Related Experiment Videos
Overview of the lipid formulations of amphotericin B
1Group Hospitalier Necker Enfants Malades, 149 rue de Sèvres, Paris cedex 15, 75743, France. bertrand.dupont@nck.ap-hop-paris.fr
Abstract:
Invasive fungal infections have been increasingly recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the immunocompromised host. Amphotericin B has a broad spectrum and has remained the drug of choice for life-threatening invasive fungal infections. However, adverse events, particularly renal insufficiency, are limiting factors in achieving an effective dose: the prescription of amphotericin B is a compromise between toxicity and efficacy. Lipid formulations offer a better therapeutic index by circumscribing amphotericin B toxicity. Three lipid formulations are available in most countries: AmBisome, the only true liposome; Abelcet, with a ribbon-like structure; and Amphocil/Amphotec, composed of disc-like structures. All these formulations contain amphotericin B, but they differ in shape, size, reticuloendothelial clearance, C(max), AUC and visceral diffusion. The impact of these differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics on clinical efficacy is still unclear. Efficacy has been shown in neutropenic patients with fever of unknown origin, systemic candidosis, invasive aspergillosis, cryptococcal meningitis and a variety of other difficult-to-treat mycoses, such as Fusarium or Zygomycetes infections. The effective dose may vary from one formulation to the other and is c. 3-5 mg/kg/day. All formulations are less nephrotoxic than amphotericin B. In one randomized double-blind study, AmBisome 3 or 5 mg/kg/day was less nephrotoxic and gave fewer infusion-related events than Abelcet 5 mg/kg/day. Abelcet induces fewer infusion-related side effects than Amphocil. All formulations seem at least as effective as amphotericin B. In some patients with life-threatening mycosis who failed treatment with, or were intolerant to, amphotericin B, the lipid formulations were effective. Further studies with comparable selected high-risk patients are warranted to clarify the usefulness and the indications of each of the formulations. Cost is a factor limiting prescription in many institutions, where use is often restricted to patients intolerant of, or refractory to, amphotericin B.
Insights
Lipid formulations of amphotericin B reduce toxicity, offering a better option for invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients. These formulations demonstrate comparable efficacy to conventional amphotericin B with improved safety profiles.
Area of Science:
- Mycology
- Pharmacology
- Infectious Diseases
Background:
- Invasive fungal infections pose significant risks, especially for immunocompromised individuals.
- Amphotericin B is a broad-spectrum antifungal but limited by toxicity, particularly nephrotoxicity.
- Lipid formulations of amphotericin B aim to improve the therapeutic index by reducing toxicity.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and safety of different lipid formulations of amphotericin B.
- To evaluate the clinical utility of AmBisome, Abelcet, and Amphocil/Amphotec in treating invasive fungal infections.
Main Methods:
- Review of available literature on lipid formulations of amphotericin B.
- Comparison of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of AmBisome, Abelcet, and Amphocil/Amphotec.
- Analysis of clinical efficacy and safety data from studies, including randomized trials.
Main Results:
- All lipid formulations are less nephrotoxic than conventional amphotericin B.
- AmBisome showed potentially lower nephrotoxicity and fewer infusion-related events compared to Abelcet in one study.
- Abelcet demonstrated fewer infusion-related side effects than Amphocil.
- Lipid formulations appear at least as effective as conventional amphotericin B, with success in difficult-to-treat mycoses.
Conclusions:
- Lipid formulations of amphotericin B offer a favorable alternative to conventional amphotericin B due to reduced toxicity.
- Differences in formulation structure may influence pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes, though further research is needed.
- Cost remains a barrier to widespread use, often reserving these agents for patients intolerant to or refractory to conventional therapy.