Administration of lipid-emulsion versus conventional amphotericin B in patients with neutropenia

Efficacy and safety of amphotericin B formulations: a network meta-analysis and a multicriteria decision analysis

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.

Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer who are treated with chemotherapy or receive a bone marrow transplant have an increased risk of acquiring fungal infections. Such infections can be life-threatening. Antifungal drugs are therefore often given prophylactically to such patients, or when they have a fever.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 13 trials (1960 patients). Lipid-based amphotericin B was not more effective than conventional amphotericin B on mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.14) but decreased invasive fungal infection (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97), nephrotoxicity defined as a 100% increase in serum creatinine (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54), and number of dropouts (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97).For the drug used in most patients, AmBisome (4 trials, 1214 patients), there was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10) whereas it tended to be more effective than conventional amphotericin B on invasive fungal infection (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01, P value 0.053).AmBisome, amphotericin B in Intralipid (6 trials, 379 patients), amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) (2 trials, 262 patients), and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) (1 trial, 105 patients) all decreased the occurrence of nephrotoxicity, but conventional amphotericin B was rarely administered under optimal circumstances.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether there are any advantages of lipid-based formulations if conventional amphotericin B is administered under optimal circumstances, and their high cost prohibits routine use in most settings. There is a need for large trials comparing lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B given in the same dose, with routine premedication for prevention of infusion-related toxicity, and with supplementation with fluid, potassium, and magnesium for prevention of nephrotoxicity.

Role of diuretics and lipid formulations in the prevention of amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity

PURPOSE

To collect available clinical data to define the role of diuretics and lipid formulations in the prevention of amphotericin B (AmB)-induced nephrotoxicity (AIN) in human populations.

METHOD

A literature search was performed in the following databases: Scopus, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Co-administration of mannitol failed to show any clinically significant benefit in preventing AIN. Potassium-sparing diuretics, such as amiloride and spironolactone, have been shown to have beneficial effects as an alternative or adjunct to oral/parenteral potassium supplements in preventing hypokalemia due to AmB. Lipid-based formulations of AmB are clinically effective and safe in preventing AIN. However, due to their high cost and limited accessibility, these formulations are generally used as second-line antifungal therapy in cases of conventional AmB refractoriness and/or intolerance or pre-existing renal dysfunction. The potential effects of other nephroprotective agents, such as N-acetylcysteine, AIN merit further considerations and investigations.

Empirical antifungal therapy for patients with neutropenia and persistent fever: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the current standard of practice of using empirical antifungal treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing empirical or preemptive antifungal treatment with placebo, no intervention, or another antifungal. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and invasive fungal infections (IFI) (documented or probable). Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.

RESULTS

Six trials assessed the efficacy of empirical treatment compared to no treatment and one compared empirical to preemptive therapy. Empirical treatment did not decrease mortality significantly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.34), but significantly decreased IFIs (RR 0.25, 0.12-0.54). Twenty-three trials assessed the efficiency of different antifungals. All-cause mortality was lower with azoles compared to amphotericin B (AB) (RR 0.81, 0.65-1.01); IFI rates were not different while adverse events were less frequent with azoles (RR 0.40; 0.34-0.66). Liposomal AB was associated with lower mortality and IFIs than other AB formulations (RR 1.57, 1.10-2.23 and 1.48, 0.98-2.25, respectively). Caspofungin was associated with fewer adverse events, but otherwise comparable to liposomal AB. All trials included patients with haematological malignancies. Major limitations included per-protocol analysis, non-blinded design and inconsistent definitions of IFIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical antifungal treatment is associated with a lower rate of IFIs but no significant difference in overall mortality. The assessment of IFIs in these trials may have been biased, offering only weak support to standard practice. Azoles, liposomal amphotericin B or caspofungin should be preferred. Pre-emptive antifungal therapy should be considered and further investigated.

Fungal infection-related mortality versus total mortality as an outcome in trials of antifungal agents

BACKGROUND

Disease specific mortality is often used as outcome rather than total mortality in clinical trials. This approach assumes that the classification of cause of death is unbiased. We explored whether use of fungal infection-related mortality as outcome rather than total mortality leads to bias in trials of antifungal agents in cancer patients.

METHODS

As an estimate of bias we used relative risk of death in those patients the authors considered had not died from fungal infection. Our sample consisted of 69 trials included in four systematic reviews of prophylactic or empirical antifungal treatment in patients with cancer and neutropenia we have published previously.

RESULTS

Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. The trials comprised 6130 patients and 869 deaths, 220 (25%) of which were ascribed to fungal infection. The relative risk of death was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96) for total mortality, 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.74) for fungal mortality, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.82-1.09) for mortality among those who did not die from fungal infection.

CONCLUSION

We could not support the hypothesis that use of disease specific mortality introduces bias in antifungal trials on cancer patients as our estimate of the relative risk for mortality in those who survived the fungal infection was not increased. We conclude that it seems to be reliable to use fungal mortality as the primary outcome in trials of antifungal agents. Data on total mortality should be reported as well, however, to guard against the possible introduction of harmful treatments.

Liposomal amphotericin B: clinical experience and perspectives

While amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone, Apothecon Pharmaceuticals) has been considered by many to be the gold standard for the treatment for numerous invasive fungal infections for over 45 years, toxicities associated with its use often necessitate treatment modification or discontinuation. Lipid-based formulations, including liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome, Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc.), were developed to decrease many of these toxicities while retaining broad antifungal spectrum and potency of amphotericin B. In clinical trials, liposomal amphotericin B has demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of amphotericin B deoxycholate while reducing the incidence of treatment-related nephrotoxicity, electrolyte-wasting, and infusion-related reactions. In addition, recent clinical trials have also compared liposomal amphotericin B with other antifungal classes. Acquisition costs of liposomal amphotericin B are substantially higher than those of amphotericin B deoxycholate and other antifungals. While pharmacoeconomic analyses consider outcomes and other treatment-related costs, they have yet to clearly demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of liposomal amphotericin B when compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate or other antifungal agents. This review will focus primarily on recent liposomal amphotericin B experience and attempt to put its use into perspective considering other available antifungal agents.

Systemic mycoses in the immunocompromised host: an update in antifungal therapy

Despite significant advances in the management of immunosuppressed patients, invasive fungal infections remain an important life-threatening complication. In the last decade several new antifungal agents, including compounds in pre-existing classes (new generation of triazoles, polyenes in lipid formulations) and novel classes of antifungals with a unique mechanism of action (echinocandins), have been introduced in clinical practice. Ongoing and future studies will determine their exact role in the management of different mycoses. The acceleration of antifungal drug discovery offers promise for the management of these difficult to treat opportunistic infections.

Can we decrease amphotericin nephrotoxicity?

Amphotericin B (AmB) is considered the drug of choice for the treatment of systemic fungal infections. Nephrotoxicity is a major complication associated with its use, and appears to be related to higher cumulative doses, diuretic use, abnormal serum creatinine at baseline, and the use of concomitant nephrotoxic drugs. The two major hypotheses for the pathogenesis of AmB-related nephrotoxicity are direct effects of the drug on epithelial cell membranes and vasoconstriction. During the last few years, some randomized trials have tested different strategies to reduce AmB-induced renal toxicity. These strategies include sodium supplementation, low-dose dopamine, slower infusion rates, the administration of AmB in lipid emulsions, and in lipid formulations. The results of these trials showed that the lipid formulations of AmB significantly reduce nephrotoxicity. Unfortunately, these agents are costly, restricting their use to patients with a high risk of developing renal failure.

Lipid-based amphotericin B: a review of the last 10 years of use

The last decade has been remarkable for the dramatic increase in the prevalence of serious fungal infections in patients with haematological disorders and neutropenic cancer patients. The mortality rate of deep-seated infection has been in excess of 90% and there is no doubt that this is one of the greatest challenges currently facing haematologists and oncologists. The development of the lipid-based drugs - liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome(R)), amphotericin B lipid complex, ABLC (Abelcet(R)), amphotericin B colloidal dispersion, Amphocil (ABCD(R)), has meant that doses of amphotericin B can be safely escalated for the first time whilst the problems of nephrotoxicity, infusion related reactions (including chills, rigors, fevers and hypoxia) can be reduced. These toxicities are variably reduced with AmBisome more than Abelcet and more than Amphocil and there is little information from randomised trials other than for AmBisome. AmBisome used in the setting of persistent fever and neutropenia not responding after 3-4 days of intravenous antibiotics, is associated with less breakthrough systemic fungal infections. There is also much less need for premedication, including steroids, compared with amphotericin B and Abelcet. The use of intermittent doses of Ambisome given prophylactically is now being explored. A new and exciting era of antifungal therapy is opening up with new compounds, such as itraconazole voriconazole, posaconazole and echinocandins, being investigated and for the first time, we also have options for combination therapy and prophylaxis.

Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations vs amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer who are treated with chemotherapy or receive a bone marrow transplant have an increased risk of acquiring fungal infections. Such infections can be life-threatening. Antifungal drugs are therefore often given prophylactically to such patients, or when they have a fever.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect and adverse effects of AmBisome and other lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. Unpublished trials from conference proceedings and contact to industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, nephrotoxicity, serum creatinine and dropouts were extracted by both authors independently.

MAIN RESULTS

AmBisome vs conventional amphotericin B (3 trials, 1149 patients): AmBisome tended to be more effective than conventional amphotericin B for invasive fungal infection (relative risk 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 1.01, P=0.053) whereas there was no significant difference in mortality (relative risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07). AmBisome decreased significantly the incidence of nephrotoxicity, defined as a 100% increase in serum creatinine (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.64). Fewer patients dropped out on AmBisome but the difference was not significant (relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1. 08). Amphotericin B in Intralipid vs conventional amphotericin B (4 trials, 145 patients): There were no significant differences in clinical effect whereas the patients treated with the lipid soluble formulation experienced significantly less nephrotoxicity (relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75) and smaller increases in serum creatinine (weighted mean difference 32 micromol/l, 95% CI 21 to 43 micromol/l). Amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) vs conventional amphotericin B (1 trial, 213 patients): There was lower nephrotoxicity with ABCD (relative risk 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.59).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

AmBisome is a better drug than conventional amphotericin B but its high cost prohibits routine use in most settings. Furthermore, the advantages of AmBisome may be smaller than indicated in our review if conventional amphotericin B is administered under optimal circumstances. It is not clear whether other lipid formulations of amphotericin B could offer a worthwhile advantage compared to conventional amphotericin B.

Comparison of the toxicity of amphotericin B in 5% dextrose with that of amphotericin B in fat emulsion in a randomized trial with cancer patients

A multicentric randomized trial was undertaken to compare the toxicity of amphotericin B in 5% dextrose with that of amphotericin B in a fat emulsion (Intralipid) in cancer patients. Group 1 (n = 33) received amphotericin B diluted in 5% dextrose with premedication consisting of promethazine plus an antipyretic. Group 2 (n = 28) received amphotericin B diluted in 20% Intralipid without premedication. Amphotericin B was infused daily at a dose of 1 mg/kg of body weight over a 1-h period to members of both groups for empirical antifungal therapy (in neutropenic patients) or for the treatment of documented fungal infections. The majority of patients (80%) received empirical amphotericin B treatment. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, underlying disease, and the following baseline characteristics: use of other nephrotoxic drugs and serum levels of potassium and creatinine. The median cumulative doses of amphotericin B were 240 mg in group 1 and 245 mg in group 2 (P = 0.73). Acute adverse events occurred in 88% of patients in group 1 and in 71% of those in group 2 (P = 0.11). Forty percent of the infusions in group 1 were associated with fever, compared to 23% in group 2 (P < 0.0001). In addition, patients in group 2 required less meperidine for the control of acute adverse events (P = 0.008), and fewer members of this group presented with hypokalemia (P = 0.004) or rigors (P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the proportions of patients with nephrotoxicity (P = 0.44). The success rates of empirical antifungal treatment were similar in the two groups (P = 0.9). Amphotericin B diluted in a lipid emulsion seems to be associated with a smaller number of acute adverse events and fewer cases of hypokalemia than amphotericin B diluted in 5% dextrose.

Toxicity and efficacy of conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate versus escalating doses of amphotericin B deoxycholate---fat emulsion in HIV-infected patients with oral candidosis

BACKGROUND: Amphotericin B deoxycholate remains the treatment of choice for most systemic fungal infections; however, its clinical use can be limited by infusion-related side effects and nephrotoxicity. New formulations of amphotericin in lipid compounds have been shown to decrease toxicity. We previously showed that a lipid emulsion preparation of amphotericin B deoxycholate was better tolerated than the conventional preparation in dextrose. Therefore, we have now studied the clinical tolerance, renal toxicity and efficacy of higher doses of amphotericin B deoxycholate prepared and infused in a fat emulsion (Intralipid 20%). Thus, this report adds information to the previous publication. METHODS: Forty-two patients infected with HIV and suffering oral candidosis entered the study. The patients received either amphotericin B deoxycholate---glucose 1 mg/kg/day or amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion 1 mg/kg/day for 4 days (randomized phase), or amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion 2 mg/kg/day or 3 mg/kg/day (escalating-dose phase) for 5 days. Clinical (immediate) side effects and renal (creatinine) tolerance were assessed daily; efficacy against oral candidosis was measured by using a simple clinical score. Serum levels of amphotericin B were also measured. RESULTS: None of the patients receiving amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion had treatment interrupted, as compared to four (36%) in the amphotericin B deoxycholate---glucose group (pless-than-or-equal0.01); chills during or after the infusions were significantly less frequent in the amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion groups than in the amphotericin B deoxycholate-glucose group (p=0.03). The increase of creatininemia during treatment was significantly higher for patients receiving amphotericin B deoxycholate---glucose than for those receiving amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion (p=0.001). The number of patients who had a creatininemia greater-than-or-equal18 mg/L during treatment was significantly higher in both the amphotericin B deoxycholate---glucose group (36%) and in the group receiving the highest dose of amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion than in other groups (pless-than-or-equal0.06). The serum concentrations of amphotericin B were lower for the amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion regimen than for the amphotericin B deoxycholate---glucose regimen at the same dose of 1 mg/kg/day, but increased with the dose. The change of the oral candidosis score was similar for the same dose of 1 mg/kg/day of amphotericin B deoxycholate infused in either glucose or lipid emulsion; higher doses of amphotericin B deoxycholate---lipid emulsion were more efficacious (p=0.009) and this efficacy seemed to increase with the dose (p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and renal tolerance of amphotericin B deoxycholate are improved when the drug is directly prepared and infused in lipid emulsion (Intrapid) and this preparation allows for greater dosage, up to 3 mg/kg/day, with resultant greater efficacy. This preparation is simple and cost-effective (approximately 7 US $ per 50 mg of amphotercin B) and could be clinically compared to other formulations of amphotericin B.