| Literature DB >> 28155335 |
Min Liu1, Meiwan Chen2, Zhiwen Yang3.
Abstract
Amphotericin B (AmB) remains the "gold standard" for systemic antifungal therapy, even though new drugs are emerging as the attractive antifungal agents. Since AmB has negligible oral absorption as a consequence of its unfavorable physicochemical characterizations, its use is restricted to parenteral administration which is accompanied by severe side effects. As greater understanding of the gastrointestinal tract has developed, the advanced drug delivery systems are emerging with the potential to overcome the barriers of AmB oral delivery. Much research has demonstrated that oral AmB formulations such as lipid formulations may have beneficial therapeutic efficacy with reduced adverse effects and suitable for clinical application. Here we reviewed the different formulation strategies to enhance oral drug efficacy, and discussed the current trends and future perspectives for AmB oral administration in the treatment of antifungal infections.Entities:
Keywords: Amphotericin B; formulation design; oral administration
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28155335 PMCID: PMC8241147 DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2016.1225852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv ISSN: 1071-7544 Impact factor: 6.419
Figure 1.Structure of amphotericin B.
Figure 2.The oral absorption mechanisms of nanoparticles in intestinal tract.
In vivo release profiles of AmB from various oral formulation.
| Formulation | Excipient | Animal | Dose | AUC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanosuspensions | Deoxycholate sodium | – | – | – | – | – |
| Nanosuspensions | Tween 80/Pluronic F68 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Nanocrystals | Tween 80/poloxamer188 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Nanoparticles | PLGA | Rat | 10 mg/kg | 176.0 ± 25.8 | 24 | 7938.8 ± 1450.7AUC0–inf (ng h/mL) |
| Nanoparticles | GCPQ | Beagle | 4 mg/kg per 2 days | 250 | 4 | – |
| Nanoparticles | Hitosan | – | – | – | – | – |
| SLN | Emulsynt® GDL/ Epikuron™ 200 | Rat | 200 mg/kg | 124.93 ± 13.61 | 9 | 6063.311AUC0–∞ (ng h/mL) |
| Liposomes | Yolk phosphatidylcholine | – | – | – | – | – |
| Cubosomes | Phytantriol | Rat | 10 mg/kg | 316.7 ± 32.6 | 26.0 ± 4.9 | 17 002.2 ± 3400.3AUC0 − 120 (ng h/mL) |
| Cubosomes | Glyceryl monoolein | Rat | 10 mg/kg | 286.4 ± 35.1 | 25.1 ± 3.7 | 11 749.1 ± 2231.2AUC0 − 120 (ng h/mL) |
| Emulsion | Mono/diglyceridephospholipid | Rat | 50 mg/kg | 96 ± 15 | 12.5 ± 2.7 | 1534 ± 229AUC0–24 (ng h/mL) |
| Cochleate | Phosphatidylserine | Rat | 10 mg/kg × 15d | 51.1 ± 5.8 | – | – |
Figure 3.Freeze–fracture electron micrographs of oral AmB nanocochleates (Thornton & Wasan, 2009).
Figure 4.Atomic force microscopy images of oral AmB emulsion (Thornton & Wasan, 2009).