Analisi Costo-Efficacia di Amfotericina B Liposomiale (L-AmB) versus Amfotericina B Complesso Lipidico (ABLC) nel trattamento empirico della neutropenia febbrile

Mario Eandi



Current international guidelines for the management of immuno-compromised patients with febrile neutropenia recommend a systemic antimicrobial therapy if fever hasn’t receded after three days of antibiotic treatment. Amphotericin B remains the gold standard because of its broad spectrum fungicidal action and minimal resistance development risk. Nonetheless, therapeutic use of the standard formulation, Amphotericin B deoxycholate, is limited by its toxicity, especially on the kidneys. To counteract this, amphotericin B has been encapsulated in liposomes, a process which reduces its toxicity and allows higher doses to be given. Three lipid formulations have been developed and are now available in most countries: amB colloidal dispersion (ABCD), amB lipid complex (ABLC), and liposomal amB (L-AmB). These lipid formulations differ in pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, and can’t therefore be considered interchangeable. Besides, they are more expensive than Amphotericin B deoxycholate. Aim of the study is to perform a cost/effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing L-AmB (3mg/kg/die or 5mg/kg/ die) and ABLC (5mg/kg/die) as first-line antimicrobial empirical treatments in immuno-compromised patients with febrile neutropenia resistant to broad spectrum antibiotics. Secondly, we present a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) of the considered alternatives, assuming the same efficacy for all treatments. At the end we value the principal cost items from the point of view of the Italian Health Service, with a particular focus on the economic burden caused by adverse reactions.


Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB); AmB lipid complex (ABLC); Cost/effectiveness analys; Antimicrobial therapy; Febrile neutropenia

Full Text:



  • There are currently no refbacks.

© SEEd srl