Resumen
We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) with amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia. Patients with neutropenia and unresolved fever after ≤3 days of empirical antibiotic therapy were stratified by age and concomitant use of cyclosporine or tacrolimus. Patients were then randomized to receive therapy with ABCD (4 mg/[kg · d]) or amphotericin B (0.8 mg/[kg · d]) for ≤ 14 days. A total of 213 patients were enrolled, of whom 196 were evaluable for efficacy. Fifty percent of ABCD-treated patients and 43.2% of amphotericin B-treated patients had a therapeutic response (P = .31). Renal dysfunction was less likely to develop and occurred later in ABCD recipients than in amphotericin B recipients (P < .001 for both parameters). Infusion-related hypoxia and chills were more common in ABCD recipients than in amphotericin B recipients (P = .013 and P = .018, respectively). ABCD appeared comparable in efficacy with amphotericin B, and renal dysfunction associated with ABCD was significantly less than that associated with amphotericin B. However, infusion-related events were more common with ABCD treatment than with amphotericin B treatment.
| Idioma original | English |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 296-302 |
| Número de páginas | 7 |
| Publicación | Clinical Infectious Diseases |
| Volumen | 27 |
| N.º | 2 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Published - 1998 |
| Publicado de forma externa | Sí |
Huella
Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of amphotericin B colloidal dispersion vs. amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of fever and neutropenia'. En conjunto forman una huella única.Citar esto
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver