Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1998, p. 762-766, Vol. 42, No. 4
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Amphotericin B in Lipid Emulsion: Stability,
Compatibility, and In Vitro Antifungal Activity
Scott
Walker,1,2
Sandra A. N.
Tailor,1,2
Mark
Lee,2,3
Lisa
Louie,3,4
Marie
Louie,2,3,4 and
Andrew E.
Simor2,3,4,*
Departments of
Microbiology,3
SD Laboratory
Services,4 and
Pharmacy,1
Sunnybrook Health
Science Centre, University of Toronto,2 Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5
Received 23 September 1997/Returned for modification 27 October
1997/Accepted 27 January 1998
 |
ABSTRACT |
Newer formulations of amphotericin B (AmB) complexed with liposomes
or lipid suspensions have been developed. Preliminary studies have
suggested that AmB in Intralipid (IL) may be as effective as, but less
toxic than, conventional formulations of AmB, but few data are
available regarding its stability, compatibility, or in vitro
antifungal activity. A compatibility study was done to evaluate the
effects of AmB concentrations in IL containing either 10 or 20%
soybean oil. The effects of temperature, shaking, and AmB and IL
concentrations on the stability of AmB-IL suspensions were analyzed by
visual inspection and liquid chromatography. The in vitro antifungal
activity of AmB-IL, compared to that of AmB alone against reference
strains of Candida species was determined by using a broth
macrodilution method in accordance with National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards guidelines (M27-T). Samples of AmB-IL which were
lightly shaken retained more than 90% of the AmB concentration over 21 days when stored at either 4 or 23°C. Varying the AmB concentration
did not appear to affect the stability of AmB-IL. However, a
precipitate was formed when mixtures with more than 30% lipid as a
proportion of the total volume were centrifuged. AmB-IL and AmB alone
had similar in vitro antifungal activities against reference strains of
yeasts. Further pharmacologic and clinical studies with AmB-IL are
warranted, although AmB should not be combined with IL in
concentrations capable of producing a precipitate.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Amphotericin B (AmB) has been
available for more than 30 years and remains the agent of choice for
the treatment of many severe, life-threatening fungal infections.
However, use of this drug is often associated with adverse reactions,
which may be classified as either acute or delayed. Acute
(infusion-related) toxicity has been observed in up to 79% of patients
receiving AmB and may include fever, chills, headache, nausea,
vomiting, hypotension, bronchospasm, or allergic reactions (8, 15,
21, 25). Delayed toxicity also occurs commonly and may include
anemia, nephrotoxicity, hypokalemia, or hypomagnesemia (21).
Recent studies have suggested that AmB incorporated into liposomes or
mixed with Intralipid (IL) may have a decreased risk of both acute and
delayed toxicity (12, 14, 20, 22, 29, 35). Interest in
studying the efficacy and safety of liposomal AmB and of AmB-IL has
arisen because of the observation that these compounds may deliver AmB
to its target site in the fungal cell membrane more selectively
(12, 35). IL is an oil-water system that is based on
vegetable oils (10 to 20%, vol/vol) stabilized by phosphatides (1 to
2%, wt/vol) (5). Lipophilic substances can be solubilized
in the oil phase, and the lipid emulsion can also stabilize drugs which
are not stable in an aqueous environment (5). IL has been
used as a carrier for lipophilic drugs in an attempt to improve drug
stability and decrease the occurrence of adverse effects. In several
small trials using AmB-IL for the treatment of serious fungal
infections, a reduction in acute and delayed toxicity has been
reported; compared to AmB administered conventionally in 5% dextrose
in water (D5W) (1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 23, 28, 30).
Although AmB has been found to be stable in D5W for up to 5 days
(18), only limited data are available regarding the
stability and in vitro antifungal activity of AmB in IL. While a number of investigators have reported that AmB does not degrade while stored
in IL (19, 26), others have reported the presence of particles (27, 32), precipitation of AmB (9, 27,
32), and reduced delivery of the dose (7). Knowledge
of stability and compatibility and assurance that the mixture retains
antifungal activity are essential prior to administration of AmB-IL to
patients. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the
stability and compatibility of AmB-IL, as well as to compare the in
vitro antifungal activity of AmB-IL to that of AmB alone against
reference strains of Candida species.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Assay validation.
AmB (Fungizone; Bristol-Myers Squibb
Pharmaceutical Group, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) was intentionally
degraded to ensure that the high-pressure liquid chromatography assay
developed was capable of separating the drug from its degradation
products, according to stability indicating procedures (31,
33). AmB (100 mg) was dissolved in 50 ml of sterile water to make
a 2-mg/ml stock solution (pH 7.5). Ten-milliliter aliquots of the stock solution were placed in vials, and the pH was adjusted to 1.5, 7.5, or
12.5 by using 1 M hydrochloric acid or 1 M sodium hydroxide. Each
solution was incubated in a water bath at 81°C for 5 h. Samples of each solution were drawn for chromatographic analysis just prior to
incubation and at six other times during the period of incubation.
Chromatograms were inspected for the appearance of additional peaks
(degradation products of AmB), and the AmB peaks were compared between
samples for changes in concentration, shape, or retention time.
Chromatography.
The chromatographic conditions capable of
separating AmB from its degradation products utilized an isocratic
mobile phase consisting of 48% acetonitrile and 52% 0.05 M phosphoric
acid. The solvent was pumped through a reverse-phase C18
(4.6 by 100 mm) 3-µm analytical column (Partisil 5 ODS-3; Whatman
Inc., Fairfield, N.J.) at a flow rate of 1 ml/min. A guard column
(Aquapore RP-18 ODS; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.) was also
used. Under these conditions, AmB eluted at 2.9 min. AmB was detected
by using a variable-wavelength UV detector (model 759A; Applied
Biosystems) at 220 nm. Chromatograms were recorded on a system using
PC1000 software (Thermo Separation Products, Chicago, Ill.).
Sample preparation and assay validation.
IL (Pharmacia Inc.,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) is a liquid emulsion containing either
10 g (10%) or 20 g (20%) of purified soybean oil, 1.2 g of purified egg phospholipids, and 2.2 g of anhydrous glycerol
with sterile water. Tetrahydrofuran (1 ml) was added to 0.5-ml aliquots
of IL containing AmB concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 1.5 mg/ml.
This mixture was vortexed for 30 s. A sample of the
tetrahydrofuran layer was injected into the high-pressure liquid
chromatography column (Partisil 5 ODS-3; Whatman Inc.). Absolute
recovery of this extraction was evaluated against six AmB standards in
water compared to six AmB samples extracted from IL. The recovery was
also evaluated against blanks to ensure that additional peaks did not
interfere with AmB quantification.
The accuracy and reproducibility of standard curves were tested over 5 days. System suitability criteria (based on daily calculations of
theoretical plates, tailing, retention time, and accuracy) were also
established to ensure consistency between study days. Each sample was
chromatographed in duplicate. Inter- and intraday reproducibility was
assessed by using the coefficient of variation (CV) of the peak area
for samples determined in duplicate.
Compatibility of AmB with IL.
A compatibility study was done
to evaluate the effects of the soybean oil concentration and the AmB
concentration (32). AmB (50 mg) was reconstituted with 10 ml
of sterile water, resulting in a 5-mg/ml solution. Thirty-two mixtures
with various proportions of IL in combination with the reconstituted
AmB in D5W were prepared. All mixtures had a final AmB concentration of
either 0.6 or 1.2 mg/ml. A series of control samples without AmB were
also prepared. Following mixing, the samples were allowed to stand for
1 h and then centrifuged for 30 min. The clear lower aqueous phase
was visually inspected for the presence of a yellow precipitate of AmB
indicating incompatibility (32).
The compatibility of AmB-IL mixtures was also studied further in the
subset of samples in which no precipitate was observed
in at least one
AmB concentration left undisturbed for 1 h. Mixtures
containing 40 ml of IL or less per 100 ml of mixture were prepared
with a final AmB
concentration of either 0.6 or 1.2 mg/ml. These
mixtures were allowed
to stand for 24 h before being centrifuged
for 30 min. As noted
above, the clear lower aqueous phase was
visually inspected for the
presence of a precipitate indicating
incompatibility.
Stability of AmB in IL.
The stability of AmB in IL was
tested over 21 days. Sixteen different AmB-IL solutions previously
determined to be compatible were prepared for analysis to evaluate the
effects of the AmB concentration (1.0 and 0.1 mg/liter), the IL
concentration (10 and 20%), the temperature (4 and 23°C), and
shaking. A stock solution of AmB in sterile water (5 mg/ml) was
prepared. To prepare 1.0-mg/ml solutions of AmB, 36 ml of the AmB stock
solution was added to 90 ml of D5W and 54 ml of 10 or 20% IL. To
prepare 0.1-mg/ml solutions of AmB, 3.6 ml of the AmB stock solution
was added to 122.4 ml of D5W and 54 ml of 10 or 20% IL. After
recording the initial physical appearance, the 1.0- and 0.1-mg/ml
solutions were each divided into 12 aliquots. Half of the solutions
were stored at 4°C, and half were stored at 23°C. In addition, half
of the solutions were shaken prior to sampling and half were not
shaken. The solutions were stored for 21 days, and on each study day
(days 0, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, and 21) the solutions were physically
inspected and the pH and AmB concentration were determined by obtaining samples from the surface of the mixture. Also on each of these days,
fresh AmB-IL standards were chromatographed to construct a standard
curve. The peak areas were subjected to least squares linear
regression, and the actual AmB concentrations (from the average of two
replicates from each sample) were interpolated from these curves and
recorded. Concentrations were recorded to the nearest 0.001 mg/ml.
In vitro antifungal activity of AmB-IL.
Analytical-grade AmB
(Bristol-Myers Squibb) was prepared as a stock solution at a
concentration of 2,560 µg/ml in dimethyl sulfoxide (Sigma Chemical
Co., St. Louis, Mo.). RPMI 1640 medium (Sigma Chemical Co.) without
bicarbonate was prepared by following National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards guidelines (24). The medium was
buffered to pH 7.0 with 0.165 M morpholinepropanesulfonic acid (Sigma
Chemical Co.). Serial dilutions of AmB in RPMI 1640 medium with IL
containing 10 or 20% soybean oil or with no IL were made for
macrobroth dilution susceptibility testing (24).
Susceptibility testing was done by using reference strains
Candida albicans ATCC 90028,
C. krusei ATCC 6258, and
C. glabrata ATCC 90030. Two additional clinical isolates
of
C. albicans were
also tested. All isolates had been
stored frozen in 40% buffered
glycerol at

70°C. The organisms were
thawed, subcultured twice
onto Sabouraud dextrose agar (Prepared Media
Laboratories, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada), and incubated aerobically
for 24 h at 35°C prior
to testing. Inoculum suspensions in
0.85% saline were prepared
by using a 0.5 McFarland standard. These
suspensions were diluted
1:100 and then diluted 1:20 in RPMI 1640 medium to adjust the
inoculum to 0.5 × 10
3 to
2.5 × 10
3 CFU/ml. An inoculum of 0.9 ml of the
prepared yeast suspension
was added to 0.1 ml of each AmB-IL mixture.
The tubes were loosely
capped and incubated aerobically at 35°C for
48 h. The MIC was
determined to be the lowest concentration of
AmB-IL that did not
result in visible growth.
Statistical analysis.
Reproducibility was assessed by
calculating the CV. Mean results from the same test done on different
days were compared by least-squares linear regression to determine if
an association existed between the observed result and time. AmB
concentrations were considered to be within acceptable limits if the
concentration on any day of analysis was at least 90% of the initial
concentration. The components of a solution were judged to be
physically compatible if there was no visual change in the color of the
mixture and no precipitate or separation of phases or particulate
formation was observed.
 |
RESULTS |
Assay validation.
At 81°C, a 2-mg/ml solution of AmB at pH
7.5 appeared to degrade very slowly, retaining more than 91% of the
initial concentration in the 5-h study period. However, at pHs 1.5 and
12.5, the AmB solutions degraded to less than 10% of the initial
concentrations within 30 min (Fig. 1).
Degradation products did not interfere with AmB quantification. The
standard curves of AmB-IL were linear for AmB concentrations ranging
from 0.05 to 1.5 mg/ml (r > 0.98). The mean relative
error (CV) observed in the analysis of duplicate AmB-IL samples between
days ranged from 0.8 to 1.9%. The mean errors of duplicate analyses
done within a day ranged from 0.1 to 3.2%. The lower limit of
detection of AmB in IL was 0.05 mg/ml, as this was the lowest prepared
standard concentration. At this concentration, the mean relative error
was 1.8%.
Compatibility.
The results of testing for the compatibility of
AmB and IL are summarized in Table 1 and
were found to be dependent on the concentration of soybean oil in the
IL and the concentration of AmB or IL in the final mixture. A
precipitate was observed following centrifugation in most mixtures
prepared with IL with 20% soybean oil content and having a final AmB
concentration of 1.2 mg/ml. When the concentration of AmB in mixtures
prepared with IL containing 20% soybean oil was reduced to 0.6 mg/ml,
a precipitate was observed in all mixtures with more than 30 ml of
IL/100 ml of the total volume. With mixtures prepared with IL
containing 10% soybean oil and having a final AmB concentration of 1.2 mg/ml, a precipitate was observed in all mixtures containing more than
30 ml of IL/100 ml of the total volume; when the concentration of AmB
was 0.6 mg/ml, a precipitate occurred in mixtures with more than 40 ml of IL/100 ml of the total volume (Table 1).
Stability.
Within 24 h of preparation, AmB separated from
IL, forming a distinct lower yellow layer. The AmB could be readily
resuspended within the IL by shaking, and the concentration of AmB in
all samples which were shaken before sampling retained greater than 90% of the initial concentration for 21 days when stored at either 4 or 23°C (Fig. 2A and B). Conversely, in
samples which were stored at room temperature and not shaken, the AmB
concentration declined during the 21-day study period (Fig. 2A).

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Effects of temperature, shaking, and IL and AmB
concentrations on the stability of AmB suspended in IL. (A) Stability
of AmB at 0.1 and 1.0 mg/ml and 23°C. (B) Stability of AmB at 0.1 and
1.0 mg/ml and 4°C.
|
|
The pH of AmB-IL decreased slightly over 7 days of storage. The initial
pHs of all samples were between 7.8 and 8.0. Samples
stored at 23°C
had a pH decline of approximately 1.1 U between
days 1 and 2 and then
remained stable afterwards. The pHs of study
samples by day 7 ranged
from 6.7 to 6.9. In samples stored at
4°C, the pH decreased by no
more than 0.5 U (range, 0.1 to 0.5).
In vitro antifungal activity of AmB-IL.
The results of
susceptibility testing with various concentrations of AmB in IL are
summarized in Table 2. The results
indicate that the presence of IL did not reduce the in vitro activity
of AmB against the yeast strains tested. Repeat testing showed that these results were reproducible (data not shown).
 |
DISCUSSION |
AmB has previously been shown to be stable in D5W for at least 5 days (18). The results of this study indicate that AmB in IL
is stable for up to 21 days when stored at either room temperature or
4°C. Previous reports have also indicated that mixed AmB and IL are
physically compatible and stable for over 24 h at AmB
concentrations of up to 2 mg/ml (19, 26, 27). Although some
separation has been reported to occur within AmB-IL mixtures over
24 h, this has not been considered to be an indication of
incompatibility because gentle shaking produced a homogeneous mixture
containing the expected concentrations of AmB. However, precipitation
of AmB in AmB-IL mixtures has also been reported to occur (7, 9,
27, 32, 34). The observation by Trissel (32) that the
precipitate consists of particles greater than 10 µm in size suggests
that even without centrifugation, certain AmB-IL mixtures might be
unsafe for human administration. It has also been suggested that the
formation of these aggregates might result in decreased antifungal
activity (16). Therefore, we evaluated the
concentration-dependent compatibility of AmB-IL mixtures subjected to
centrifugation. The design of the current stability study was based on
the results of the compatibility evaluation, which demonstrated the
physical compatibility of AmB mixtures containing less than 30 ml of
IL/100 ml of the total volume. By increasing the volume of D5W and
thereby decreasing the percentage of lipid in the total volume to less than 30%, the formation of a precipitate after centrifugation could be
avoided (Table 1). Only under these conditions would infusion of AmB-IL
be considered safe. However, our analysis did not include a
determination of particle size. Verification of particle size in these
mixtures should be done before a definitive recommendation regarding
product safety can be made.
Mixing AmB in IL did not appear to adversely affect the in vitro
activity of AmB against the small number of Candida strains evaluated in this study. In fact, our results were similar to those of
Chavanet et al. (3), in that there was a slight reduction in
the MICs when AmB was suspended in IL rather than D5W. These results
need to be validated by evaluating a larger sample of yeasts.
AmB-IL formulations were similar in in vivo activity but less toxic
than conventional AmB in a murine model of candidiasis (17)
and cryptococcosis (13). Preliminary clinical studies (1, 2, 4, 23, 28, 30) with AmB-IL and a small number of
patients (reviewed by Sievers et al. [29]) have also
indicated equivalent efficacy but reduced toxicity compared to standard administration of AmB for the treatment of a variety of systemic fungal
infections. Reduced toxicity was often observed despite the use of
higher doses of AmB in IL (2, 3, 11, 23). It has been
suggested that the observed reduced toxicity may be due to reduced
delivery of AmB from AmB-IL mixtures (7). Chavanet et al.
(4) and Heinemann et al. (10) monitored AmB
concentrations in serum after administration of AmB in lipid emulsions
and found lower peak concentrations in serum and more rapid clearance
of AmB-IL than AmB alone. While these observations (4, 10)
are consistent with reduced delivery of AmB, they are similar to
findings reported with some liposomal AmB formulations without
precipitate formation or reduced delivery of the drug (6).
There is a need for clinical trials with larger numbers of patients
with a variety of fungal infections to better document the efficacy and
safety of AmB-IL. However, based on the results of this study and that by Trissel (32), AmB should not be combined with IL in
concentrations or proportions (as identified in Table 1) capable of
producing a precipitate.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Microbiology, Room B121, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, North York, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. Phone: (416) 480-4549. Fax: (416) 480-6845. E-mail:
andrew.simor{at}sunnybrook.on.ca.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Caillot, D.,
P. Chavanet,
O. Casasnovas,
E. Solary,
G. Zanetta,
M. Buisson,
O. Wagner,
B. Cuisenier,
A. Bonnin,
P. Camerlynk,
H. Portier, and H. Guy.
1992.
Clinical evaluation of a new lipid-based delivery system for intravenous administration of amphotericin B.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
11:722-725[Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Caillot, D.,
G. Reny,
E. Solary,
O. Casasnovas,
P. Chavanet,
B. Bonnotte,
L. Perello,
M. Dumas,
F. Entezam, and H. Guy.
1994.
A controlled trial of the tolerance of amphotericin B infused in dextrose or in Intralipid in patients with haematological malignancies.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
33:603-613[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Chavanet, P.,
N. Charlier,
A. Brenet,
A. Goux,
E. Muggéo,
D. Caillot,
O. Casasnovas,
J. P. Kistermann,
A. Waldner, and H. Portier.
1992.
Émulsion de l'amphotéricine B dans l'Intralipide 20%: efficacité in vitro et in vivo.
Pathol. Biol.
40:507-512[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Chavanet, P.,
I. Garry,
N. Charlier,
D. Caillot,
J. P. Kistermann,
M. D'Athis, and H. Portier.
1992.
Trial of glucose versus fat emulsion in preparation of amphotericin B for use in HIV infected patients with candidiasis.
Br. Med. J.
305:921-925.
|
| 5.
|
Davis, S. S.,
C. Washington,
P. West,
L. Illum,
G. Liversidge,
L. Sternson, and R. Kirsh.
1987.
Lipid emulsions as drug delivery systems.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
507:75-88[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
de Marie, S.,
R. Janknegt, and I. A. J. M. Bakker-Woudenberg.
1994.
Clinical use of liposomal and lipid-complexed amphotericin B.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
33:907-916[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
Ericsson, O.,
A. Hallmen, and I. Wikstrom.
1996.
Amphotericin B is incompatible with lipid emulsions.
Ann. Pharmacother.
30:298[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Gross, M. H.,
W. W. Pickard, and J. R. Perfect.
1987.
Retrospective review of amphotericin B use in a tertiary-care medical center.
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
44:1353-1357[Abstract].
|
| 9.
|
Heide, P. E.
1997.
Precipitation of amphotericin B from iv fat emulsion.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
54:1449[Medline].
|
| 10.
|
Heinemann, V.,
B. Kähny,
U. Jehn,
D. Mühlbayer,
A. Debus,
K. Wachholz,
D. Bosse,
H.-J. Kolb, and W. Wilmanns.
1997.
Serum pharmacology of amphotericin B applied in lipid emulsions.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
41:723-732.
|
| 11.
|
Herbrecht, R., and V. Letscher.
1997.
Safety and efficacy of Intralipid emulsions of amphotericin B.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
40:137-139[Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Janknegt, R.,
S. de Marie,
I. A. J. M. Bakker-Woudenberg, and D. J.-A. Crommelin.
1992.
Liposomal and lipid formulations of amphotericin B.
Clin. Pharmacokinet.
23:279-291[Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Joly, V.,
R. Farinotti,
L. Saint-Julien,
M. Chéron,
C. Carbon, and P. Yeni.
1994.
In vitro renal toxicity and in vivo therapeutic efficacy in experimental murine cryptococcosis of amphotericin B (Fungizone) associated with Intralipid.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
38:1771-1783.
|
| 14.
|
Kan, V. L.,
J. E. Bennett,
M. A. Amantea,
M. C. Smolskis,
E. McManus,
D. M. Grasela, and J. W. Sherman.
1991.
Comparative safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B lipid complex and amphotericin B desoxycholate in healthy male volunteers.
J. Infect. Dis.
164:418-421[Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Khoo, S. H.,
J. Bond, and D. W. Denning.
1994.
Administering amphotericin B a practical approach.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
33:203-213[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 16.
|
Kintzel, P. E.
1996.
Amphotericin B in fat emulsion.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
53:2701.
|
| 17.
|
Kirsh, R.,
R. Goldstein,
J. Tarloff,
D. Paris,
J. Hook,
N. Hanna,
P. Bugelski, and G. Poste.
1988.
An emulsion formulation of amphotericin B improves the therapeutic index when treating systemic murine candidiasis.
J. Infect. Dis.
158:1065-1070[Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Lee, M. D.,
M. M. Hess,
B. A. Boucher, and A. M. Apple.
1994.
Stability of amphotericin B in 5% dextrose injection stored at 4° or 25°C for 120 hours.
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
51:394-396[Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Lopez, R. M.,
A. Ayestaran,
L. Pou,
J. B. Montoro,
M. Hernandez, and I. Caragol.
1996.
Stability of amphotericin B in an extemporaneously prepared i.v. fat emulsion.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
53:2724-2727.
|
| 20.
|
Lopez-Berestein, G.,
V. Fainstein,
R. Hopfer,
K. Mehta,
M. P. Sullivan,
M. Keating,
M. G. Rosenblum,
R. Mehta,
M. Luna,
E. M. Hersh,
J. Reuben,
R. L. Juliano, and G. P. Bodey.
1985.
Liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of systemic fungal infections in patients with cancer: a preliminary study.
J. Infect. Dis.
151:704-710[Medline].
|
| 21.
|
Maddux, M. S., and S. L. Barriere.
1980.
A review of complications of amphotericin B therapy: recommendations for prevention and management.
Drug Intell. Clin. Pharm.
14:177-181.
|
| 22.
|
Meunier, F.
1989.
New methods for delivery of antifungal agents.
Rev. Infect. Dis.
11:S1605-S1612.
|
| 23.
|
Moreau, P.,
N. Milpied,
N. Fayette,
J. F. Ramee, and J. L. Harousseau.
1992.
Reduced renal toxicity and improved clinical tolerance of amphotericin B mixed with Intralipid compared with conventional amphotericin B in neutropenic patients.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
30:535-541[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards.
1997.
Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard M27-A.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.
|
| 25.
|
Oldfield, E. C., III,
P. D. Garst,
C. Hostettler,
M. White, and D. Samuelson.
1990.
Randomized, double-blind trial of 1- versus 4-hour amphotericin B infusion durations.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
34:1402-1406[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
Owens, D.,
R. A. Fleming,
M. S. Restino,
J. M. Cruz, and D. D. Hurd.
1997.
Stability of amphotericin B 0.05 and 0.5 mg/ml in 20% fat emulsion.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
54:683-686[Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
Ranchere, J. Y.,
J. F. Latour,
C. Furhmann,
C. Lagallarde, and F. Loreuil.
1996.
Amphotericin B intralipid formulation: stability and particle size.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
37:1165-1169[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Salama, S., and C. Rotstein.
1997.
Reduction in the nephrotoxicity of amphotericin B when administered in 20% intralipid.
Can. J. Infect. Dis.
8:157-160.
|
| 29.
|
Sievers, T. M.,
B. M. Kubak, and A. Wong-Beringer.
1996.
Safety and efficacy of Intralipid emulsions of amphotericin B.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
38:333-347[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 30.
|
Sorkine, P.,
H. Nagar,
A. Weinbroum,
A. Setton,
E. Israitel,
A. Scarlatt,
A. Silbiger,
V. Rudick,
Y. Kluger, and P. Halpern.
1996.
Administration of amphotericin B in lipid emulsion decreases nephrotoxicity: results of a prospective randomized, controlled study in critically ill patients.
Crit. Care Med.
24:1311-1315[Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Trissel, L. A.
1983.
Avoiding common flaws in stability and compatibility studies of injectable drugs.
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
40:1159-1160[Medline].
|
| 32.
|
Trissel, L. A.
1995.
Amphotericin B does not mix with fat emulsion.
Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm.
52:1463-1464. (Letter.)
|
| 33.
|
Trissel, L. A., and K. P. Flora.
1988.
Stability studies: five years later.
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
45:1569-1571[Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Washington, C.,
M. Lance, and S. S. Davis.
1993.
Toxicity of amphotericin B emulsion formulations.
J. Antimicrob. Chemother.
31:806-808[Free Full Text].
|
| 35.
|
Wiebe, V. J., and M. W. DeGregario.
1988.
Liposome-encapsulated amphotericin B: a promising new treatment for disseminated fungal infections.
Rev. Infect. Dis.
10:1097-1101[Medline].
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1998, p. 762-766, Vol. 42, No. 4
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Thomas, P. A.
(2003). Current Perspectives on Ophthalmic Mycoses. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
16: 730-797
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Onda, M., Inoue, Y., Kawabata, M., Mita, T.
(2003). Susceptibilities of Phospholipid Vesicles Containing Different Sterols to Amphotericin B-Loaded Lysophosphatidylcholine Micelles. J Biochem
134: 121-128
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Mozzi, G., Benelli, P., Bruzzese, T., Galmozzi, M. R., Bonabello, A.
(2002). The use of lipid emulsions for the iv administration of a new water soluble polyene antibiotic, SPK-843. J Antimicrob Chemother
49: 321-325
[Abstract]
[Full Text]