ライフサイエンスコーパス: amphotericin

1 ormal responses to the drugs caspofungin and amphotericin.

2 amphotericin B 0.15% alone, and (4) topical amphotericin 0.15% plus CXL.

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

4 .12 (98.6%); posaconazole, 0.12/0.5 (95.9%); amphotericin, 0.5/2 (88.3%); anidulafungin, 0.5/2 (97.4%

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 lture positivity between those randomized to amphotericin and those randomized to natamycin when eval

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

13 mmendation against routine administration of amphotericin as systemic antifungal prophylaxis was made

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

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

16 andard therapy with 7-14 days of intravenous amphotericin B (0.7-1.0 mg/kg per day) and oral fluconaz

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 with IV caspofungin (50 mg/d) and liposomal amphotericin B (300 mg/d).

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

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

26 zole and elevated MIC to voriconazole (81%), amphotericin B (61%), flucytosine (5FC) (3%), and echino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 demonstrated that, compared with 2 weeks of amphotericin B (AmB) plus flucystosine (5FC), 1 week of

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

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

41 e genetically distinct and more resistant to amphotericin B (AmB) than the isolates from central Colo

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

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

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

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

46 relies exclusively on chemotherapy including amphotericin B (AmB), miltefosine (hexadecylphosphocholi

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 (EFA) of 3 short-course, high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) regimens for cryptococcal meningi

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

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

56 icacy of combination therapy using liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) and MIL for treating PKDL.

57 profile and antifungal efficacy of liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) compared to conventional amphoteri

58 nce its introduction in the 1990s, liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) continues to be an important agent

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

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

61 lures of micafungin (n = 16) and aerosolized amphotericin B (n = 24) prophylaxis, respectively.

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

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

64 ) topical natamycin 5% plus CXL, (3) topical amphotericin B 0.15% alone, and (4) topical amphotericin

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

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

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

68 tic action in combination with cisplatin and amphotericin B against cancer and fungal cells, respecti

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

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

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

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

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

74 Amphotericin B also restored airway surface liquid pH, v

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

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

77 the ergosterol molecule-targeting antifungal amphotericin B and antagonizes that of the ergosterol pa

78 Amphotericin B and caspofungin had minimal circuit clear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

87 Liposomal amphotericin B and MIL combination for treating PKDL is

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

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

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

91 the azoles but also the salvage therapeutics amphotericin B and terbinafine without significantly aff

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

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

94 0x minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) or amphotericin B at 0.25x, 0.5x, 1x, or 10x MIC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218) and for amphotericin B by disk diffusion (1.00, SE = 0.098).

102 l Na(+), K(+)-ATPase, indicating that apical amphotericin B channels functionally interfaced with thi

103 nazole (FLC), micafungin, 5- flucytosine and amphotericin B compared to younger (0-3 generation) cell

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

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

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

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

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

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

110 photericin B (LAmB) compared to conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (DAmB) is due to several fac

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

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

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

114 Amphotericin B deoxycholate is recommended against, beca

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

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

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

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

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

120 Treatment with ergosterol-specific amphotericin B does not.

121 induced amastigote death at doses similar to amphotericin B doses, while exhibiting much less cytotox

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

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

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

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

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

127 Antifungal supplementation with amphotericin B for EK grafts was the most cost-effective

128 .4%) patients were initially treated with an amphotericin B formulation for a median duration of 2 we

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

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

131 pharmacokinetics of 1 and 2 mg/kg liposomal amphotericin B in 16 morbidly obese individuals (104-177

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

133 % and antifungals in 87% of cases (liposomal amphotericin B in 61%).

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

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

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

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

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

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 irst-line treatment with high-dose liposomal amphotericin B is strongly recommended, while intravenou

142 Amphotericin B is the archetype for small molecules that

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

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

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

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

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

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

149 ifungal prophylaxis consisted of aerosolized amphotericin B lipid complex during the transplant hospi

150 spite receiving prophylaxis with aerosolized amphotericin B lipid complex during the transplant hospi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

160 uced the minimal inhibitory concentration of amphotericin B or fluconazole when used in combination w

161 inocandin antifungals but not by exposure to amphotericin B or flucytosine.

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

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

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

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

166 In the ACTA trial, 1-week (short course) amphotericin B plus flucytosine resulted in a 10-week mo

167 Amphotericin B plus flucytosine was associated with sign

168 One-week amphotericin B plus flucytosine was associated with the

169 ryptococcal meningitis in LMICs is 1 week of amphotericin B plus flucytosine, and the alternative the

170 Amphotericin B plus flucytosine, as compared with amphot

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

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

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

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

175 rturbation studies with the IFITM antagonist amphotericin B revealed that modulation of membrane prop

176 In addition, the antifungal amphotericin B reversed Serinc restriction, presumably b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

187 p=0.98), most of which were associated with amphotericin B toxicity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

199 Here we report that apical addition of amphotericin B, a small molecule that forms unselective

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

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

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

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

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

205 Voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B, and micafungin had the most potent in vi

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

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

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

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

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

211 crobials (meropenem, piperacillin, liposomal amphotericin B, caspofungin, and voriconazole).

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

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

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

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

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

217 sential medicines, including flucytosine and amphotericin B, in LMICs is paramount and the focus of t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

229 hich counteracts virus inhibition by IFITM3, Amphotericin B, prevented the IFITM3-mediated rigidifica

230 ited potent antibiofilm activity, similar to amphotericin B, reducing the metabolic activity of adher

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

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

233 asty (EK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK); amphotericin B, voriconazole, caspofungin, and combinati

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

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

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

237 d to improve the tolerability of intravenous amphotericin B, while optimizing its clinical efficacy.

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

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

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

241 case, a corneal endothelial graft stored in amphotericin B-supplemented CSM was the most cost-effect

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

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

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

245 itial treatment or as step-down therapy from amphotericin B.

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

247 a combination of 5-fluorocytosine (5FC) and amphotericin B.

248 ess cytotoxicity to healthy macrophages than amphotericin B.

249 oxic effects at the maximal concentration of amphotericin B.

250 tant to the antifungal drugs fluconazole and amphotericin B.

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

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

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

254 i that is inherently resistant to azoles and 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 on antifungals were less cost-effective than amphotericin B.

260 id chromatography-MS-MS were used to measure 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 d antifungals: fluconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B.

264 anomolar antifungal activity in synergy with amphotericin B.

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

266 gainst mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B.

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

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

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

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

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

272 as effective and less costly than 2 weeks of amphotericin-based regimens.

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

274 All 738 subjects received amphotericin + fluconazole induction therapy and had ser

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

276 An amphotericin formulation was administered initially to 7

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

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

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

280 gardless of medication (topical natamycin or amphotericin) had 1.32-fold increased odds of 24-hour cu

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

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

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

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

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

286 ed controlled trial of antifungal treatment (amphotericin monotherapy, amphotericin with flucytosine,

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

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

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

290 27 for amphotericin monotherapy, $75 121 for amphotericin plus flucytosine, and $44 605 for amphoteri

291 Inhaled amphotericin preparations have been used for prophylaxis

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

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

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

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

296 overexpression of serine protease TMPRSS2 or amphotericin treatment significantly neutralized the IFN

297 Treatment with amphotericin was associated with significantly faster cl

298 Amphotericin was superior to itraconazole as initial tre

299 notherapy, amphotericin with flucytosine, or amphotericin with fluconazole).

300 ifungal treatment (amphotericin monotherapy, amphotericin with flucytosine, or amphotericin with fluc