Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2024
Liposomal amphotericin for secondary prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Javandoust Gharehbagh Farid, Roshanzamiri Soheil, Farjami Mohammad, Hatami Firouze, Lotfollahi Legha, Kazeminia Neda, Hatami Fatemeh, Shokouhi Shervin, Alavi Darazam Ilad
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the safety of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) compared to other antifungal agents for secondary prophylaxis.
METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive search across international databases and reference lists of articles to compile all relevant published evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of L-AMB versus other antifungals (NLAMB) for secondary prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections. Pooled estimates were calculated after data transformation to evaluate mortality, breakthrough infections, and the frequency of adverse effects, including hypokalemia and nephrotoxicity. Comparisons of breakthrough fungal infection and mortality between the L-AMB and NLAMB groups were performed.
RESULT: We identified 10 studies. The cumulative frequency of patients using L-AMB was 148, compared to 341 patients in the NLAMB group. The mortality rates in the L-AMB and NLAMB groups were 10% and 0%, respectively. However, based on the odds ratio, the mortality in the L-AMB group was lower than that in the NLAMB group. No significant difference was observed in breakthrough invasive fungal infections between the L-AMB and NLAMB groups. The frequencies of nephropathy and hypokalemia in the L-AMB group were 36% and 18%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a lower incidence of mortality in the L-AMB group compared to the NLAMB group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of breakthrough infection between the two groups. L-AMB administration is associated with nephropathy and hypokalemia. However, the refusal to continue treatment due to adverse effects is not significantly high.
METHOD: We conducted a comprehensive search across international databases and reference lists of articles to compile all relevant published evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of L-AMB versus other antifungals (NLAMB) for secondary prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections. Pooled estimates were calculated after data transformation to evaluate mortality, breakthrough infections, and the frequency of adverse effects, including hypokalemia and nephrotoxicity. Comparisons of breakthrough fungal infection and mortality between the L-AMB and NLAMB groups were performed.
RESULT: We identified 10 studies. The cumulative frequency of patients using L-AMB was 148, compared to 341 patients in the NLAMB group. The mortality rates in the L-AMB and NLAMB groups were 10% and 0%, respectively. However, based on the odds ratio, the mortality in the L-AMB group was lower than that in the NLAMB group. No significant difference was observed in breakthrough invasive fungal infections between the L-AMB and NLAMB groups. The frequencies of nephropathy and hypokalemia in the L-AMB group were 36% and 18%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a lower incidence of mortality in the L-AMB group compared to the NLAMB group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of breakthrough infection between the two groups. L-AMB administration is associated with nephropathy and hypokalemia. However, the refusal to continue treatment due to adverse effects is not significantly high.