Invasive fungal infections, an important cause of mortality, are primarily treated using amphotericin B, which is available in different formulations, both conventional and lipid-based (liposomal, lipid complex, colloidal dispersion and Intralipid infusion). The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy and safety of conventional amphotericin B vs its lipid-based formulations. A systematic review followed by pairwise meta-analysis was performed, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of lipid-based amphotericin B in patients with any degree of immunosuppression and susceptibility to invasive fungal infection. An electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Scielo databases. Extracted outcomes were related to efficacy (cure) and safety (incidence of adverse events). Results were evaluated and meta-analyses were performed. Twenty-three RCTs were identified (n=2677 participants) for meta-analysis. No significant differences between conventional amphotericin B and any of the five formulations evaluated were observed, with regard to the efficacy analysis. With respect to the adverse events of nephrotoxicity, fever, chills and vomiting, all lipid formulations presented better profiles than the conventional formulation. The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed that conventional amphotericin B presents the same efficacy profile as lipid-based formulations, although the latter were associated with a safer profile.

The aim of this study is to gather evidence of head-to-head double-blind randomized-controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of available treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. A systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers in ten electronic databases (PROSPERO register CRD42016043239). Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated according to the Jadad scale. Network meta-analyses were performed including double-blinded head-to-head trials comparing active allopathic drugs in patients (0-18 years old) diagnosed with ADHD. The results of efficacy and safety of atomoxetine (ATX), bupropion, buspirone (BSP), dexamphetamine, edivoxetine (EDX), guanfacine (GXR), lisdexamfetamine (LDX), methylphenidate (MPH), mixed amphetamine salts, modafinil, pindolol (PDL), reboxetine (RBX), selegiline, and venlafaxine were analyzed using ADDIS software v.1.16.5. Forty-eight trials were identified (n = 4169 participants), of which 12 were used for efficacy analysis and 33 for safety analysis. On the CGI-I scale, the analysis revealed that MPH was more effective than ATX and GXR. For the safety outcomes, according to drug ranks, LDX was more likely to cause sleep disorders (39%) as well as loss of appetite (65%) and behavior problems such as irritability (60%). BSP (71%) and EDX (44%) caused less appetite decrease. For behavioral effects, PDL was considered safest (50%). For any adverse events, RBX (89%) was the safest alternative. The lack of head-to-head trials properly reporting outcomes of interest limited some comparisons. Network meta-analysis offered a broader overview on the available treatments for ADHD, especially for safety issues, and contributes towards evidence gathering and clinical practice decisions. A core outcome set for ADHD should be designed to guide the conduction and report of clinical trials.

No abstract