4.7 Article

Comparative efficacies, toxicities, and tissue concentrations of amphotericin B lipid formulations in a murine pulmonary aspergillosis model

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 2122-2131

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00315-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Invasive aspergillosis, an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunosuppressed (IS) patients, is often treated with amphotericin B lipid formulations. In the present study, liposomal amphotericin B (L-AMB) and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) were compared in treatment of murine pulmonary aspergillosis. Uninfected, IS mice were treated for 4 days with 1, 4, 8, or 12 mg L-AMB or ABLC/kg of body weight, and their lungs were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography for drug concentrations. IS mice intranasally challenged with Aspergillus fumigatus were treated with 12, 15, or 20 mg/kg L-AMB or ABLC and monitored for survival, fungal burden (CFU), and tissue drug concentration. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels and kidney histopathology were determined for uninfected and infected mice given 15 or 20 mg/kg L-AMB or ABLC. The results showed that both drugs had therapeutic levels of drug (> 3.0 mu g/g) in the lungs of uninfected or infected mice, and 24 h after the last dose, ABLC levels were significantly higher than L-AMB levels (P < 0.02). L-AMB and ABLC at 12 mg/kg both produced 57% survival, but only L-AMB at 15 or 20 mg/kg further increased survival to 80 to 90%, with BUN levels and kidney morphology similar to those of controls. Survival at 15 or 20 mg/kg ABLC was not significantly different than that of controls, and BUN levels were significantly elevated, with tubular alterations in uninfected animals and acute necrosis in kidney tubules of infected animals. In conclusion, although both drugs were effective in prolonging survival at 12 mg/kg, the reduced nephrotoxicity of L-AMB increased its therapeutic index, allowing for its safe and effective use at 15 or 20 mg/kg.

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

4.7
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