Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) reduces dissemination of infection as compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone) in a rat model of pulmonary aspergillosis

70Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The efficacy of AmBisome, a liposomal formulation of amphotericin B, was compared with that of Fungizone (amphotericin B desoxycholate), in a rat model of unilateral, pulmonary aspergillosis. Repeated administration of cyclophosphamide resulted in persistent, severe, granulocytopenia. The left lung was inoculated with a conidial suspension of Aspergillus fumigatus, thus establishing an unilateral infection. Antifungal treatment was started 40 h after fungal inoculation, at which time mycelial disease was confirmed by histological examination. Both Fungizone 1 mg/kg and AmBisome 10 mg/kg resulted in increased survival in terms of delayed as well as reduced mortality. Quantitative cultures of lung tissue showed that only AmBisome 10 mg/kg resulted in reduction of the number of fungal cfus in the inoculated left lung. Compared with Fungizone, both AmBisome 1 mg/kg/day and AmBisome 10 mg/kg/day significantly prevented dissemination from the infected left lung to the right lung. In addition, both AmBisome regimens reduced hepatosplenic dissemination, and the 10 m/kg dosage fury prevented this complication. In conclusion, when compared with Fungizone, in this model AmBisome is more effective in reducing dissemination of unilateral, pulmonary aspergillosis, even when given in relatively low dosage. Such low dosages may have a place in prophylactic settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Leenders, A. C. A. P., De Marie, S., Ten Kate, M. T., Bakker-Woudenberg, I. A. J. M., & Verbrugh, H. A. (1996). Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) reduces dissemination of infection as compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone) in a rat model of pulmonary aspergillosis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 38(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/38.2.215

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free