{"title":"一项基于FAERS数据库的真实世界研究评估了三种两性霉素B脂质制剂的药物不良反应。","authors":"Binliang Tong, Jiaqi Wang, Yanjing Zhang, Yan Liu, Jing Wang, Liguang Duan, Yuhang Yan, Qixuan Sun, Yueyao Luan, Jing Yu, Chunhua Zhou","doi":"10.1080/20523211.2025.2514155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Amphotericin B (AmB) remains the cornerstone in the treatment of severe fungal infections. However, selecting an appropriate lipid-based formulation for different clinical scenarios remains a challenge for clinicians and clinical pharmacists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adverse event (AE) reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database (Q1 2004-Q3 2024) were retrospectively analysed to assess the safety profiles of three lipid formulations of AmB: liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). The baseline patient characteristics, AE distributions, and prognostic outcomes of severe AEs were examined. SPSS software was used to compare AE occurrences among the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3284 patient reports were included, comprising 3108 in the L-AmB group, 142 in the ABLC group, and 34 in the ABCD group. Within 30 days, AEs were reported in 666 cases (L-AmB), 72 cases (ABLC), and 13 cases (ABCD) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). AEs were categorised using the System Organ Class (SOC) and Standardized MedDRA Querie (SMQ). Compared with the L-AmB group, the ABLC group had a significantly higher incidence of hypersensitivity and hypertension; whereas hypokalemia was significantly lower (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Compared to the L-AmB and ABLC groups, the ABCD group had a significantly higher incidence of haematopoietic thrombocytopenia (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Prognostic analysis indicated that the incidence of life-threatening events was significantly higher in the ABCD group than in the L-AmB and ABLC groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety profiles of L-AmB, ABLC, and ABCD differ among organ systems. These findings highlight the need for individualised treatment strategies based on drug-specific safety characteristics and patient-specific clinical conditions to ensure optimal drug selection and patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":16740,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","volume":"18 1","pages":"2514155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12164386/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A real-world study based on the FAERS database evaluating adverse drug reactions in three amphotericin B lipid formulations.\",\"authors\":\"Binliang Tong, Jiaqi Wang, Yanjing Zhang, Yan Liu, Jing Wang, Liguang Duan, Yuhang Yan, Qixuan Sun, Yueyao Luan, Jing Yu, Chunhua Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20523211.2025.2514155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Amphotericin B (AmB) remains the cornerstone in the treatment of severe fungal infections. However, selecting an appropriate lipid-based formulation for different clinical scenarios remains a challenge for clinicians and clinical pharmacists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adverse event (AE) reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database (Q1 2004-Q3 2024) were retrospectively analysed to assess the safety profiles of three lipid formulations of AmB: liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). The baseline patient characteristics, AE distributions, and prognostic outcomes of severe AEs were examined. SPSS software was used to compare AE occurrences among the three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3284 patient reports were included, comprising 3108 in the L-AmB group, 142 in the ABLC group, and 34 in the ABCD group. Within 30 days, AEs were reported in 666 cases (L-AmB), 72 cases (ABLC), and 13 cases (ABCD) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). AEs were categorised using the System Organ Class (SOC) and Standardized MedDRA Querie (SMQ). Compared with the L-AmB group, the ABLC group had a significantly higher incidence of hypersensitivity and hypertension; whereas hypokalemia was significantly lower (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Compared to the L-AmB and ABLC groups, the ABCD group had a significantly higher incidence of haematopoietic thrombocytopenia (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Prognostic analysis indicated that the incidence of life-threatening events was significantly higher in the ABCD group than in the L-AmB and ABLC groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety profiles of L-AmB, ABLC, and ABCD differ among organ systems. These findings highlight the need for individualised treatment strategies based on drug-specific safety characteristics and patient-specific clinical conditions to ensure optimal drug selection and patient safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"2514155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12164386/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2025.2514155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2025.2514155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:两性霉素B (AmB)仍然是治疗严重真菌感染的基石。然而,为不同的临床情况选择合适的脂基制剂仍然是临床医生和临床药师面临的挑战。方法:回顾性分析FDA不良事件报告系统(FAERS)数据库(2004年第一季度- 2024年第三季度)的不良事件(AE)报告,以评估三种脂质制剂AmB的安全性:脂质体两性霉素B (L-AmB)、两性霉素B脂质复合物(ABLC)和两性霉素B胶体分散体(ABCD)。检查了基线患者特征、AE分布和严重AE的预后结果。采用SPSS统计软件对三组间AE发生率进行比较。结果:共纳入3284例患者报告,其中L-AmB组3108例,ABLC组142例,ABCD组34例。在30天内,666例(L-AmB)、72例(ABLC)和13例(ABCD)报告了ae (P P P P)。结论:L-AmB、ABLC和ABCD的安全性在不同器官系统中存在差异。这些发现强调了基于药物特异性安全特性和患者特异性临床条件的个性化治疗策略的必要性,以确保最佳药物选择和患者安全。
A real-world study based on the FAERS database evaluating adverse drug reactions in three amphotericin B lipid formulations.
Background: Amphotericin B (AmB) remains the cornerstone in the treatment of severe fungal infections. However, selecting an appropriate lipid-based formulation for different clinical scenarios remains a challenge for clinicians and clinical pharmacists.
Methods: Adverse event (AE) reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database (Q1 2004-Q3 2024) were retrospectively analysed to assess the safety profiles of three lipid formulations of AmB: liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB), amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). The baseline patient characteristics, AE distributions, and prognostic outcomes of severe AEs were examined. SPSS software was used to compare AE occurrences among the three groups.
Results: A total of 3284 patient reports were included, comprising 3108 in the L-AmB group, 142 in the ABLC group, and 34 in the ABCD group. Within 30 days, AEs were reported in 666 cases (L-AmB), 72 cases (ABLC), and 13 cases (ABCD) (P < 0.001). AEs were categorised using the System Organ Class (SOC) and Standardized MedDRA Querie (SMQ). Compared with the L-AmB group, the ABLC group had a significantly higher incidence of hypersensitivity and hypertension; whereas hypokalemia was significantly lower (P < 0.001). Compared to the L-AmB and ABLC groups, the ABCD group had a significantly higher incidence of haematopoietic thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001). Prognostic analysis indicated that the incidence of life-threatening events was significantly higher in the ABCD group than in the L-AmB and ABLC groups (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: The safety profiles of L-AmB, ABLC, and ABCD differ among organ systems. These findings highlight the need for individualised treatment strategies based on drug-specific safety characteristics and patient-specific clinical conditions to ensure optimal drug selection and patient safety.