115
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Rapid Communication

Differences in tissue drug concentrations following intravenous versus intraperitoneal treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate or liposomal amphotericin B

, , &
Pages 430-435 | Received 16 May 2009, Accepted 26 Jul 2009, Published online: 08 Feb 2010
 

Abstract

Amphotericin B formulations were compared in preclinical models by using intraperitoneal (ip) and intravenous (iv) delivery of amphotericin B deoxycholate (DAMB) or liposomal amphotericin B. We examined the effects on drug tissue penetration and retention resulting from different routes of drug administration. Mice were treated with equivalent total doses of AmBisome® (AmBi) or DAMB (i.e.,15 mg/kg) given ip (3 mg/kg/day for 5 days) or iv (3 mg/kg/day AmBi for 5 days or 1 mg/kg/day DAMB for 15 days), with tissues collected 24 h post-treatment. For drug retention studies, mice were given iv or ip total doses of 30 mg/kg AmBi (10 mg/kg/day 3×/week) or 60 mg/kg AmBi (20 mg/kg/day 3×/week) with tissue collection 24 h or 7 days post-treatment. Blood samples were collected at 0.5 h, 2 h, 8 h, 12 h and 24 h after ip or iv drug dosing. A Paecilomyces variottii bioassay was used to determine drug concentrations. AmBi and DAMB were detected in the kidneys following iv, but not ip dosing. Significantly more DAMB than AmBi was detected in the lungs with ip dosing (P = 0.008), and more AmBi than DAMB (P = 0.056) was present with iv dosing. Unlike the lungs, the spleen and liver retained the AmBi for up to one week post-treatment regardless of the route of drug administration. Thus, there are significant differences in AmBi and DAMB tissue distribution depending upon the drug route and these differences could effect how the drugs perform in fungal infection models.

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by a Research Grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Disclosure of conflict of interest: J.P.A-M has received funds for speaking at symposia organized on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. All of the authors have received funds for research support from Gilead Sciences Inc.

This paper was first published online on Early Online on 01 February 2010.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.