Skip to main content
PMC home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1996 Mar;40(3):609–612. doi: 10.1128/aac.40.3.609

Pharmacokinetics of conventional formulation versus fat emulsion formulation of amphotericin B in a group of patients with neutropenia.

A Ayestarán 1, R M López 1, J B Montoro 1, A Estíbalez 1, L Pou 1, A Julià 1, A López 1, B Pascual 1
PMCID: PMC163166  PMID: 8851579

Abstract

The pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B administered in a conventional 5% dextrose (glucose) (5% D) solution and in a 20% fat emulsion formulation (Intralipid; 20% IL) were compared in 16 patients (mean age, 42 years [range, 18 to 70 years]) who had been hospitalized for hematological malignancies and with proven or suspected fungal infections. All of the patients received 50 mg (approximately 1 mg/kg of body weight per day) of amphotericin B daily in random order, either as a 50-ml lipid emulsion (20% IL) (group I) or in 500 ml of 5% D (group II). Five serum samples were taken during the 24 h after drug administration, and the levels of amphotericin B were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Serum amphotericin B concentrations declined rapidly during the first 6 h, and subsequent measurements revealed a slow terminal elimination phase in both groups. The maximum serum amphotericin B concentration was significantly lower when the drug was administered in 20% IL (1.46 +/- 0.61 versus 2.83 +/- 1.17 micrograms/ml; P = 0.02). The area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h was also much lower in group I (17.22 +/- 11.15 versus 28.98 +/- 15.46 micrograms.h/ml). The half-life of the distribution phase was approximately three times longer in group I (2.92 +/- 2.34 h versus 0.64 +/- 0.24 h; P = 0.011). Conversely, the half-lives of the elimination phase were approximately equal in the two groups (11.44 +/- 5.18 versus 15.23 +/- 5.25 h). The mean residence times were also similar in both groups (19.41 +/- 11.13 versus 19.65 +/- 7.86 h). The clearance and the steady-state volume of distribution of amphotericin B in group I were about twice as great as those in group II (62.97 +/- 35.51 versus 33.01 +/- 14.33 ml/kg/h and 1,043.92 +/- 512.10 versus 562.32 +/- 152.05 ml/kg [P = 0.034], respectively). Finally, the volume of distribution in the central compartment was greater in group I than in group II (618.17 +/- 231.80 versus 328.19 +/- 151.71 ml/kg; P = 0.013), but there were no differences in the volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (425.75 +/- 352.87 versus 234.14 +/- 75.92 ml/kg). These results suggest that amphotericin B has a different pharmacokinetic profile when it is administered in 20% IL than when it is administered in the standard 5% D form and that the main difference is due to a clear-cut difference in the steady-state volume of distribution, especially that in the central compartment.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (178.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brajtburg J., Powderly W. G., Kobayashi G. S., Medoff G. Amphotericin B: delivery systems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Mar;34(3):381–384. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.3.381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Caillot D., Casasnovas O., Solary E., Chavanet P., Bonnotte B., Reny G., Entezam F., Lopez J., Bonnin A., Guy H. Efficacy and tolerance of an amphotericin B lipid (Intralipid) emulsion in the treatment of candidaemia in neutropenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1993 Jan;31(1):161–169. doi: 10.1093/jac/31.1.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chavanet P. Y., Garry I., Charlier N., Caillot D., Kisterman J. P., D'Athis M., Portier H. Trial of glucose versus fat emulsion in preparation of amphotericin for use in HIV infected patients with candidiasis. BMJ. 1992 Oct 17;305(6859):921–925. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6859.921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chavanet P., Charlier N., Brenet A., Goux A., Muggéo E., Caillot D., Casasnovas O., Kistermann J. P., Waldner A., Portier H. Emulsion de l'amphotéricine B dans l'Intralipide 20%: efficacité in vitro et in vivo. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1992 May;40(5):507–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gallis H. A., Drew R. H., Pickard W. W. Amphotericin B: 30 years of clinical experience. Rev Infect Dis. 1990 Mar-Apr;12(2):308–329. doi: 10.1093/clinids/12.2.308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gates C., Pinney R. J. Amphotericin B and its delivery by liposomal and lipid formulations. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1993 Jun;18(3):147–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.1993.tb00605.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Granich G. G., Kobayashi G. S., Krogstad D. J. Sensitive high-pressure liquid chromatographic assay for amphotericin B which incorporates an internal standard. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 Apr;29(4):584–588. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.4.584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Heinemann V., Kähny B., Debus A., Wachholz K., Jehn U. Pharmacokinetics of liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) versus other lipid-based formulations. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1994;14 (Suppl 5):S8–S9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Janknegt R., de Marie S., Bakker-Woudenberg I. A., Crommelin D. J. Liposomal and lipid formulations of amphotericin B. Clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1992 Oct;23(4):279–291. doi: 10.2165/00003088-199223040-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Janoff A. S., Boni L. T., Popescu M. C., Minchey S. R., Cullis P. R., Madden T. D., Taraschi T., Gruner S. M., Shyamsunder E., Tate M. W. Unusual lipid structures selectively reduce the toxicity of amphotericin B. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Aug;85(16):6122–6126. doi: 10.1073/pnas.85.16.6122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kan V. L., Bennett J. E., Amantea M. A., Smolskis M. C., McManus E., Grasela D. M., Sherman J. W. Comparative safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B lipid complex and amphotericin B desoxycholate in healthy male volunteers. J Infect Dis. 1991 Aug;164(2):418–421. doi: 10.1093/infdis/164.2.418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kirsh R., Goldstein R., Tarloff J., Parris D., Hook J., Hanna N., Bugelski P., Poste G. An emulsion formulation of amphotericin B improves the therapeutic index when treating systemic murine candidiasis. J Infect Dis. 1988 Nov;158(5):1065–1070. doi: 10.1093/infdis/158.5.1065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Moreau P., Milpied N., Fayette N., Ramée J. F., Harousseau J. L. Reduced renal toxicity and improved clinical tolerance of amphotericin B mixed with intralipid compared with conventional amphotericin B in neutropenic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992 Oct;30(4):535–541. doi: 10.1093/jac/30.4.535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sanders S. W., Buchi K. N., Goddard M. S., Lang J. K., Tolman K. G. Single-dose pharmacokinetics and tolerance of a cholesteryl sulfate complex of amphotericin B administered to healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Jun;35(6):1029–1034. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.6.1029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. van Etten E. W., van de Rhee N. E., van Kampen K. M., Bakker-Woudenberg I. A. Effects of amphotericin B and fluconazole on the extracellular and intracellular growth of Candida albicans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1991 Nov;35(11):2275–2281. doi: 10.1128/aac.35.11.2275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES