving conventional infusion [RR = 0.61 (95% CI 0.36, 1.02)]. Four studies (365 patients) provided data regarding mortality; no relevant difference was detected between patients receiving continuous and those receiving conventional infusion of AmB [RR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.36, 1.83)]. Data on treatment failure of the two methods of administration was insufficient for meaningful conclusions. Conclusion: The available evidence from mainly non-randomized studies suggests that continuous infusion of AmB deoxycholate might offer an advantage over the conventional infusion regarding the development of nephrotoxicity, without compromising patient survival. Further randomized studies are needed to investigate this issue.

Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077075 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 77075&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0077075

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077075

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().