IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0077075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew E Falagas
  • Drosos E Karageorgopoulos
  • Giannoula S Tansarli

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew E Falagas & Drosos E Karageorgopoulos & Giannoula S Tansarli, 2013. "Continuous versus Conventional Infusion of Amphotericin B Deoxycholate: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-7, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0077075
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077075
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077075&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0077075?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0077075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.