1887

Abstract

We determined the 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; MIC, 1 µg ml; 97.2 % of MICs were ≤1 µg ml) and comparable to D-AmB (mean MIC, 0.48 µg ml; MIC, 1 µg ml; 97.3 % of MICs were ≤1 µg ml). The activity of D-AmB and L-AmB was correlated (  = 0.61; exp(), 2.3; 95 % CI, 2.19–2.44, <0.001). (mean MICs of D-AmB and L-AmB, 0.39 µg ml and 0.31 µg ml, respectively) and (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 (currently named ) (mean MICs of D-AmB and L-AmB, 1.27 µg ml and 1.13 µg ml, respectively) was the least susceptible. The excellent 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.

  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.075507-0
2014-12-01
2022-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/63/12/1638.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.075507-0&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adler-Moore J., Proffitt R. T. 2002; AmBisome: liposomal formulation, structure, mechanism of action and pre-clinical experience. J Antimicrob Chemother 49:Suppl. 121–30 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anaissie E., Paetznick V., Proffitt R., Adler-Moore J., Bodey G. P. 1991; Comparison of the in vitro antifungal activity of free and liposome-encapsulated amphotericin B. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 10:665–668 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carrillo-Muñoz A. J., Quindós G., Tur C., Ruesga M. T., Miranda Y., del Valle O., Cossum P. A., Wallace T. L. 1999; In-vitro antifungal activity of liposomal nystatin in comparison with nystatin, amphotericin B cholesteryl sulphate, liposomal amphotericin B, amphotericin B lipid complex, amphotericin B desoxycholate, fluconazole and itraconazole. J Antimicrob Chemother 44:397–401 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cifani C., Costantino S., Massi M., Berrino L. 2012; Commercially available lipid formulations of amphotericin B: are they bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent?. Acta Biomed 83:154–163[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CLSI 2008 Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved standard, 3rd edn. M27-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute;
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Diekema D. J., Messer S. A., Boyken L. B., Hollis R. J., Kroeger J., Tendolkar S., Pfaller M. A. 2009; In vitro activity of seven systemically active antifungal agents against a large global collection of rare Candida species as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods. J Clin Microbiol 47:3170–3177 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dupont B. 2002; Overview of the lipid formulations of amphotericin B. J Antimicrob Chemother 49:Suppl. 131–36 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Enoch D. A., Ludlam H. A., Brown N. M. 2006; Invasive fungal infections: a review of epidemiology and management options. J Med Microbiol 55:809–818 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. González G. M., Elizondo M., Ayala J. 2008; Trends in species distribution and susceptibility of bloodstream isolates of Candida collected in Monterrey, Mexico, to seven antifungal agents: results of a 3-year (2004 to 2007) surveillance study. J Clin Microbiol 46:2902–2905 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hull C. M., Bader O., Parker J. E., Weig M., Gross U., Warrilow A. G., Kelly D. E., Kelly S. L. 2012a; Two clinical isolates of Candida glabrata exhibiting reduced sensitivity to amphotericin B both harbor mutations in ERG2. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:6417–6421 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hull C. M., Parker J. E., Bader O., Weig M., Gross U., Warrilow A. G., Kelly D. E., Kelly S. L. 2012b; Facultative sterol uptake in an ergosterol-deficient clinical isolate of Candida glabrata harboring a missense mutation in ERG11 and exhibiting cross-resistance to azoles and amphotericin B. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:4223–4232 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jessup C., Reyes G., Fothergill A., McCarthy D., Rinaldi M., Messer S., Pfaller M., Ghannoum M. 2000; A head-on comparison of the in vitro antifungal activity of conventional and lipid-based amphotericin B: a multicenter study. J Chemother 12:22–29[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kanafani Z. A., Perfect J. R. 2008; Antimicrobial resistance: resistance to antifungal agents: mechanisms and clinical impact. Clin Infect Dis 46:120–128 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kiraz N., Oz Y. 2011; Species distribution and in vitro antifungal susceptibility of clinical Candida isolates from a university hospital in Turkey over a 5-year period. Med Mycol 49:126–131 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lacerda J. F., Oliveira C. M. 2013; Diagnosis and treatment of invasive fungal infections focus on liposomal amphotericin B. Clin Drug Investig 33:Suppl. 15–14 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lass-Flörl C., Mayr A., Perkhofer S., Hinterberger G., Hausdorfer J., Speth C., Fille M. 2008; Activities of antifungal agents against yeasts and filamentous fungi: assessment according to the methodology of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:3637–3641 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Maertens J., Marchetti O., Herbrecht R., Cornely O. A., Flückiger U., Frêre P., Gachot B., Heinz W. J., Lass-Flörl C.& other authors ( 2011; European guidelines for antifungal management in leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: summary of the ECIL 3--2009 update. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:709–718 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Miceli M. H., Chandrasekar P. 2012; Safety and efficacy of liposomal amphotericin B for the empirical therapy of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients. Infect Drug Resist 5:9–16[PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Moen M. D., Lyseng-Williamson K. A., Scott L. J. 2009; Liposomal amphotericin B: a review of its use as empirical therapy in febrile neutropenia and in the treatment of invasive fungal infections. Drugs 69:361–392 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Morrell M., Fraser V. J., Kollef M. H. 2005; Delaying the empiric treatment of candida bloodstream infection until positive blood culture results are obtained: a potential risk factor for hospital mortality. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:3640–3645 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pappas P. G., Rex J. H., Sobel J. D., Filler S. G., Dismukes W. E., Walsh T. J., Edwards J. E.Infectious Diseases Society of America 2004; Guidelines for treatment of candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 38:161–189 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pappas P. G., Kauffman C. A., Andes D., Benjamin D. K. Jr, Calandra T. F., Edwards J. E. Jr, Filler S. G., Fisher J. F., Kullberg B. J.& other authors ( 2009; Clinical practice guidelines for the management of candidiasis: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48:503–535 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pfaller M. A., Messer S. A., Hollis R. J., Jones R. N., Diekema D. J. 2002; In vitro activities of ravuconazole and voriconazole compared with those of four approved systemic antifungal agents against 6,970 clinical isolates of Candida spp.. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46:1723–1727 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ranque S., Lachaud L., Gari-Toussaint M., Michel-Nguyen A., Mallié M., Gaudart J., Bertout S. 2012; Interlaboratory reproducibility of Etest amphotericin B and caspofungin yeast susceptibility testing and comparison with the CLSI method. J Clin Microbiol 50:2305–2309 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Saliba F., Dupont B. 2008; Renal impairment and amphotericin B formulations in patients with invasive fungal infections. Med Mycol 46:97–112 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Schmalreck A. F., Lackner M., Becker K., Fegeler W., Czaika V., Ulmer H., Lass-Flörl C. 2014; Phylogenetic relationships matter: antifungal susceptibility among clinically relevant yeasts. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1575–1585 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) 2008; EUCAST definitive document EDef 7.1: method for the determination of broth dilution MICs of antifungal agents for fermentative yeasts. Clin Microbiol Infect 14:398–405 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Taur Y., Cohen N., Dubnow S., Paskovaty A., Seo S. K. 2010; Effect of antifungal therapy timing on mortality in cancer patients with candidemia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:184–190 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ullmann A. J., Akova M., Herbrecht R., Viscoli C., Arendrup M. C., Arikan-Akdagli S., Bassetti M., Bille J., Calandra T.& other authors ( 2012; ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: adults with haematological malignancies and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Clin Microbiol Infect 18:Suppl. 753–67 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Wade R. L., Chaudhari P., Natoli J. L., Taylor R. J., Nathanson B. H., Horn D. L. 2013; Nephrotoxicity and other adverse events among inpatients receiving liposomal amphotericin B or amphotericin B lipid complex. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 76:361–367 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.075507-0
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.075507-0
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error