Skip to main content
. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD003940. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003940.pub3

Chavanet 1992.

Methods A single‐centre trial with enrolment from June to December 1991.
Location of study: France
Loss to follow‐up: 
 Amp Glucose 4/11 (36%) 
 Amp Fat 0/11 (0%)
Analysis: no ITT
Participants Eligibility criteria: Patients who had oral candidiasis, 18 years and older, HIV positive
Exclusion criteria: Esophagitis, oral Kaposi, hyperlipidaemia, known intolerance to amphotericin, pancreatitis, serum creatinine > 115 umol/l.
Diagnosis confirmed using mycological analysis
22 patients enrolled 
 Amphot‐glucose :11 
 Amphot‐fat : 11
Interventions Amphotericin deoxycholate dissolved in either: 
 5% glucose (amphotericin glucose) ‐ final concentration 1.6 g amphotericin / l or 
 parenteral fat emulsion (amphotericin fat emulsion) ‐ final concentration 2 g amphotericin / l
Given as a 1 hour infusion of 1 mg/kg/day on four consecutive days.
Outcomes Clinical scores of candidiasis ‐ 9 sites were inspected for the presence or absence of candidiasis which were examined for confluent, patchy or scattered lesions scored as 3,2 and 1 respectively. Evaluated the reduction in clinical score.
Mycologic cure : culture from swab
Clinical and biological tolerance
Serum concentrations of amphotericin
Adverse events: more frequent with glucose preparation. Chills and fever were most frequent side effect ‐ 66% vs 4%. Sweating and Nausea slightly less frequent in Fat emulsion group.
Notes Ethics: Ethics approval obtained from local ethics committee, informed consent obtained from patients.
Enrolment: June ‐ December 1991.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? Low risk "..patients were assigned randomly to one of the two treatment groups. Group selection was determined by sequential assignment from a table of random numbers.."
Allocation concealment? High risk Sealed envelopes. Each envelope was opened immediately before the treatment was given.
Blinding? 
 All outcomes High risk No blinding was used.
Incomplete outcome data addressed? 
 All outcomes Low risk Reasons given for discontinuation of intervention