Papers

Comparison of effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate infused over 4 or 24 hours: randomised controlled trial

Urs Eriksson, physician ^a, Burkhard Seifert, statistician ^b, Andreas Schaffner, professor ^a. 

^a Medicine B, University Hospital, University of Zurich, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland, ^b Department of Biostatistics, University of Zurich

Correspondence to: U Eriksson, Medicine A, University Hospital, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland klinerr{at}usz.unizh.ch

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

Objective: To test the hypothesis that amphotericin B deoxycholate is less toxic when given by continuous infusion than by conventional rapid infusion.
Design: Randomised, controlled, non-blinded, single centre study.
Setting: University hospital providing tertiary clinical care.
Patients: 80 mostly neutropenic patients with refractory fever and suspected or proved invasive fungal infections.
Intervention: Patients were randomised to receive 0.97 mg/kg amphotericin B by continuous infusion over 24 hours or 0.95 mg/kg by rapid infusion over four hours.
Main outcome measures: Patients were evaluated for side effects related to infusion, nephrotoxicity, and mortality up to three months after treatment. Analysis was on an intention to treat basis.
Results: Patients in the continuous infusion group had fewer side effects and significantly reduced nephrotoxicity compared with those in the rapid infusion group. Overall mortality was higher during treatment and after three months' follow up in the rapid infusion than in the continuous infusion group.
Conclusion: Continuous infusions of amphotericin B reduce nephrotoxicity and side effects related to infusion without increasing mortality.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

Amphotericin B deoxycholate has remained the mainstay of treatment for life threatening fungal infections in immunocompromised patients because of its broad fungicidal activity and cheapness. Treatment with amphotericin B, however, is associated with acute reactions related to infusion and dose dependent nephrotoxicity. It is recommended that amphotericin B is infused slowly over two to six hours, based on the assumption that the severity and frequency of toxic reactions increase during more rapid infusions.^1-4

Incorporation of amphotericin B into liposomal formulations reduces its toxicity, but the reasons for this are unclear.^5-11 As liposomes do not specifically target fungal cells it would seem that the reduction in toxicity, at least in part, depends on a slower delivery of amphotericin B to tissues. The question as to whether a slower delivery of amphotericin B from lipid formulations might be reproduced by a slow infusion rate therefore arises. The hypothesis that a continuous infusion of amphotericin B results in reduced toxicity has not been addressed yet in a prospective study. We therefore conducted a randomised, controlled, and open trial to compare the toxicity of amphotericin B given as a continuous infusion with a conventional rapid regimen over four hours.

	Patients and methods

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

Inclusion and exclusion criteria and treatment
All consecutive patients at our tertiary referral centre for adult internal medicine (Zurich University Hospital) were considered eligible for entry to the study, providing their doctors had decided to start treatment with amphotericin B. Exclusion criteria were a baseline serum creatinine concentration in excess of 300 µmol/l or systemic treatment with amphotericin B within the past seven days.

Outcome measures
Chills, rigors, and vomiting were monitored prospectively. Each patient completed a standardised questionnaire daily until the end of the study and was interviewed regularly. Temperature was measured; fever was defined as a core temperature of at least 39.3°C.

Statistics and study ethics
Analysis was on an intention to treat basis. We planned to randomise 40 patients to each arm to detect a difference in creatinine clearance of at least 20 ml/min between the treatments, with a power of 90% at a two sided  level of 5%.

Assignment and follow up
The initial dosage for amphotericin B was chosen before randomisation by the doctors in charge, who were not members of the study team. Eligible patients were then randomised in blocks of 10 by sealed envelope. Treatment started immediately after randomisation. Patients were followed up three months after completion of treatment or when treatment was discontinued for any reason.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

PatientsOverall, 86 consecutive patients received amphotericin B during the study period (figure). Most of them were severely neutropenic, with haematological neoplasias. We enrolled 80 patients. The groups were comparable at baseline (table 1).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Trial profile

Dosage and dose reductionsOverall duration of treatment and cumulative and daily doses did not differ significantly between the groups. There was a non-significant trend towards longer duration of treatment and higher cumulative doses in the continuous infusion group. We observed significantly more dose reductions or infusion interruptions due to side effects in the rapid infusion group (table 2).

Side effectsSide effects occurred mainly during the first three days of treatment. Patients receiving continuous infusions had fewer side effects. For those who had fever at the beginning of treatment there was also a significant difference in the mean time to defervescence (table 2). The concentrations of C reactive protein did not differ between the two groups at entry to the study, but there was a significant increase in the rapid infusion group 24 and 48 hours after the start of treatment (data given on bmj.com). Reflecting the reduced frequency of side effects in the continuous infusion group, these patients were less likely to receive drugs directed against febrile reactions or chills after the first treatment day (table 2).

NephrotoxicityComparison of the calculated creatinine clearance ratios between both infusion groups illustrates a significantly less impaired creatinine clearance for patients with continuous infusions during and at the end of treatment (table 3). The occurrence of electrolyte disturbances did not differ between the two groups.

All seven deaths during treatment occurred in the rapid infusion group. Necropsy was carried out in six of these seven cases and severe pneumonia was found. Invasive fungi were proved in three cases; in one case Pneumocystis carinii was detected. In two patients no infection was found. Breakthrough fungaemia did not occur in any patient of either group.

Treatment was discontinued in two patients assigned to rapid infusion: one because of refractory leukaemia and the other because of severe nephrotoxicity from treatment. Treatment was discontinued in one patient in the continuous infusion group because of refractory leukaemia. After three months' follow up 12 patients in the rapid infusion group had died compared with four patients in the continuous infusion group.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

Continuous infusions of amphotericin B are significantly better tolerated than rapid infusions. Similar advantages of continuous infusions could be sought for other toxic drugsfor example, antineoplastic agents. Continuous applications are, however, not feasible if high peak values are necessary. The rapid infusion of amphotericin B over fewer hours has been adopted empirically in clinical practice. Despite a retrospective analysis suggesting fewer side effects from continuous infusions, no controlled trials have compared rapid and continuous infusions of amphotericin B.²

The reduction of side effects by continuous infusion of amphotericin B seems comparable to recent reports of liposomal amphotericin B.⁸ Amphotericin B triggers a proinflammatory response by activating different cytokines. ^{20 21} Continuous infusions may be better tolerated because of delayed induction or release of such mediators, as reflected by differences in concentrations of C reactive protein and fever. We also observed a noticeable reduction of nephrotoxicity in the continuous infusion group. The mechanisms involved in amphotericin B nephrotoxicity are not yet fully understood.¹⁵ They can be broken down into pretubular and tubular effects. It seems that, as with liposomal amphotericin B, a continuous infusion of amphotericin B primarily reduces pretubular toxicity.

Indications for amphotericin B in our study were proved fungal infections, probable fungal infections, possible fungal infections, and refractory fever during neutropenia. In clinical practice amphotericin B is often prescribed empirically. A definitive baseline diagnosis of invasive mycosis would require invasive diagnostic procedures that are seldom justified in neutropenic and thrombocytopenic patients. It is therefore scarcely ever possible to identify the true prevalence of invasive mycoses. As criteria for efficacy we therefore chose mortality, mortality due to invasive fungal infections, and breakthrough fungaemia. Although our study population was small we found a higher overall mortality during amphotericin B in the rapid infusion group. Mortality also remained significantly higher after three months' follow up. Consequently, our data support the notion that a continuous infusion of amphotericin B may be at least as effective as daily infusions over four hours. We therefore recommend continuous infusions of amphotericin B , where practical, as an effective and well tolerated alternative to the usual rapid infusions.

	Acknowledgments

We thank Dr K Barbatti for her help with data acquisition. Parts of this work were presented at the 39th interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 1999, San Francisco, California (organised by the American Society of Microbiology).

Contributors: UE was responsible for preparing, coordinating, performing, and analysing the clinical trial and is the principal author of the paper. BS was responsible for statistical design and analysis. AS had the original idea for the study and participated in designing the protocol and analysing the study data and is coauthor of the paper. UE and AS will act as guarantors for the paper.

	Footnotes

Funding: None.

Competing interests: UE has been reimbursed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone), for attending the 39th interscience conference on antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 1999, San Francisco, California.

The full version of this paper appears on the BMJ's website

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Patients and methods Results Discussion References

1.	Ellis ME, Al-Hokail AA, Clink HM, Padmos MA, Ernst P, Spence DG, et al. Double-blind randomized study of the effect of infusion rates on toxicity of amphotericin B. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 172-179[Abstract].
2.	Chabot GG, Pazdur R, Valeriote FA, Baker LH. Pharmacokinetics and toxicity of continuous infusion amphotericin B in cancer patients. J Pharm Sci 1989; 78: 307-310[Medline].
3.	Oldfield EC, Garst PD, Hostettler C, White M, Samuelson D. Randomized, double-blind trial of 1- versus 4-hour amphotericin B infusion durations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1402-1408[Medline].
4.	Cruz AM, Peacock JE, Loomer L, Holder LH, Evans GW, Powell BL, et al. Rapid intravenous infusion of amphotericin B: a pilot study. Am J Med 1992; 93: 123-130[Medline].
5.	Millis W, LiChopra R, Linch DC, Goldstone AH. Liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment of fungal infections in neutropenic patients: a single center experience of 133 episodes in 116 patients. Br J Haematol 1994; 86: 754-760[Medline].
6.	Prentice HG, Hann IM, Herbrecht R, Aoun M, Kvaloy S, Catovsky D, et al. A randomized comparison of liposomal versus conventional amphotericin B for the treatment of pyrexia of unknown origin in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 1997; 98: 711-718[Medline].
7.	Hiemenz JW, Walsh TJ. Lipid formulations of amphotericin B: recent progress and future directions. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 22(suppl 2): 133-44S[Medline].
8.	Walsh TJ, Finberg RW, Arndt C, Hiemenz J, Schwartz C, Bodensteiner D, et al. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 764-771[Medline].
9.	Daneshmend TK, Warnock DW. Clinical pharmacokinetics of systemic antifungal drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 1983; 8: 17-42[Medline].
10.	Schöffski P, Freund M, Wunder R, Petersen D, Köhne CH, Hecker H, et al. Safety and toxicity of amphotericin B in glucose 5% or intralipid 20% in neutropenic patients with pneumonia or fever of unknown origin: a randomised study. BMJ 1998; 317: 379-384[Abstract/Full Text].
11.	Adler-Moore J. AmBisome targeting to fungal infections. Bone Marrow Transplant 1994; 14: S3-S7[Medline].
12.	Goodwin DS, Cleary JD, Walawander CA, Taylor JW, Grasela TH. Pretreatment regimens for adverse events related to infusion of amphotericin B. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 20: 755-761[Medline].
13.	Bernardo JF, Murakami S, Branch RA, Sabra R. Potassium depletion potentiates amphotericin B induced toxicity to renal tubules. Nephron 1995; 70: 234-241[Medline].
14.	Feely J, Heidemann H, Gerkens J, Roberts LJ, Branch RA. Sodium depletion enhances nephrotoxicity of amphotericin B. Lancet 1981; i: 1422-1423[Medline].
15.	Arning M, Scharf RE. Prevention of amphotericin B-induced nephrotoxicity by loading with sodium chloride: a report of 1291 days of treatment with amphotericin B without renal failure. Klin Wochenschr 1989; 67: 1020-1028[Medline].
16.	Hallynck TH, Soep HH, Thomis J, Boelaert J, Daneels R, Fillastre JP, et al. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine concentration based on lean body mass. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 414-420[Medline].
17.	Hallynck TH, Soep HH, Thomis J, Boelaert J, Daneels R, Dettli L. Should clearance be normalised to body surface or to lean body mass? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 11: 523-526[Medline].
18.	Campbell MJ, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for some non-parametric analyses. BMJ 1988; 296: 1454-1456[Medline].
19.	Greenland S, Robins JM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985; 41: 55-68[Medline].
20.	Rogers PD, Jenkins JK, Chapman SW, Ndebele K, Chapman BA, Cleary JD. Amphotericin B activation of human genes encoding for cytokines. J Infect Dis 1998; 178: 1726-1730[Medline].
21.	Cleary JD, Chapman SW, Nolan RL. Pharmacologic modulation of interleukin-1 expression by amphotericin B-stimulated human mononuclear cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 977-981[Abstract].

(Accepted 4 December 2000)