ライフサイエンスコーパス: liposomal amphotericin B

1 (556 receiving caspofungin and 539 receiving liposomal amphotericin B).

2 %); 35 patients (53%) were also treated with liposomal amphotericin B.

3 burden, with an efficacy similar to that of liposomal amphotericin B.

4 uced tissue fungal burden when combined with liposomal amphotericin B.

5 ring treatment with meglumine antimoniate or liposomal amphotericin B.

6 ay [BID]), voriconazole (10 mg/kg p.o. BID), liposomal amphotericin B (10 mg/kg intraperitoneally [i.

7 ungal infections among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (11 patients [3.2 percent]) tha

8 ly less frequent among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (19 percent) than among those t

9 ransient visual changes than those receiving liposomal amphotericin B (22 percent vs. 1 percent, P<0.

10 greater with amphotericin B (63%) than with liposomal amphotericin B (25%) (P = 0.002).

11 phigus foliaceus died despite treatment with liposomal amphotericin B, 3 mg/kg/d, and a young girl wi

12 e mean duration of therapy was 10.8 days for liposomal amphotericin B (343 patients) and 10.3 days fo

13 The patient was treated initially with liposomal amphotericin B, 430 mg daily, but changed to v

14 icantly higher for all patients who received liposomal amphotericin B ($48,962 v $43,183; P =.022).

15 %), caspofungin (24%), voriconazole (8%), or liposomal amphotericin B (5%).

16 with voriconazole than in those treated with liposomal amphotericin B (8 [1.9 percent] vs. 21 [5.0 pe

17 cent with voriconazole and 30.6 percent with liposomal amphotericin B (95 percent confidence interval

18 percent for caspofungin and 33.7 percent for liposomal amphotericin B (95.2 percent confidence interv

19 On day 67 p.t., ITR was discontinued and liposomal amphotericin B (AMB) was initiated.

20 reated with 30 mg/kg body weight intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) divided as 6 equal d

21 ssful treatment were similar (50 percent for liposomal amphotericin B and 49 percent for conventional

22 aggressive surgical and antifungal therapy (liposomal amphotericin B and a broad-spectrum triazole p

23 The outcomes were similar with liposomal amphotericin B and conventional amphotericin B

24 He was treated with liposomal amphotericin B and multiple debridements, with

25 The cost of liposomal amphotericin B and patient risk for developing

26 both in vitro and in vivo antagonism between liposomal amphotericin B and ravuconazole in simultaneou

27 fungal agents (voriconazole, with or without liposomal amphotericin B), and 24 required surgical debr

28 antifungal drugs, including amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, and flucytosine, need to be mu

29 y and safety of caspofungin as compared with liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy

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

31 ted with amphotericin B and one treated with liposomal amphotericin B died during induction (P = 0.04

32 pared with 45 of 51 patients (88%) receiving liposomal amphotericin B (difference, 24 percentage poin

33 gnosis, surgery and treatment with high-dose liposomal amphotericin B eradicated the disease.

34 zole, a new second-generation triazole, with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therap

35 ceive empirical therapy with conventional or liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention and early tr

36 We have evaluated liposomal amphotericin B in 20 patients with DL in an op

37 gery in 59% and antifungals in 87% of cases (liposomal amphotericin B in 61%).

38 Liposomal amphotericin B is an effective therapy for DL,

39 Liposomal amphotericin B is as effective as conventional

40 city play large roles in determining whether liposomal amphotericin B is cost-effective as first-line

41 s with previous severe infusion reactions to liposomal amphotericin B is unclear.

42 ylactic versus therapeutic administration of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) was tested in C57BL/6 m

43 teria, reporting comparisons of fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), itraconazole, micafung

44 The optimal dosage of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) alone or in combination

45 tolerability of high-dose weekly (10 mg/kg) liposomal amphotericin B (LamB) for antifungal prophylax

46 -derivatized-dendrimer (PDD), complexed with liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) in an L. major mouse mod

47 center-specific standard care (fluconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, or caspofungin) posttransplant

48 photericin B and 9% of patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (P = 0.003).

49 patients who received amphotericin B versus liposomal amphotericin B preparations (100% vs. 89%); ho

50 otericin B and 43 days in those who received liposomal amphotericin B preparations.

51 Liposomal amphotericin B seems to be a less toxic altern

52 hen prospectively screened twice a week, and liposomal amphotericin-B therapy initiated based on a po

53 n treated empirically with amphotericin B or liposomal amphotericin B to prevent invasive fungal infe

54 P cellular therapy was additive with that of liposomal amphotericin B treatment.

55 The success rate with liposomal amphotericin B was 4-fold higher even when con

56 Although liposomal amphotericin B was considered well tolerated,

57 ouble-blind, comparative, multicenter trial, liposomal amphotericin B was equivalent to conventional

58 Liposomal amphotericin B was started within a median of

59 nts (415 assigned to voriconazole and 422 to liposomal amphotericin B) were evaluated for success of

60 ctive as and generally better tolerated than liposomal amphotericin B when given as empirical antifun

61 d, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing liposomal amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin