Commercially available lipid formulations of amphotericin b: are they bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent?

School of Pharmacy, Pharmacology Unit, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis 08/2012; 83(2):154-63.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Amphotericin B is a polyene macrolide derived from Streptomyces nodosus. Introduced into therapy in 1957, for decades amphotericin B has been the "gold standard" for fighting systemic fungal infections. In order to facilitate its systemic use, much attention has been paid to the development of pharmaceutical forms that could reduce its toxicity, especially for the kidney. Because of its low solubility in water and excellent solubility in lipids, amphotericin B is an ideal candidate for lipid-based formulations. Three different lipid formulations for intravenous infusion are currently commercially available: liposomal amphotericin (AmBisome), Amphotericin lipid complex (Abelcet) and Amphotericin colloidal dispersion (Amphocil). The three lipid formulations of amphotericin B show significantly different structural, physical, chemical, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and toxicological characteristics. Several lines of evidence indicate that the three formulations of amphotericin B are not therapeutically equivalent. First, they are not bioequivalent. Second, even though a complete picture of controlled clinical research designed to compare effectiveness and safety of the three lipid formulations is not available, all the clinical studies analyzed report clear differences in toxicity between the three formulations. AmBisome appears to be clearly less toxic than the other two formulations, in terms of nephrotoxicity and of incidence of infusion-related adverse events. Third, the therapeutic non-equivalence of the three lipid formulations of amphotericin B is further supported by statements of Conferences and Scientific Societies that in their recommendations have awarded different grading to the three lipid formulations. (

Download full-text


Available from: Carlo Cifani, Apr 04, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over 3,000 yearly cases of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) are reported in Brazil. Brazilian Public Health System provides universal free access to antileishmania therapeutic options: Meglumine Antimoniate, Amphotericin B deoxycholate, and Liposomal Amphotericin B. Even though Amphotericin formulations have been advised for severe disease, this recommendation is mostly based on the opinion of experts and on analogy with studies conducted in other countries. Presently, there are two ongoing multicenter clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the available therapeutic options. Some other issues require further clarification, such as severity markers and the approach to VL/AIDS coinfection. Brazil is facing the challenge of providing access to diagnosis and adequate treatment, in order to avoid VL-related deaths.
    Journal of Tropical Medicine 12/2013; 2013:319234. DOI:10.1155/2013/319234
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We determined the in vitro antifungal activity of liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) against 604 clinical yeast isolates. Amphotericin B deoxycholate (D-AmB) was tested in parallel against all the isolates. Susceptibility testing was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M27-A3 method. Overall, L-AmB was highly active against the isolates (mean MIC = 0.42 μg/ml; MIC90= 1μg/ml; 97.2% of MICs were ≤ 1μg/ml) and comparable to D-AmB (mean MIC = 0.48μg/ml; MIC90= 1μg/ml; 97.3% of MICs were ≤ 1μg/ml). The in vitro activity of D-AmB and L-AmB was correlated (R2 = 0.61; exp (Coef.) = 2.3; 95% IC= 2.19-2.44, p<0.001). Candida albicans (mean MICs of D-AmB and L-AmB, 0.39 μg/ml and 0.31 μg/ml, respectively) and Candida parapsilosis (mean MICs of D-AmB and L-AmB, 0.38 μg/ml and 0.35 μg/ml, respectively) were the species most susceptible to the agents tested, while Candida krusei (currently named Issatchenkia orientalis) (mean MICs of D-AmB and L-AmB, 1.27 μg/ml and 1.13 μg/ml, respectively) was the least susceptible. The excellent in vitro activity of L-AmB may have important implications for empirical treatment approaches and support its role in treatment of a wide range of invasive infections due to yeasts.
    Journal of Medical Microbiology 09/2014; 63(Pt 12). DOI:10.1099/jmm.0.075507-0 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the present study, we developed a self-assembled biodegradable polyglutamic acid (PGA)-based formulation of amphotericin B (AmB) and evaluated its in vitro antifungal potential against Candida albicans. The AmB-loaded PGA nanoparticles were prepared in-house and had a mean size dimension of around 98±2 nm with a zeta potential of -35.2±7.3 mV. Spectroscopic studies revealed that the drug predominantly acquires an aggregated form inside the formulation with an aggregation ratio above 2. The PGA-based AmB formulation was shown to be highly stable in phosphate-buffered saline as well as in serum (only 10%-20% of the drug was released after 10 days). The AmB-PGA nanoparticles were less toxic to red blood cells (<15% lysis at an AmB concentration of 100 μg/mL after 24 hours) when compared with Fungizone(®), a commercial antifungal product. An MTT assay showed that the viability of mammalian cells (KB and RAW 264.7) was negligibly affected at AmB concentrations as high as 200 μg/mL. Histopathological examination of mouse kidney revealed no signs of tissue necrosis. The AmB-PGA formulation showed potent antimicrobial activity similar to that of Fungizone against C. albicans. Interestingly, AmB-bearing PGA nanoparticles were found to inhibit biofilm formation to a considerable extent. In summary, AmB-PGA nanoparticles showed highly attenuated toxicity when compared with Fungizone, while retaining equivalent active antifungal properties. This study indicates that the AmB-PGA preparation could be a promising treatment for various fungal infections.
    International Journal of Nanomedicine 03/2015; 10:1769-90. DOI:10.2147/IJN.S63155 · 4.20 Impact Factor