Topline
Nebulized amphotericin B does not improve exacerbation-free status at 1 year for patients with bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, though it may delay onset and incidence.
Methodology
Investigators searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies that included at least five patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis who were managed with nebulized amphotericin B.
They included five studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and three were observational studies; there was a total of 188 patients.
The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the frequency of patients remaining exacerbation free 1 year after initiating treatment with nebulized amphotericin B.
Takeaway
From the studies (one observational, two RCTs; n = 84) with exacerbation data at 1 or 2 years, the pooled proportion of patients who remained exacerbation free with nebulized amphotericin B at 1 year was 76% (I2 = 64.6%).
The pooled difference in risk with the two RCTs that assessed exacerbation-free status at 1 year was 0.33 and was not significantly different between the nebulized amphotericin B and control arms, which received nebulized saline.
Two RCTs provided the time to first exacerbation, which was significantly longer with nebulized amphotericin B than with nebulized saline (337 vs. 177 days; P = .004; I2 = 82%).
The proportion of patients who experienced two or more exacerbations was significantly lower with nebulized amphotericin B than with nebulized saline (9/33 [27.3%] vs 20/38 [52.6%]; P = .03).
In practice
Also, the proportion of subjects experiencing ≥ 2 exacerbations was also lesser with NAB than in the control,” concluded Valliappan Muthu, MD, and colleagues. However, “the ideal duration and optimal dose of LAMB for nebulization are unclear.”
Study details
“Nebulized amphotericin B for preventing exacerbations in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis” was published online in Pulmonary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
Limitations
The current review is limited by the small number of included trials and may have a high risk of bias. Therefore, more evidence is required for the use of nebulized amphotericin B in routine care. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.