Cargando…

Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups

BACKGROUND: Lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B (LF-AMB) are indicated for treatment of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) or with refractory infections. Physicians still may choose to administer CAB to such patients. We described the use of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Campbell, Rebecca S, Chaudhari, Paresh, Hays, Harlen D, Taylor, Robert J, Nathanson, Brian H, Bozzette, Samuel A, Horn, David L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24187506
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46834
_version_ 1782288775637893120
author Campbell, Rebecca S
Chaudhari, Paresh
Hays, Harlen D
Taylor, Robert J
Nathanson, Brian H
Bozzette, Samuel A
Horn, David L
author_facet Campbell, Rebecca S
Chaudhari, Paresh
Hays, Harlen D
Taylor, Robert J
Nathanson, Brian H
Bozzette, Samuel A
Horn, David L
author_sort Campbell, Rebecca S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B (LF-AMB) are indicated for treatment of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) or with refractory infections. Physicians still may choose to administer CAB to such patients. We described the use of CAB and LF-AMB in this population and quantified differences in post-amphotericin B length of stay (LOS) among survivors and hospital mortality in matched patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from Health Facts (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO, USA) for a retrospective cohort analysis. Inpatients aged ≥18 years with evidence of fungal infection and with orders for LF-AMB or CAB on ≥2 days from January 2001 to June 2010 were identified. Patients were required to have renal insufficiency or other relative contraindications to use of CAB, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, or evidence of a CAB-refractory infection. Multilevel (hierarchical) mixed-effects logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with initial exposure to LF-AMB versus CAB. Multivariate adjustment of outcomes was done using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 655 patients were identified: 322 patients initiated therapy with CAB and 333 initiated treatment with LF-AMB. Compared to those initiating CAB, patients initiating LF-AMB had greater acuity and underlying disease severity. In unadjusted analyses, hospital mortality was significantly higher in the LF-AMB group (32.2% versus 23.7%; P = 0.02). After propensity score matching and covariate adjustment, mortality equalized and observed differences in LOS after amphotericin B initiation decreased. CONCLUSION: Among patients at risk for amphotericin B toxicity, differences between CAB and LF-AMB seen in crude outcomes analyses relate to channeling of sicker patients to initiate treatment with LF-AMB. Failing to account for differences among patients that drive clinical decision-making will result in inaccurate conclusions about the real-world effectiveness of different amphotericin B formulations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3810329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38103292013-11-01 Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups Campbell, Rebecca S Chaudhari, Paresh Hays, Harlen D Taylor, Robert J Nathanson, Brian H Bozzette, Samuel A Horn, David L Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B (LF-AMB) are indicated for treatment of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) or with refractory infections. Physicians still may choose to administer CAB to such patients. We described the use of CAB and LF-AMB in this population and quantified differences in post-amphotericin B length of stay (LOS) among survivors and hospital mortality in matched patients. METHODS: Data were extracted from Health Facts (Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, MO, USA) for a retrospective cohort analysis. Inpatients aged ≥18 years with evidence of fungal infection and with orders for LF-AMB or CAB on ≥2 days from January 2001 to June 2010 were identified. Patients were required to have renal insufficiency or other relative contraindications to use of CAB, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, or evidence of a CAB-refractory infection. Multilevel (hierarchical) mixed-effects logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with initial exposure to LF-AMB versus CAB. Multivariate adjustment of outcomes was done using propensity score matching. RESULTS: 655 patients were identified: 322 patients initiated therapy with CAB and 333 initiated treatment with LF-AMB. Compared to those initiating CAB, patients initiating LF-AMB had greater acuity and underlying disease severity. In unadjusted analyses, hospital mortality was significantly higher in the LF-AMB group (32.2% versus 23.7%; P = 0.02). After propensity score matching and covariate adjustment, mortality equalized and observed differences in LOS after amphotericin B initiation decreased. CONCLUSION: Among patients at risk for amphotericin B toxicity, differences between CAB and LF-AMB seen in crude outcomes analyses relate to channeling of sicker patients to initiate treatment with LF-AMB. Failing to account for differences among patients that drive clinical decision-making will result in inaccurate conclusions about the real-world effectiveness of different amphotericin B formulations. Dove Medical Press 2013-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3810329/ /pubmed/24187506 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46834 Text en © 2013 Campbell et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Campbell, Rebecca S
Chaudhari, Paresh
Hays, Harlen D
Taylor, Robert J
Nathanson, Brian H
Bozzette, Samuel A
Horn, David L
Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title_full Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title_fullStr Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title_short Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
title_sort outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin b in propensity-matched groups
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24187506
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46834
work_keys_str_mv AT campbellrebeccas outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT chaudhariparesh outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT haysharlend outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT taylorrobertj outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT nathansonbrianh outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT bozzettesamuela outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups
AT horndavidl outcomesassociatedwithconventionalversuslipidbasedformulationsofamphotericinbinpropensitymatchedgroups