4.5 Article

Amphotericin B: A drug of choice for Visceral Leishmaniasis

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 235, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2022.106661

关键词

Amphotericin B (AmB); Visceral leishmaniasis; liposomal formulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visceral leishmaniasis, caused by the leishmania parasite, is a vector-borne disease. In India, Amphotericin B is the first-line medication for treating this disease. Liposomal AmB is a more widely accepted option for treatment, but there is a need for more efficient, less toxic, and affordable drugs.
Visceral leishmaniasis or Kala-azar is a vector-borne disease caused by an intracellular parasite of the genus leishmania. In India, Amphotericin B (AmB) is a first-line medication for treating leishmaniasis. After a large-scale resistance to pentavalent antimony therapy developed in Bihar state, it was rediscovered as an effective treatment for Leishmania donovani infection. AmB which binds to the ergosterol of protozoan cells causes a change in membrane integrity resulting in ions leakage, and ultimately leading to cell death. The treatment effect of liposomal AmB can be seen more quickly than deoxycholate AmB because, it has some toxic effects, but liposomal AmB is significantly less toxic. Evidence from studies suggested that ABLC (Abelcet) and ABCD (Amphotec) are as effective as L-AmB but Liposomal form (Ambisome) is a more widely accepted treatment option than conventional ones. Nevertheless, the world needs some way more efficient antileishmanial drugs that are less toxic and less expensive for people living with parasitic infections caused by Leishmania. So, academics, researchers, and sponsors need to focus on finding such drugs. This review provides a summary of the chemical, pharmacokinetic, drug-target interactions, stability, dose efficacy, and many other characteristics of the AmB and their various formulations. We have also highlighted the clinically significant aspects of PKDL and VL coinfection with HIV/TB.

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