ライフサイエンスコーパス: amphotericin

1 ormal responses to the drugs caspofungin and amphotericin.

2 ers was strongest for fluconazole (0.69) and amphotericin (0.70) and moderate for voriconazole (0.60)

3 .12 (98.6%); posaconazole, 0.12/0.5 (95.9%); amphotericin, 0.5/2 (88.3%); anidulafungin, 0.5/2 (97.4%

4 her intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate (amphotericin) (219 patients), at a dose of 0.7 to 1.0 mg

5 e (21 isolates), voriconazole (28 isolates), amphotericin (29 isolates), and caspofungin (29 isolates

6 ytosine (100 mg/kg/day) for 2 weeks; and (3) amphotericin and fluconazole (800 mg/day) for 2 weeks.

7 amphotericin B deoxycholate for 4 weeks; (2) amphotericin and flucytosine (100 mg/kg/day) for 2 weeks

8 Combination therapy with amphotericin and flucytosine is the most attractive trea

9 reakpoint of < or = 1 microg/ml was used for amphotericin and posaconazole.

10 ed with fewer unacceptable side effects than amphotericin, and is widely used in place of amphoterici

11 mug/ml), isavuconazole (4 and 4 mug/ml), and amphotericin B (0.25 and 0.5 mug/ml).

12 Participants received amphotericin B (0.7 to 1.0 mg per kilogram of body weigh

13 voriconazole (10 mg/kg p.o. BID), liposomal amphotericin B (10 mg/kg intraperitoneally [i.p.] once a

14 were as follows: P. variotii ATCC MYA-3630, amphotericin B (15 to 24 mm), itraconazole (20 to 31 mm)

15 e (33 to 43 mm); A. fumigatus ATCC MYA-3626, amphotericin B (18 to 25 mm), itraconazole (11 to 21 mm)

16 d voriconazole (25 to 33 mm); and C. krusei, amphotericin B (18 to 27 mm), itraconazole (18 to 26 mm)

17 er applying topical natamycin (5 %), topical amphotericin B (1mg/ml), topical fluconazole (2mg/ml) an

18 minimum inhibitory concetrations (MICs) for amphotericin B (2.6 +/- 3.5 mug/mL), fluconazole (36.9 +

19 oodstream infection isolates of C. krusei to amphotericin B (304 isolates), flucytosine (254 isolates

20 ungin (24%), voriconazole (8%), or liposomal amphotericin B (5%).

21 Isolates remained highly susceptible to amphotericin B (99% susceptibility at a MIC of < or = 1

22 (P), flucytosine (FC), caspofungin (C), and amphotericin B (A) were tested with 212 Candida isolates

23 luation of two novel PEG amide conjugates of amphotericin B (AMB (1)): AB1 (4) and AM2 (5).

24 p<0.001), and more likely to be treated with amphotericin B (AmB) (87% vs 24%, p<0.001) and flucytosi

25 amestolkiae The potent in vitro activity of amphotericin B (AMB) and terbinafine (TRB) and of the ec

26 gillus Study (GCAS) compared voriconazole to amphotericin B (AmB) deoxycholate for the primary therap

27 of 10 patients with lung infection received amphotericin B (AMB) induction therapy (6 with 5-flucyto

28 Amphotericin B (AmB) is a clinically vital antimycotic b

29 Amphotericin B (AmB) is a prototypical small molecule na

30 Amphotericin B (AmB) is an effective but toxic antifunga

31 Amphotericin B (AmB) is the archetype for small molecule

32 Amphotericin B (AmB) is the standard antifungal drug use

33 Amphotericin B (AMB) is used to treat both fungal and le

34 Current standard initial therapy consists of amphotericin B (AmB) plus flucytosine (5-FC), but 5-FC r

35 stance to the ergosterol-targeting fungicide amphotericin B (AmB) revealed that the two growth modes

36 ine A (CSA) to enhance the activity of PHMB, amphotericin B (AMB), and voriconazole (VCZ) against Asp

37 We determined species-specific ECVs for amphotericin B (AMB), flucytosine (FC) and itraconazole

38 Amphotericin B (AmB), is a highly effective antileishman

39 tute (CLSI) M38-A2 broth dilution method for amphotericin B (AMB), itraconazole (ITR), voriconazole (

40 e third major antifungal used in the clinic, amphotericin B (AmB), remains extremely rare despite 50

41 Amphotericin B (AmB), the most effective drug against le

42 Susceptibility against amphotericin B (AmB), voriconazole (VCZ), and natamycin

43 hat has the ability to develop resistance to amphotericin B (AmB).

44 h 30 mg/kg body weight intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) divided as 6 equal dose infusi

45 This polymer is slightly less effective than amphotericin B (AmpB) for two strains, but the polymer i

46 that SensiQuattro performed best in testing amphotericin B (EA, 100%), voriconazole (EA, 93.7%), and

47 orting comparisons of fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), itraconazole, micafungin and pla

48 The optimal dosage of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) alone or in combination with flucy

49 ity of high-dose weekly (10 mg/kg) liposomal amphotericin B (LamB) for antifungal prophylaxis in live

50 ed-dendrimer (PDD), complexed with liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) in an L. major mouse model and ana

51 Decreased susceptibilities to amphotericin B (MIC at which 90% of isolates were inhibi

52 Amphotericin B (MIC(50),1 microg/ml) and flucytosine (MI

53 tration of an azole (OR, 0.06; P < 0.001) or amphotericin B (OR, 0.35; P = 0.05) was protective.

54 The exception was amphotericin B (R values of 0.68 and 0.5 for disk and ta

55 mycetes), BBL caspofungin 5-microg disk, and amphotericin B 10-microg (zygomycetes only).

56 Here, we describe that amphotericin B activates these cells through engaging My

57 ailable in Africa and most of Asia, and safe amphotericin B administration requires patient hospitali

58 upplemented with different concentrations of amphotericin B after inoculation with Candida albicans i

59 ainst T. cruzi and slightly more potent than amphotericin B against L. amazonensis.

60 We conclude that RIT is more effective than amphotericin B against systemic infection with C. neofor

61 B and flucytosine than among those receiving amphotericin B alone (15 vs. 25 deaths by day 14; hazard

62 tericin B plus flucytosine, as compared with amphotericin B alone, is associated with improved surviv

63 shown to reduce mortality, as compared with amphotericin B alone.

64 ntrol organisms displayed 80% inhibition for amphotericin B and 50% inhibition for caspofungin as mea

65 e surgical and antifungal therapy (liposomal amphotericin B and a broad-spectrum triazole pending myc

66 rd, systemic injections of nontoxic doses of amphotericin B and another activator, macrophage colony-

67 probes for determination of MICs (FMICs) of amphotericin B and caspofungin against Candida spp. and

68 ism-based method of determination of MICs of amphotericin B and caspofungin against Candida spp. and

69 hin one well dilution, with the MICs against amphotericin B and caspofungin for all species.

70 agreement (79 to 100%) with the MICs of both amphotericin B and caspofungin for all species.

71 All isolates tested were susceptible to amphotericin B and caspofungin, but 11% were resistant o

72 For amphotericin B and caspofungin, the FMIC end point was t

73 and had reduced in vitro susceptibilities to amphotericin B and caspofungin, which correlated with cl

74 -mediated direct binding interaction between amphotericin B and ergosterol is required for both formi

75 omoting a direct binding interaction between amphotericin B and ergosterol.

76 ns and Cryptococcus neoformans comparable to amphotericin B and fluconazole.

77 ong with combination antifungal therapy with amphotericin B and fluconazole.

78 dely accepted treatment guidelines recommend amphotericin B and flucytosine as first-line induction t

79 d by days 14 and 70 among patients receiving amphotericin B and flucytosine than among those receivin

80 to 24, 48, and 72 h), and (iii) seven disks (amphotericin B and itraconazole 10-microg disks, voricon

81 trategy and the use of lipid formulations of amphotericin B and major surgery when feasible as the mo

82 potentiates the activity of the antifungals amphotericin B and micafungin.

83 He was treated with liposomal amphotericin B and multiple debridements, with no diseas

84 nazole that was similar to that reported for amphotericin B and posaconazole.

85 cormycosis to guide the timely initiation of amphotericin B and possible surgical intervention, a coo

86 tro and in vivo antagonism between liposomal amphotericin B and ravuconazole in simultaneous treatmen

87 for mortality, whereas lipid formulations of amphotericin B and surgery improved outcomes.

88 Whether the interaction between amphotericin B and triazoles is antagonistic against inv

89 EAs for amphotericin B and voriconazole were >90% for most poten

90 ic gramicidin and the known antifungal agent amphotericin B and were not toxic at their antifungal MI

91 erior efficacy compared with older azoles or amphotericin B as first-line or empiric therapy for fung

92 , voriconazole, was superior to conventional amphotericin B as primary therapy for invasive aspergill

93 0x minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) or amphotericin B at 0.25x, 0.5x, 1x, or 10x MIC.

94 trols, with the exception of Optisol-GS plus amphotericin B at 10x MIC, donor corneas in supplemented

95 All patients received amphotericin B at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body we

96 rneas stored in Optisol-GS supplemented with amphotericin B at any concentration compared with paired

97 Two vials each were supplemented with amphotericin B at concentrations of 0.06, 0.12, or 0.225

98 Combinations of 12f with fluconazole and amphotericin B at subinhibitory concentration were syner

99 traconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B by CLSI methods.

100 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218) and for amphotericin B by disk diffusion (1.00, SE = 0.098).

101 ortality rate, whereas lipid formulations of amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate

102 days in lung transplant recipients achieved amphotericin B concentrations in ELF above minimum inhib

103 ition; 4 corneas each received the different amphotericin B concentrations.

104 is meta-analysis of 13 studies revealed that amphotericin B delivered as a locally prepared lipid emu

105 we defined the effect of the combination of amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB) and 5-fluorocytosine (

106 Since the late 1950s, intrathecal (IT) amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd) has been successfully

107 py or culture, to receive either intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate (amphotericin) (219 patients

108 formulations of amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.50,

109 Combination antifungal therapy (amphotericin B deoxycholate and flucytosine) is the reco

110 R) of 3 cryptococcal induction regimens: (1) amphotericin B deoxycholate for 4 weeks; (2) amphoterici

111 lly allocated to a control arm or to receive amphotericin B deoxycholate or caspofungin treatment whi

112 wenty-four of 34 patients (71%) treated with amphotericin B deoxycholate, 4/12 (33%) treated with a t

113 Guidelines recommend initial treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate, but this drug has substanti

114 s on three old, off-patent antifungal drugs: amphotericin B deoxycholate, flucytosine, and fluconazol

115 rming units from the lung and brain, whereas amphotericin B did not decrease the number of colony-for

116 zone diameters (-0.42) precludes the use of amphotericin B disk diffusion for susceptibility testing

117 Treatment with ergosterol-specific amphotericin B does not.

118 All patients received inhaled amphotericin B during their initial LT hospitalization,

119 emented with a 0.255-mug/mL concentration of amphotericin B effectively eliminated fungal contaminant

120 th concentrations of 0.06 and 0.12 mug/mL of amphotericin B eliminated all fungal contaminants by day

121 ented with the 0.255-mug/mL concentration of amphotericin B eliminated all fungal contaminants by day

122 rgery and treatment with high-dose liposomal amphotericin B eradicated the disease.

123 st MICs (94 to 97%) and by both methods with amphotericin B for all species (95 to 99.3%).

124 nospecies biofilms reduced susceptibility to amphotericin B for C. tropicalis and C. glabrata.

125 ring an echinocandin with either an azole or amphotericin B formulation as therapy for invasive asper

126 .4%) patients were initially treated with an amphotericin B formulation for a median duration of 2 we

127 The enhanced understanding of amphotericin B function derived from these synthesis-ena

128 gin, amphotericin B, or lipid formulation of amphotericin B given as either empirical or culture-base

129 sine or high-dose fluconazole with high-dose amphotericin B improved survival at 14 and 70 days.

130 We have evaluated liposomal amphotericin B in 20 patients with DL in an open clinica

131 % and antifungals in 87% of cases (liposomal amphotericin B in 61%).

132 mucormycosis and compared its efficacy with amphotericin B in a matched case-control analysis.

133 Concentrations of amphotericin B in ELF (median, 25-75 IQR) were at 4 hr (

134 ffusion methods for testing posaconazole and amphotericin B in the clinical laboratory against the sp

135 ospectively determined the concentrations of amphotericin B in the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) and

136 Administration of polymyxin/tobramycin/amphotericin B in the oropharynx and the gastric tube pl

137 eved with intravenous phospholipid-complexed amphotericin B initially, followed by long-term combinat

138 mphogel, a dextran-based hydrogel into which amphotericin B is adsorbed.

139 usly reported that the antifungal medication amphotericin B is an activator of circulating monocytes,

140 Liposomal amphotericin B is an effective therapy for DL, with a hi

141 Amphotericin B is the archetype for small molecules that

142 sceptibility data for Chrysosporium zonatum, amphotericin B is the most active drug, itraconazole sus

143 vious severe infusion reactions to liposomal amphotericin B is unclear.

144 y of targeted prophylaxis with micafungin or amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) was assessed in a se

145 We evaluated once weekly intravenous amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), given its broad-spe

146 a tertiary care cancer center and found that amphotericin B lipid complex administration was uneventf

147 r aerosolized nebulization (AeroEclipse), of amphotericin B lipid complex at 1 mg/kg every 24 hr for

148 stration through aerosolized nebulization of amphotericin B lipid complex every 24 hr for 4 days in l

149 ist regarding the pharmacokinetic profile of amphotericin B lipid complex in lung transplant recipien

150 The tolerability of amphotericin B lipid complex in patients with previous s

151 esistance to amphotericin B, we conducted an amphotericin B loss-of-function screen in Chinese hamste

152 sistance to the cholesterol-binding compound amphotericin B methyl ester (AME) by acquiring mutations

153 sm by which the cholesterol-binding compound amphotericin B methyl ester (AME) inhibits human immunod

154 eported that a cholesterol-binding compound, amphotericin B methyl ester (AME), blocks HIV-1 entry an

155 compound, the polyene antifungal antibiotic amphotericin B methyl ester (AME).

156 o identify two of the six isolates with high amphotericin B MICs.

157 nd carboxylic acid appendages on neighboring amphotericin B molecules are not required for ion channe

158 All isolates had MICs at 48 h of amphotericin B of > or = 1 microg/ml and of echinocandin

159 rlo simulations showed that human dosages of amphotericin B of at least 0.6 mg/kg were required to ac

160 ecific circumstances, including testing with amphotericin B or triazoles for non-Aspergillus molds (M

161 Using simultaneous fura-2 Ca(2+) imaging and amphotericin B perforated patch-clamp electrophysiology,

162 A survival benefit of amphotericin B plus fluconazole was not found.

163 The US guidelines recommend treatment with amphotericin B plus flucytosine for at least 2 weeks, fo

164 Amphotericin B plus flucytosine was associated with sign

165 Amphotericin B plus flucytosine, as compared with amphot

166 nts, the use of topical polymyxin/tobramycin/amphotericin B plus mupirocin/chlorhexidine was associat

167 presented three important hydrogen bonds and amphotericin B presented two hydrogen bonds that stabili

168 r perspectives for the use of 2 antifungals, amphotericin B products and posaconazole, with activity

169 Inhaled formulations of amphotericin B remain the most widely studied option for

170 These results do not prove that amphotericin B should be added to Optisol-GS; larger-sca

171 pofungin, micafungin, and terbinafine, while amphotericin B showed the least activity.

172 Comparison with clinically used amphotericin B shows similar antifungal behaviour withou

173 dy, 12 pairs of corneas were divided between amphotericin B supplementation and the control condition

174 agreement of fluconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B susceptibility results by disk diffusion.

175 d isolates except zygomycetes, and 10-microg amphotericin B tablets against zygomycete isolates only.

176 e more likely to receive regimens containing amphotericin B than fluconazole as primary therapy.

177 i.Despite relapsing 6 weeks after completing amphotericin B therapy, the patient made a complete reco

178 Each drug poses unique access challenges: amphotericin B through cost, toxic effects, and insuffic

179 y fungal infection, however, the addition of amphotericin B to Optisol-GS deserves further investigat

180 The addition of amphotericin B to Optisol-GS may significantly improve a

181 ART-naive adults aged>/=21 years initiating amphotericin B treatment for CM were randomized to ART i

182 therapy was additive with that of liposomal amphotericin B treatment.

183 active at the time of the IFI, and any prior amphotericin B use; among SOT recipients, fluconazole no

184 The success rate with liposomal amphotericin B was 4-fold higher even when controlling f

185 Treatment with bFGF plus amphotericin B was associated with neutrophil influx int

186 Although liposomal amphotericin B was considered well tolerated, mild adver

187 The MIC for amphotericin B was defined as the lowest concentration o

188 formed mixed- Candida species biofilms while amphotericin B was potent.

189 Liposomal amphotericin B was started within a median of 1 (interqu

190 cterize prevention of posttreatment relapse, amphotericin B was used to kill approximately 90-95% of

191 s inhibition could be overcome by the use of amphotericin B with a high [Cl-] pipette solution.

192 nts (voriconazole, with or without liposomal amphotericin B), and 24 required surgical debridement.

193 Control limits (amphotericin B, 1 to 4 microg/ml; itraconazole, 0.06 to

194 iaceus died despite treatment with liposomal amphotericin B, 3 mg/kg/d, and a young girl with pemphig

195 patient was treated initially with liposomal amphotericin B, 430 mg daily, but changed to voriconazol

196 as observed for all three antifungal agents: amphotericin B, 99.1% and 97%, respectively; flucytosine

197 For amphotericin B, an MIC of </=0.5 mug/ml was significantl

198 olates were resistant to fluconazole, 35% to amphotericin B, and 7% to echinocandins; 41% were resist

199 e, voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofungin for 383 invasive Candida

200 he activity of the antifungals posaconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofungin, likely through increasi

201 l drugs, including amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, and flucytosine, need to be much more wi

202 om all control rabbits, from 3 that received amphotericin B, and from 0 that received caspofungin.

203 in combination with antibiotics (vancomycin, amphotericin B, and nalidixic acid), and the efficacy of

204 manials (antimony, miltefosine, paromomycin, amphotericin B, and pentamidine).

205 of fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, amphotericin B, anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafung

206 ically important antifungals nystatin A1 and amphotericin B, but it has several distinctive structura

207 The patient initially received liposomal amphotericin B, but the infection continued to progress,

208 Candida spp. and Cryptococcus neoformans to amphotericin B, caspofungin, fluconazole, itraconazole,

209 usceptibility of 183 filamentous isolates to amphotericin B, caspofungin, itraconazole, posaconazole,

210 The MICs of the comparator drugs amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin, and voriconazol

211 ectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL) and vancomycin, amphotericin B, ceftazidime, and clindamycin (VACC) plat

212 ssion, lipid biosynthesis, susceptibility to amphotericin B, cellular metabolism, and protein phospho

213 e diseases have been published and recommend amphotericin B, fluconazole, or caspofungin as the prima

214 C. krusei) against seven antifungal agents (amphotericin B, fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole,

215 Resistance to amphotericin B, flucytosine, and fluconazole was < or =

216 ns, and 426 isolates of Candida spp. against amphotericin B, flucytosine, and voriconazole.

217 The MICs of amphotericin B, flucytosine, fluconazole, voriconazole,

218 ailable for older antifungal agents, such as amphotericin B, flucytosine, or itraconazole.

219 ceptibility to oral fluconazole, intravenous amphotericin B, intravitreal amphotericin B, oral vorico

220 cans cells were resistant to fluconazole and amphotericin B, irrespective of the medium used to form

221 The drugs tested were amphotericin B, itraconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole

222 t our isolates appeared to be susceptible to amphotericin B, itraconazole, voriconazole, ravuconazole

223 Additionally, antifungal drugs, including amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, and flucytosin

224 er the antimicrobial mixture of polymyxin B, amphotericin B, nalidixic acid, trimethoprim, and azloci

225 nventional therapy consisting of a triazole, amphotericin B, or a combination of both.

226 after infection with (213)Bi-18B7 antibody, amphotericin B, or both.

227 exposure of Rhizopus oryzae to itraconazole, amphotericin B, or caspofungin and exposure of Aspergill

228 ecific standard care (fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, or caspofungin) posttransplant.

229 Fluconazole, caspofungin, amphotericin B, or lipid formulation of amphotericin B g

230 le, intravenous amphotericin B, intravitreal amphotericin B, oral voriconazole, and intravitreal vori

231 tration showing absence of visual growth) of amphotericin B, overall agreement levels were 90 to 93%

232 Treatment with amphotericin B, particularly in combination with MCSF, i

233 Testing of susceptibility to amphotericin B, posaconazole, and voriconazole was subse

234 avuconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B, respectively.

235 l inhibitory concentration of 2 mg/L against amphotericin B, suggesting resistance to the drug.

236 For amphotericin B, the best correlation between reference M

237 ntifungal agents, including lipid-associated amphotericin B, voriconazole, and caspofungin.

238 The species has a higher amphotericin B, voriconazole, and itraconazole MIC and c

239 r minimal effective concentrations (MECs) of amphotericin B, voriconazole, posaconazole, caspofungin,

240 an be isolated on the basis of resistance to amphotericin B, we conducted an amphotericin B loss-of-f

241 To compare the efficacy of RIT with that of amphotericin B, we infected AJ/Cr mice intravenously wit

242 al antifungal therapy, including intrathecal amphotericin B, while results of fungal cultures were pe

243 m 17 centres worldwide, who received primary amphotericin B-based treatment, and were analysed for da

244 Voltage-clamp experiments using amphotericin B-permeablized monolayers revealed that the

245 ong antifungal activity against wildtype and amphotericin B-resistant strains of Candida albicans at

246 light-exposed compared with light-protected amphotericin B-supplemented Optisol-GS was identified.

247 t, there was no growth of either organism in amphotericin B-supplemented vials, except at 0.25x and 0

248 conazole cases was similar to 13 (39%) of 33 amphotericin B-treated matched controls (weighted all-ca

249 tant to the antifungal drugs fluconazole and amphotericin B.

250 zole was the most affected drugs followed by amphotericin B.

251 eceive voriconazole, and 10 were switched to amphotericin B.

252 ique in its ability to develop resistance to amphotericin B.

253 i that is inherently resistant to azoles and amphotericin B.

254 anomolar antifungal activity in synergy with amphotericin B.

255 d to the ion channel-forming natural product amphotericin B.

256 ients (53%) were also treated with liposomal amphotericin B.

257 the ion channel and antifungal activities of amphotericin B.

258 reased susceptibility to the antifungal drug amphotericin B.

259 id chromatography-MS-MS were used to measure amphotericin B.

260 f >28 and 2 times higher potency compared to amphotericin B.

261 ure the antifungal effect of macrophages and amphotericin B.

262 ients before and 3-4 wk after treatment with Amphotericin B.

263 ith an efficacy similar to that of liposomal amphotericin B.

264 e fungal burden when combined with liposomal amphotericin B.

265 of the antifungal effect of macrophages and amphotericin B.

266 ical debridement, in addition to intravenous amphotericin B.

267 zoles was delayed in comparison to that with amphotericin B.

268 d antifungals: fluconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B.

269 gainst mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B.

270 y against the strains tested was shown to be amphotericin B.

271 oxic effects at the maximal concentration of amphotericin B.

272 rvival rates and potentiated the activity of amphotericin B. bFGF-containing regimens were associated

273 ant strains of E.coli, as well as effects of amphotericin-B and miconazole on S. cerevisiae through t

274 mbar puncture if antigen-positive and either amphotericin-B for those with CNS disease or fluconazole

275 ctively screened twice a week, and liposomal amphotericin-B therapy initiated based on a positive qPC

276 t earlier diagnosis, more rapidly fungicidal amphotericin-based regimens, and prompt immune reconstit

277 tomatic cryptococcal meningitis treated with amphotericin (CM cohort).

278 rst month after diagnosis, treatment with an amphotericin formulation followed by an azole for 12 mon

279 An amphotericin formulation was administered initially to 7

280 he risk of death at week 24 was 11.3% in the amphotericin group and 21.0% in the itraconazole group (

281 The risk of death at week 2 was 6.5% in the amphotericin group and 7.4% in the itraconazole group (a

282 The patients who received amphotericin had significantly higher rates of infusion-

283 Over the last 50 years or so, amphotericin has been widely employed in treating life-t

284 failing posaconazole and being intolerant to amphotericin, he was treated effectively with isavuconaz

285 amphotericin, and is widely used in place of amphotericin; however, clinical trials comparing these t

286 However, the moderate correlation of amphotericin MICs with zone diameters (-0.42) precludes

287 Cost estimates were $83 227 for amphotericin monotherapy, $75 121 for amphotericin plus

288 isease include fluconazole, itraconazole, or amphotericin; newer triazoles (ie, voriconazole, posacon

289 Neither amphotericin nor macrophages alone was able to suppress

290 counts were detected between the control and amphotericin (P<.001) and control and caspofungin (P<.00

291 photericin plus flucytosine, and $44 605 for amphotericin plus fluconazole.

292 The ICER of amphotericin plus flucytosine was $23 842 per quality-ad

293 27 for amphotericin monotherapy, $75 121 for amphotericin plus flucytosine, and $44 605 for amphoteri

294 Inhaled amphotericin preparations have been used for prophylaxis

295 The patient received amphotericin products and corticosteroids, followed by i

296 Ultimately, Aspergillus terreus, an amphotericin-resistant mold, was cultured from bilateral

297 The activity of Ysp2p, reflected in amphotericin-sensitivity assays, requires its second StA

298 inically, the incremental benefit of LPs and amphotericin therapy for those with CNS disease was smal

299 Treatment with amphotericin was associated with significantly faster cl

300 Amphotericin was superior to itraconazole as initial tre