Wong-Beringer A, Jacobs R A, Guglielmo B J
College of Pharmacy, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, USA.
Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Sep;27(3):603-18. doi: 10.1086/514704.
Commercially available lipid formulations of amphotericin B (Abelcet, Amphotec, and AmBisome) represent a significant advance in drug delivery technology. Differences in biochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties among the lipid products have been shown in in vitro and in vivo models. Clinical experience with these products has been primarily in patients either refractory to or intolerant of conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd). None of the lipid-based products demonstrates superior efficacy when prospectively compared with AmBd in the treatment of documented infections. When used for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia, AmBisome significantly reduced the incidence of proven emergent fungal infections but did not improve short-term survival rates, in comparison with AmBd. Acute infusion-related adverse events vary, whereas nephrotoxicity is reduced with all three lipid formulations. Until superior efficacy is clearly shown (for documented infections) or pharmacoeconomic analyses document the value of these drugs, use of such expensive agents should be highly restricted to those who are intolerant of or refractory to AmBd.
两性霉素B的市售脂质制剂(阿贝西普、安浮特克和安必素)代表了药物递送技术的重大进步。脂质产品在生化、药代动力学和药效学特性方面的差异已在体外和体内模型中得到证实。这些产品的临床经验主要来自对传统两性霉素B脱氧胆酸盐(AmBd)难治或不耐受的患者。在治疗已确诊的感染时,与AmBd进行前瞻性比较,没有一种脂质制剂显示出更高的疗效。与AmBd相比,当用于发热性中性粒细胞减少症的经验性治疗时,安必素显著降低了确诊的新发真菌感染的发生率,但并未提高短期生存率。急性输注相关不良事件各不相同,而所有三种脂质制剂的肾毒性均有所降低。在未明确显示出更高疗效(针对已确诊的感染)或药物经济学分析证明这些药物的价值之前,此类昂贵药物的使用应严格限于那些对AmBd不耐受或难治的患者。