4.5 Article

Toxicity and efficacy differences between liposomal amphotericin B formulations in uninfected and Aspergillus fumigatus infected mice

期刊

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 107-118

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myu070

关键词

aspergillosis; intravenous toxicity; liposomal amphotericin B; nephrotoxicity; RBC toxicity

资金

  1. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because of the reduced toxicity associated with liposomal amphotericin B preparations, different amphotericin B liposome products have been made. In the present study, we compared the amphotericin B liposomal formulations, AmBisome (R) (AmBi) and Lambin (R) (Lbn), in uninfected and Aspergillus fumigatus infected mice, using several in vitro and in vivo toxicity and efficacy assays. The results showed that the formulations were significantly different, with Lbn 1.6-fold larger than AmBi. Lbn was also more toxic than AmBi based on the RBC potassium release assay and intravenous dosing in uninfected mice given a single 50 mg/kg dose (80% mortality for Lbn vs. 0% for AmBi). Renal tubular changes after intravenous daily dosing for 14 days were seen in uninfected mice given 5 mg/kg Lbn but not with AmBi. Survival following A. fumigatus challenge was 30% for 10 mg/kg Lbn and 60% for 10 mg/kg AmBi. When the BAL and lungs were collected 24 h after the second treatment, AmBi at 10 or 15 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg Lbn lowered the BAL fungal burden significantly vs. the controls (P <= 0.05), while there was no difference in lung fungal burden amongst the groups. In contrast, lung histopathology at this same early timepoint showed that AmBi was associated with markedly fewer fungal elements and less lung tissue damage than Lbn. In conclusion, given the differences in size, toxicity, and efficacy, AmBi and Lbn were not physically or functionally comparable, and these differences underscore the need for adequate testing when comparing amphotericin B liposome formulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据