Liposomal amphotericin B: what is its role in 2008?

REVIEW Liposomal amphotericin B: what is its role in 2008? F. Lanternier1 and O. Lortholary1,2 1

Faculte´ de Me´decine Paris Descartes, Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre d’Infectiologie Necker-Pasteur, Hoˆpital Necker-Enfants Malades and 2Centre National de Re´fe´rence Mycologie et Antifongiques, CNRS URA3012, Unite´ de Mycologie Mole´culaire, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

ABSTRACT Although our antifungal armamentarium has been enlarged recently with new azoles (voriconazole and posaconazole) and echinocandins (caspofungin, micafungin, anidulafungin), the polyenes still have an important role in antifungal strategies because of their extended antifungal spectrum and rarity of mycological resistance. The use of conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate is limited by substantial toxicity that is either infusion-related or associated with renal failure. Its lipid derivatives, particularly liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB), are less nephrotoxic while maintaining a broad antifungal spectrum. LAmB is active against most Candida spp., including Candida glabrata and Candida parapsilosis, and against more resistant, emerging yeasts species such as Rhodotorula spp., Geotrichum spp. and Trichosporon spp.. LAmB is also active against Cryptococcus spp. and all dimorphic fungi such as Histoplasma, Blastomyces, Coccidioidomyces, and Paracoccidiodomyces. The antifungal spectrum of LAmB is particularly interesting with regard to filamentous fungi, with marked activity against Aspergillus spp. and agents of zygomycosis. The latter might emerge during long-term treatment with voriconazole or an echinocandin, as these organisms are resistant to these drugs. We review here the role of LAmB in the current antifungal management strategy, which is based on results obtained in prospective trials. LAmB can be retained as first-line treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients with disseminated histoplasmosis and cryptococcosis, even in the setting of renal impairment or concomitant administration of potentially nephrotoxic drugs. In addition, there is sufficient evidence that the drug should be a major consideration for the empirical treatment of persistent febrile neutropenia or as an alternative to for patients with invasive aspergillosis, for those at risk of renal impairment, major drug– drug interaction or liver insufficiency, particularly in the situation of an established azole intolerance. The primary licensed indication for LAmB is empirical treatment. When zygomycosis is suspected or has been documented, high doses of LAmB should be prescribed. Finally, LAmB may also be considered as a therapeutic option for the management of candidaemia and remains a cornerstone for the treatment of some visceral localisations during systemic candidosis. Keywords

Liposomal amphotericin B, review

Clin Microbiol Infect 2008; 14 (Suppl. 4): 71–83

INTRODUCTION Although our antifungal armamentarium has been expanded recently with new azoles (voricCorresponding author and reprint requests: O. Lortholary, Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Tropicales, Centre d’Infectiologie Necker-Pasteur, Hoˆpital Necker-Enfants Malades; 149, rue de Se`vres, 75015 Paris, France E-mail: [email protected] OL is a member of the speakers bureau of Astellas, Pfizer, Gilead, Schering and Merck. FL has declared no conflicts of interest.

onazole and posaconazole) and echinocandins (caspofungin, micafungin, anidulafungin), polyenes still have an important role in antifungal management strategies because of their broad antifungal spectrum and rarity of resistance. The use of conventional amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBD) is limited by substantial toxicity that is either infusion-related or associated with renal failure. Its lipid derivatives, particularly liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB), are less nephrotoxic while maintaining the broad antifungal spectrum. LAmB is active against most Candida spp., including Candida glabrata, which can be less susceptible

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

72 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

or resistant to fluconazole, and Candida parapsilosis, which appears to be intrinsically less susceptible to the echinocandins. Some emerging yeast species demonstrate greater resistance: Rhodotorula is frequently resistant to fluconazole and voriconazole [1], and Geotrichum and Trichosporon are not susceptible to echinocandins. LAmB is also active against Cryptococcus spp. and all dimorphic fungi, including Histoplasma, Blastomyces, Coccidioidomyces, and Paracoccidioidomyces. The antifungal spectrum of LAmB is particularly interesting with respect to filamentous fungi, since it shows marked activity against Aspergillus spp. and Zygomycetes. The latter microorganisms might indeed emerge, particularly during longterm voriconazole or echinocandin therapy, as they are resistant to both voriconazole and echinocandins. We will review here the role of LAmB in current antifungal management strategies based on prospective trials that assessed the potential of LAmB in the treatment of invasive mycoses (Table 1). LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANDIDOSIS Species of Candida other than Candida albicans and ⁄ or fluconazole-resistant Candida strains have been held responsible for infections in humans since 1990 [2]. When the data from several recent epidemiological studies are pooled, one might arrive at the conclusion that C. albicans represents c. 55% of all Candida spp. isolated from blood cultures, C. glabrata 15%, C. parapsilosis 15% and Candida tropicalis 9%. Two per cent of C. albicans and 10% of non-albicans Candida strains isolated from blood cultures are fluconazole-resistant [3,4]. AmBD has been shown to be effective for the management of candidaemia, including infections due to fluconazole-resistant Candida spp.. AmBD is active against most Candida spp., including C. glabrata, which can be resistant to voriconazole and posaconazole in vitro [5], and C. parapsilosis, which appears to be intrinsically less susceptible to echinocandins. Recent randomised studies that compared AmBD with voriconazole and caspofungin showed that the efficacy of these new antifungal drugs was similar to that of AmBD in the treatment of candidaemia and ⁄ or invasive candidosis. Mora-Duarte et al. compared caspofungin with AmBD in the treatment of candidaemia or

invasive candidosis in both neutropenic and nonneutropenic adults [6]. Therapy with AmBD was accompanied by a higher toxicity with more adverse events in comparison with caspofungin (58% vs. 29%). Kullberg et al. compared voriconazole with AmBD for the treatment of candidaemia in non-neutropenic adults and they also found therapy with AmBD to be more toxic than a voriconazole-based regimen (overall rate of adverse events being 51% vs. 36%) [7]. Such observations point to the conclusion that not insufficient activity, but rather major immediate and ⁄ or renal toxicity, constitutes the major limiting factor of AmBD in the management of candidosis. The efficacy of LAmB was first studied in invasive candidosis in 1991. Twenty-five patients with heterogeneous underlying diseases were treated with LAmB 0.5–5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day as secondline treatment after intolerance of or failure with AmBD; 76% of patients were finally cured [8]. LAmB was further studied in 44 neonates and preterm infants with invasive candidosis, and a 73% response rate was achieved [9]. LAmB was also evaluated in the treatment of systemic candidosis among very low birth weight infants: 24 infants were treated with 2.5–7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB, and an 83% response rate was achieved at the end of treatment [10]. In another small, nonrandomised study, LAmB was compared with AmBD in premature infants with candidaemia. Thirty-four infants with normal renal function were treated with AmBD at a dose of 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for at least 14 days; six with altered renal function were given 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB, and another 16 with altered renal function received 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD). Clearance of fungaemia was achieved in 68% of patients treated with AmBD, as compared to 83% among patients on LAmB and 57% on ABCD [11]. LAmB thus appeared to be at least as efficacious as AmBD in the treatment of candidaemia in neonates and infants. In a recently published randomised, doubleblind non-inferiority trial, 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB was compared with 100 mg ⁄ day micafungin as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. Antifungal therapy was given for at least 14 days to 537 neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients [12]. The success rate for both micafungin and LAmB was 90%, and this striking similarity was independent of the Candida spp.

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

IA, first-line treatment

[25]

Febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia

[51]

[13]

VL

VL VL

[65]

[64]

[66]

[61] [62]

AL ASCT ACST acute GVHD ACST children

Febrile neutropenia

[50]

Unpublished

Febrile neutropenia

[4949]

MC

MC, R

MC

SC MC

MC

MC, R, DB

MC, R, DB

MC, R, DB

MC, R, DB

MC, R, DB

MC, R

MC, R, DB

MC, R

MC, R, DB

MC, R

MC MC, R

SC

MC, R, DB

MC

MC SC 24 202 190 6 16 34 28 41 46 25 28 107 97 15 15

LAmB 0.5–5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 1–5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 2.5–7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day Micafungin 100 mg ⁄ day LAmB 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day ABCD 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 0.5–5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day + caspofungin LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 0.6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day VRZ 6 mg ⁄ kg twice-daily D1, 3 mg ⁄ kg twice-daily LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day Caspofungin 70 mg ⁄ day, 50 mg ⁄ day LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day ABLC 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ week

LAmB LAmB LAmB LAmB LAmB LAmB

4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, days 1–5, day 10 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, days 1–5, day 10 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, days 1–4, day 10 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day 5 mg ⁄ kg 7.5 mg ⁄ kg

LAmB 7.5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ week LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day

25 44

Treatment groups

13 42 32 45 46 203

85 81 78 15 8 21 51

539 556

343 344 422 415

55 26 15 13 267

Patient number

5 days 1 days 1 day

3 days after neutropenia resolution 7 days after neutropenia resolution 3 days after neutropenia resolution 4 weeks 8 weeks 8 weeks 100 days

Neutropenia

2 weeks

3 weeks

2 weeks

17 days

2 weeks

2 weeks

29 days 2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

2 weeks

18 days 22 days

Duration of treatment

42% 40% 33% AE: 2.9 ⁄ patients AE: 7.2 ⁄ patients AE: 33% Dose decrease: 30% Treatment interruption: 11% 100% 98% 91% 93% 91% 96%

34% 34%

88% 64% 86% 80% 64% 54% 54% 50% 49% 31% 26%

89.6% 89.5% 83.3% 57.1% 67.6% 32% cured 64% 48% 52% 29% 50% 46% 27% 67%

83%

76% cured 73%

Response at end of therapy

–

_

_

5% IFI: 9.7% IMI: 0%

3% 2% 4% NA

4% 5%

3% 8% 5% 1.9%

_

_

_

_

_

_

_ _

_

_

_

_ _

Breakthrough fungal infection

(day (day (day (day

7) 7) 7) 7)

99%

100%

100%

2.5% 14.1% 86% (month 6) 75% (month 6) 62% 81% (month 3)

86% (day 7) 89% (day 7)

84% 93% 90% 94% 92%

98% 83% 93% 85% 87%

60% (week 12) 60% (week 12) 83% 88% 85% NA 43% (month 6) 37% (month 6) 78% 62% 72% (week 12) 59% (week 12) 82% (week 12) 100% (week 12)

83%

NA 64%

Survival

MC, multicentre; SC, single centre; R, randomised; DB, double blind; VRZ, voriconazole; LAmB, liposomal amphotericin B; AmBD, amphotericin B deoxycholate; AE, adverse event; IFI, invasive fungal infection; IMI, invasive mould infection; IA, invasive aspergillosis; IC, invasive candidosis; VL, visceral leishmaniasis; AL, acute leukaemia; ASCT, allogeneic stem cell transplant; GVHD, graft vs. host disease; ABCD, amphotericin B colloidal dispersion; ABLC, amphotericin B lipid complex; NA, non available; Dl, day 1.

Visceral leishmaniasis

IFI prophylaxis

Febrile neutropenia

[33,68]

Cryptococcosis

Unpublished

[28]

Disseminated in patients with AIDS Cryptococcal meningitis and AIDS Cryptococcal meningitis and AIDS

IFI (95% IA) ‘Ambiload’ trial

[23]

[20]

Proven IA, second-line treatment IA and neutropenia, first-line treatment IFI (53 IA), first-line treatment

IC, second-line treatment IC in neonates and preterms, first-line treatment IC in very low birth weight infants, first- or second-line treatment Candidaemia and IC, first-line treatment Candidaemia in premature infants, first-line treatment

[8] [21]

[11]

[12]

[10]

[8] [9]

Reference

Study design

Prospective therapeutic trials evaluating liposomal amphotericin B for the management of invasive fungal infections and visceral leishmaniasis (1991–2007)

Histoplasmosis

Aspergillosis

Candidiasis

Table 1.

Lanternier and Lortholary Liposomal amphotericin B 73

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

74 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

involved and the neutropenia status. Survival was similar in both arms of the trial and was 60% at week 12, whereas treatment-related adverse events were seen more frequently in the LAmB group: rigors (0.8% vs. 6.4%), infusion-related reactions (17% vs. 28.8%), and creatinine elevations (10.3% vs. 29.9%); hypokalaemia was also more prevalent in patients receiving LAmB (6.8% vs. 12%). A study of Wingard and colleagues demonstrated that LAmB is better tolerated than is amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), the other widely commercialised amphotericin B lipid formulation in Europe, in relation to both fever (23% vs. 57%) and chills (19% vs. 80%) [13]. Nephrotoxicity was seen more commonly in patients treated with ABLC as compared to LAmB (14% vs. 42% respectively). The authors’ conclusion, highlighting an improved safety profile for LAmB as compared with AmBD, is shared by OstroskyZeichner and colleagues, who argue that LAmB might be used as a better option to treat candidaemia when polyenes are seriously considered as an alternative for fluconazole, i.e., for severe sepsis, and for patients with neutropenia, a history of recent treatment with an azole antifungal and the possibility of fluconazole-resistant Candida spp. [14]. According to the 2004 guidelines published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), fluconazole is recommended for the treatment of candidaemia and disseminated candidiasis as first-line treatment for clinically stable patients who have not recently received azole treatment. For other patients, AmBD and caspofungin are mentioned as preferred treatment options [15]. A dose of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day of LAmB is advocated for patients at high risk of being intolerant to AmBD (renal dysfunction or concomitant use of potentially nephrotoxic agents). UK guidelines recommend either fluconazole or AmBD as standard treatment for candidaemia, whereas LAmB is considered to represent a useful alternative [16], whereas French guidelines recommend LAmB for the treatment of candidaemia in cases of renal impairment or administration of at least two concomitant nephrotoxic drugs [17]. Caspofungin can also be used in this context. The 2007 update of the ECIL Guidelines for Antifungal Therapy in Leukemia Patients has given LAmB the highest recommendation (A1), similar to that for caspofungin, where the species had been identified.

Treatment guidelines for meningitis, endocarditis presumably caused by Candida spp. and hepatosplenic candidosis rely on observational studies. The recommended treatment for meningitis is a combination of AmBD or LAmB with flucytosine. Such a combination has become popular on the basis of the favourable results obtained in cryptococcal meningitis. Endocarditis treatment classically combines heart surgery with either AmBD or LAmB and flucytosine. The recommendations for the initial treatment of hepatosplenic candidiasis are based on AmBD or LAmB, possibly in association with flucytosine for unstable patients, and fluconazole for stable patients [15]. Hence, LAmB still serves as an alternative treatment option for candidaemia in patients with renal impairment or those receiving concomitant nephrotoxic drugs, and in children with candidaemia. For Candida meningitis or endocarditis, an association with flucytosine should be considered. LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AND INVASIVE ASPERGILLOSIS (IA) Voriconazole has now become the treatment of choice for IA, based on the results of a doubleblind multicentre trial that compared voriconazole with AmBD as a first-line treatment for the infection [18]. Voriconazole showed superior efficacy, with response rates at week 12 of 53% vs. 32% and a higher survival rate at the end of treatment of 71% vs. 58% as compared with the group that received AmBD. In addition, among patients who were treated with AmBD as firstline therapy and experienced failure or toxicity, the response rate to second-line antifungal therapy was only 19% [19]. Hence, most experts currently agree that AmBD no longer has a role in the management of IA in immunocompromised hosts. The first study that evaluated the efficacy of LAmB in the treatment of IA was conducted in 1991 and was in a setting of so-called second-line treatment for patients who failed to respond to or were intolerant of other systemic antifungals. Nine of 28 patients (32%) treated with LAmB, given in doses between 0.5 and 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, were cured [8]. Subsequently, LAmB was compared with AmBD as primary therapy for invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in neutropenic patients [20]. Patients in this trial received either

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

Lanternier and Lortholary

LAmB 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day or AmBD 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for 14 days. Among a total of 53 patients with suspected or documented pulmonary aspergillosis, the response rates were 52% (13 ⁄ 25) and 29% (8 ⁄ 28) in the LAmB and AmBD groups, respectively [20]. In another first-line trial, Ellis and colleagues compared two doses of LAmB, i.e., 1 and 4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, for the treatment of pulmonary IA in 87 patients, and reported response rates of 64% and 48%, respectively [21]. However, the clinical impact of this study was limited by the small sample size. Under the assumption that higher doses would be more effective, the feasibility of administering very high doses of LAmB for IA has been studied, and a pharmacokinetic analysis of the results revealed that LAmB pharmacokinetics are non-linear and do display a maximal Cmax and area under the curve (AUC) at the 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day dose, which was well-tolerated [22]. The safety and efficacy of LAmB given in a standard dose of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day were compared to the effects of a high dose of 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for 10 days followed by the standard dose; 95% of the study population suffered from IA, which was localised to the lungs in 90% of cases. The results of this ‘AmBiload’ trial were published recently [23]. The response rates at the end of treatment were 46% for those receiving the high loading dose and 50% for those treated with the standard dose. The 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day dose was associated with a significantly higher rate of hypokalaemia, i.e., 30% vs. 16%, and an increased nephrotoxicity rate of 31% vs. 14%. Therefore, on the basis of this trial, a high-dose LAmB regimen cannot be recommended for first-line treatment of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Whether or not higher doses of LAmB might be of benefit in particular cases of IA, such as endocarditis, brain abscesses or bone infections, remains to be determined. Patients with widespread disseminated aspergillosis might well benefit from higher doses of LAmB. Although comparison of data from two different studies has serious limitations, it is interesting to see that when considering first-line treatment for IA, both the clinical responses for voriconazole (53%) and for LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day (50%), and the 3-month survival rates of 71% and 72%, respectively, appear quite similar [18,23]. On the basis of the data available, voriconazole remains the drug of choice for the

Liposomal amphotericin B 75

treatment of IA, but in our opinion the ‘AmBiload’ study has validated LAmB at the standard dose of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day as a reasonable alternative, at least for patients with a high likelihood of major drug interactions, for patients with liver insufficiency, and for those who are intolerant of azoles [24]. Indeed, the 2008 IDSA Guidelines for aspergillosis recommend that LAmB be used for patients with IA where voriconazole is not appropriate (A1 recommendation). A recent prospective, randomised study evaluated for the first time the putative efficacy of a combination of two antifungals vs. monotherapy as first-line treatment for IA. In this so-called ‘Combistrat trial’, LAmB at a dose of 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day was compared with a regimen of LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day in combination with caspofungin. Fifteen patients were included in each arm. Response rates at day 14 and week 12 and overall survival rates were similar in both arms of the study, but the response rate at the end of treatment was higher for combination therapy, being 67% vs. 27% for the single agent (Caillot DTA, Herbrecht R et al. Liposomal amphotericin B in combination with caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B high dose regimen for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients: randomised pilot study (combistrat trial). Focus Fungal Infect 2006). In the patients who had been treated with high-dose LAmB, more nephrotoxicity (20% vs. 7%) was found, as well as a higher number of infusionrelated reactions (20% vs. 0%), whereas there was no difference between both arms in the rates of hypokalaemia. Larger randomised studies are required to explore the real potential of combination therapies. It is of note that echinocandins do not penetrate well into the central nervous system, and this may explain why caspofungin given in combination with ABCD did not enhance the efficacy of the polyene in an immunodeficient mouse model of cerebral aspergillosis [25,26]. LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AND HISTOPLASMOSIS TREATMENT Current treatment recommendations for severe forms of disseminated histoplasmosis, in either human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive or HIV-negative subjects, feature polyenes as firstline therapy instead of itraconazole. For less

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

76 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

severe cases, oral itraconazole constitutes an appropriate treatment [25,26]. However, the use of itraconazole is limited by several well-recognised problems such as numerous drug interactions, variable intra- and inter-individual digestive absorption and the lack of an easily available intravenous formulation in Europe. LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day should now be regarded as first-line therapy for induction treatment of disseminated histoplasmosis in AIDS patients. Indeed, LAmB has been evaluated in a multicentre randomised double-blind trial comparing LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day (n = 55) with AmBD 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day (n = 26) for 2 weeks in AIDS patients with disseminated histoplasmosis [28]. Induction treatment was followed by 10 weeks of itraconazole consolidation treatment. Patients treated with LAmB had a higher response rate at the end of induction therapy (88% vs. 64%), as well as a lower mortality rate (2% vs. 13%) with fewer infusion-related side-effects (25% vs. 63%) and less nephrotoxicity (9% vs. 37%). Mycological response and response rates at the end of consolidation therapy were similar in both groups [27]. As the number of patients in the study was rather low, the outcome has to be interpreted with due caution. It should be noticed that this study was the first to demonstrate a clear superior activity of LAmB over AmBD in the treatment of invasive mycoses. In addition, LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day and itraconazole were studied in a trial that enrolled AIDS patients with a first episode of disseminated histoplasmosis (median CD4 cell count 20 ⁄ mm3; 80% of patients with positive blood culture). Response rates were similar in both groups (86% and 88.5%), but those who were given LAmB showed faster fungal clearance and blood culture sterilisation at week 2 (85% vs. 53%) as compared with patients who received itraconazole. Histoplasma antigen levels also decreased more rapidly under treatment with LAmB ()1.6 U vs. )0.1 U) [28]. LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AND CRYPTOCOCCOSIS TREATMENT A combination of AmBD 0.7–1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day and flucytosine is generally regarded as the preferred treatment for cryptococcal meningitis in both HIVpositive and HIV-negative patients [29]. When AmBD and flucytosine are used simultaneously, faster fungal clearance of the cerebrospinal fluid

(CSF) is seen [29]. This classic finding has been corroborated in a recent prospective study, where it was shown that after 2 weeks of treatment, CSF sterilisation was impaired and delayed in HIVinfected patients with cryptococcal meningitis who did not receive the combination as induction therapy [30]. Furthermore, not giving flucytosine during induction therapy appeared to be associated with a higher subsequent relapse rate [31]. In a randomised trial in a similar category of patients, the efficacy in patients with cryptococcal meningitis of treatment for 3 weeks with AmBD at a dose of 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day (n = 13) was compared with 4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB (n = 15), followed by a 400 mg ⁄ day fluconazole regimen [32]. The preliminary results of this study indicated faster CSF sterilisation in the LAmB group than in the AmBD group, in association with a higher rate of negative CSF cultures at day 7 (40% vs. 8%), day 14 (67% vs. 11%) and day 21 (73% vs. 37%). However, the clinical response rates were similar (86% vs. 80%) in both groups. CSF sterilisation rates were very low, at 67% and 11%, respectively, on day 14. A still unpublished randomised double-blind trial in 267 AIDS patients with cryptococcal meningitis compared LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day with LAmB 6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day or AmBD 0.7 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day [34]. Mycological responses were achieved in 64% of patients who were treated with 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB, in 54% with 6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB, and in 54% with AmBD. Thus, the study suggests that LAmB is at least as effective as AmBD in the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis in AIDS patients, while it is better tolerated, as evidenced by a less frequent occurrence of renal failure and immediate infusion-related toxicity in the LAmB group. However, the combination of LAmB with flucytosine has not yet been investigated. The current IDSA guidelines designate LAmB as being potentially useful in the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis in cases of renal dysfunction [31]. It is our view that LAmB is indicated in the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis and that it should be used, in combination with flucytosine, in cases of pre-existing renal impairment or concomitant use of nephrotoxic agents, as renal toxicity induced by AmBD may facilitate subsequent accumulation of flucytosine, which may lead to serious haematological toxicity.

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

Lanternier and Lortholary

Table 2.

Liposomal amphotericin B 77

Retrospective studies evaluationg liposomal amphotericin B during zygomycosis

Reference

Study

Patients

Treatment

Number

Response

Survival

[40]

First-line treatment

Haematological malignancies

LAmB 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB 3–5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB AmBD

12 39 2 6 116 532

58% 23% 50% 33%

20% (month 3)

[41]

First-line treatment

Haematological malignancies

[68]

First- or second-line treatment

Diverse underlying diseases

37% 69% 61%

AmBD, amphotericin B colloidal dispersion; LAmB, liposomal amphotericin B

LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AND ZYGOMYCOSIS TREATMENT Prospective therapeutic trials on the treatment of zygomycosis have not been reported. However, data in summary form are available, originating from case reports or small restrospective series that used variable and different criteria for evaluation of the response (Table 2). Most of the new antifungals, including echinocandins and voriconazole, are not active against Zygomycetes [33], whereas polyenes and posaconazole display, at least in vitro, activity against organisms belonging to the Zygomycota group [34]. Posaconazole has limited activity against certain of the Zygomycetes. In a murine model of zygomycosis, posaconazole showed partial efficacy against Absidia corymbifera and a dose-dependent response effect in mice infected with Rhizopus microsporus [34]. After its activity against Zygomycetes in vitro and in animals had been established, the clinical potential of posaconazole in patients with zygomycosis was retrospectively evaluated in two studies where the drug was given as second-line therapy in individuals who had been treated with other antifungals that were not tolerated or had an insufficient effect. Response rates of 60% in 91 patients and 79% in 24 patients, respectively, were reported [35,36]. It should be remembered that posaconazole can only be administered orally and carries the risk of drug–drug interactions that are typical for the azole class of antifungal compounds [37]. Moreover, steady-state plasma levels are only obtained after 7–10 days of treatment [38]. Without representative data on firstline treatment, posaconazole should not be used as first-line treatment of zygomycosis. Only when an intravenous formulation becomes available can a clinical trial that compares posaconazole with LAmB be performed, leading to a possible change in the future role of these drugs in the management of zygomycosis.

The options for and limitations of AmBD and LAmB as first-line treatment of zygomycosis have been assessed in several retrospective analyses. The first retrospective series covered the period between 1987 and 2001, comprised 51 patients with haematological malignancies, and showed a 23% response rate among 39 patients treated with AmBD at a dose of 1 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, and a 58% response rate in patients who received LAmB at the standard dose level of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day [39]. The second, smaller retrospective series reported a response rate of two of six patients treated with AmBD, while one of two patients treated with LAmB responded [40]. A recent large retrospective survey, which included all cases of zygomycosis that had been described in the literature, reported a 61% survival rate for AmBD as compared with 69% for LAmB [40]. Two other retrospective studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of the alternative lipid formulations of amphotericin B in the setting of secondline treatment of zygomycosis. The series of patients treated with ABLC at a dose of 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day was characterised by a wide variety of risk-factors and showed a 75% response rate for this drug [41]. ABCD given in doses between 2 and 6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day accomplished an objective response in 60% of cases [42]. In summary, it can be stated that the lipid derivatives of amphotericin B are probably more effective and better tolerated than AmBD in the treatment of zygomycosis. Whether higher dosages of LAmB would be of benefit for this indication remains obscure. Indeed, the AUC of LAmB is maximal at a dose rate of 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day; at this level, the drug can saturate mononuclear cells and allow a higher accumulation of amphotericin B in the lungs, which are major targets of infection by the agents of zygomycosis [22]. Moreover, high doses of LAmB were able to attain a clinical response in patients who failed to respond to conventional dosages [43,44]. The

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

78 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

‘Ambiload’ trial [23] did not support the possible superiority of 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day over 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB for first-line treatment of invasive filamentous fungal infections, but this trial included only three patients with zygomycoses who received 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB. In an attempt to provide an answer to the question of adequate dosing, we have started a prospective national phase II multicentre study (‘Ambizygo’ trial) to evaluate the maximally effective and tolerated dose of LAmB (up to 10 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day) as first-line treatment of zygomycosis in adults and children. In our view, LAmB given in high doses represents an effective first-line treatment for zygomycosis. EMPIRICAL THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH PERSISTENT FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA Empirical treatment with AmBD in febrile neutropenic patients became broadly accepted on the basis of the outcome of two randomised trials, and it was believed that such a strategy was able to reduce the frequency of proven invasive fungal infections [45,46]. Pizzo et al. randomised neutropenic patients with persisting unexplained fever despite broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy into three arms: a group in which all antibiotic therapy was terminated; a group that received empirical AmBD as an additional treatment; and a last group that continued antibacterial therapy without any antifungal therapy. Patients who received empirical antifungal therapy had a more favourable clinical course than those in whom antibiotics were continued with respect to resolution of fever (68% vs. 53%) and a lower incidence of IFI (1% vs. 9%) [46]. The second classic trial in an antibiotic-refractory febrile neutropenic population compared the outcome of a group of patients who received AmBD empirically with that of a group who were not given any antifungal. Infections occurred in six of 16 unprotected patients as compared to two of 18 patients who received empirical antifungal treatment [45]. However, both studies have serious limitations, namely: only a small number of patients was included, which did not allow a statistically solid conclusion, and there was no evidence for either an improvement in survival rates or a significant decrease in the incidence of invasive fungal infections. Despite these limita-

tions, empirical antifungal therapy for neutropenic patients with fever that persists despite broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy has become generally accepted. However, with modern diagnostic tools such as testing for the presence of Aspergillus galactomannan antigen, fungal DNA and b-glucan, as well as the utility of high-resolution computed tomography scans, it is possible to diagnose IFI at an earlier stage of development. As a result, a pre-emptive antifungal treatment strategy is a realistic treatment option, particularly among adults, that will figure more prominently in the future [47]. Three major non-inferiority studies have assessed the role of LAmB in the management of persistent fever in neutropenic patients. Initially, LAmB was compared to AmBD in a randomised multicentre trial [48]; 343 patients were treated with 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB and 344 patients with 0.6 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day AmBD. To be eligible, patients had to be febrile for at least 5 days in spite of adequate antibiotic therapy and neutropenic with a neutrophil count <500 ⁄ mm3. After enrolment, therapy was continued until resolution of neutropenia. The overall response was evaluated on the basis of a five-point composite score and appeared to be similar in both groups (50% vs. 49%). A subanalysis revealed that there were fewer breakthrough fungal infections in the LAmB-treated group than in the AmBD group (3% vs. 8%) and strikingly fewer renal toxicity- and infusionrelated reactions [48]. In the second multicentre non-inferiority randomised trial, 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB was compared to intravenous voriconazole 6 mg ⁄ kg twice-daily on the first day, followed by 3 mg ⁄ kg twice-daily on subsequent days [49]. Success rates for LAmB and voriconazole (31% vs. 26%), as well as the 7-day survival rate, were similar (94% vs. 92%) for both arms but significantly more breakthrough fungal infections occurred in patients receiving LAmB (5% vs. 2%). The main objective of the trial, i.e., the demonstration of non-inferiority for voriconazole in comparison with LAmB, was not met, and therefore voriconazole failed to qualify as an alternative candidate for the empirical antifungal treatment of neutropenic patients. Finally, a dose of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB was compared to caspofungin at a starting dose of 70 mg on day 1, followed by 50 mg ⁄ day in the only

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

Lanternier and Lortholary

double-blind multicentre non-inferiority randomised trial [50]. Overall success rates, as assessed by composite score, were similar for both groups (34% vs. 34%), with a similar number of breakthrough fungal infections. Caspofungin was better tolerated, was associated with fewer cases of infusion-related toxicity and was less nephrotoxic. LAmB given for empirical purposes has also been compared to ABLC, the other commonly available lipid formulation of amphotericin B, in a multicentre double-blind randomised trial [13]. Patients with fever and neutropenia received either 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB (n = 85), or 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB (n = 81), or 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day ABLC (n = 78). The response rates to the three different drug regimens were similar, namely 42%, 40%, and 33%, respectively. Infusionrelated adverse reactions were more frequent when ABLC was given, and amounted to 88%, as compared with 52% and 48% for LAmB, but the differences between the regimens were even more pronounced with respect to nephrotoxicity, as a two-fold increase of creatinine serum level occurred in 14%, 14% and 42% of cases, respectively. Although LAmB has a broader antifungal spectrum of activity than the other recommended option, caspofungin, caution is required with regard to potential nephrotoxicity, particularly in allogeneic bone marrow transplant recipients. On the other hand, the use of caspofungin has been associated with breakthrough fungal infections caused by rare moulds and yeasts, such as zygomycosis [51], trichosporonosis [52], scedosporinosis [53], Scopulariopsis brevicaulis infection [54], and Aspergillus ustus infection [55]. On the basis of its spectrum of activity and the results obtained in large clinical trials, LAmB has to be counted among the preferred antifungal agents for empirical antifungal treatment in patients with antibacterial-refractory, persisting fever during neutropenia. LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AS POTENTIAL ANTIFUNGAL PROPHYLAXIS IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS Among specific high-risk populations, IFIs may be extremely prevalent and are associated with a high mortality rate. This particularly concerns

Liposomal amphotericin B 79

patients who are treated for acute leukaemia (AL), and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (ASCT) recipients. Over the last 15 years, fluconazole has evolved as the classic antifungal prophylactic drug for the prevention of yeast infections, but this compound does not provide any coverage against mould infections [56]. Although two major recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of posaconazole prophylaxis in highrisk populations during prolonged neutropenia and graft vs. host disease, the lack of an intravenous formulation and possible drug interaction issues may limit its use [57,58]. For cases where an azole cannot be given, LAmB might offer a reasonable alternative to prevent both yeast and mould infections. To explore the feasibility of this approach, several preliminary studies that evaluated the safety of LamB in a setting of prophylaxis have recently been performed. An open, prospective multicentre study, the ‘Prophysome trial’, evaluated the tolerance of LAmB given as a weekly infusion at a dose of 10 mg ⁄ kg to 15 AL patients for 4 weeks and to eight ASCT recipients for 8 weeks [59]. The AL patients received a mean of three infusions, whereas ASCT recipients only tolerated a mean of 1.5. None of the patients treated for AL required a reduction in dose or withdrawal of the drug, but five of eight ACST recipients required a decrease in dose or a treatment interruption. The mean numbers of adverse events per patient were 2.9 in AL patients and 7.2 in ACST recipients. Obviously, this novel strategy appeared to be better tolerated in AL patients, with transfusion-related reactions in 13% of cases and nephrotoxicity in 20% of cases, than in ASCT recipients, who experienced infusion-related reactions in 37% of cases and nephrotoxiicity in 50% of cases. LAmB given at a dose of 7.5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ week for prophylactic purposes was also evaluated in another study that included 21 ACST recipients with acute graft vs. host disease requiring corticosteroids 2 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day; the investigators classified tolerance as acceptable in 33% of patients who had to stop the treatment because of adverse events [60]. A third study conducted in a paediatric population evaluated the tolerance and efficacy of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB given as prophylaxis over 100 days post-ASCT in 51 children during a hospital construction period. Thirty per cent of

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

80 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

the patients required a decrease of the dose, and in 11% treatment had to be interrupted because of toxicity; 9.7% developed IFIs, four of which were caused by Candida spp. and one by Trichosporon. No invasive mould infections were seen in these children, whereas five patients with a low risk of mould infections who had been nursed in an oncology unit without the protection of a prophylactically adminstered antifungal developed IA [61]. LAmB is well-tolerated as antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients, at least in non-allogeneic bone marrow transplant patients, but the definitive demonstration of its efficacy for this indication is still awaited. LIPOSOMAL AMPHOTERICIN B AND LEISHMANIASIS Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a major public health concern in some parts of the world, particularly in the Eastern Bihar region of India and in South America. Therapeutic trials in nonimmunocompromised patients have mainly been conducted in India. Pentavalent antimony-based drugs have been the classic first-line therapy, but their use is limited by cardiac toxicity, which occurs in 8–17% of patients, and by the development of resistance, which is responsible for a disappointing success rate that presently ranges from 36% to 69% in Bihar [62]. Different schemes for the treatment of VL with LAmB have been studied in HIV-negative patients. The first study compared different regimens of short-course treatment with LAmB in 88 immunocompetent patients. In one study, 13 patients were treated from day 1 to day 5 with 4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day LAmB and showed a 100% cure rate at day 10, when a total dose 24 mg ⁄ kg had been given; 42 patients received 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for 6 days, with a 98% cure rate at day 10 after a total dose of 18 mg ⁄ kg; finally, 32 patients were treated with 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day from day 1 to day 5, with a 91% cure rate at day 10 and a total dose of 15 mg ⁄ kg [63]. On the basis of these results, the authors recommended treating VL with a total dose of LAmB of ‡20 mg ⁄ kg, to be given for 5 or more days at a dose rate of 3–4 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day [64]. Interestingly, two trials assessed the feasibility of a single high dose of LAmb in HIV-negative patients suffering from VL, and both studies demonstrated a high efficacy in combination with

good tolerance of a single dose of LAmB at dose levels of 5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day and 7.5 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day, with cure rates of 92% and 96%, respectively [63,65]. The number of studies in HIV-infected patients is more limited. In a first-line therapy study, meglumine antimoniate was compared with two ABLC-based regimens at a dose level of 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for 5 days and 3 mg ⁄ kg ⁄ day for 10 days in 57 patients. The cure rates were similar, and amounted to 37%, 33%, and 42%, respectively, but ABLC was less toxic than the antimoniate regimen. The evolution of VL in HIVinfected patients is often complicated by frequent relapses, even when the cellular immunity has been restored [66]. LAmB is recommended as first-line treatment for VL in both HIV positive and HIV-negative patients. Secondary prophylaxis for VL is recommended in HIV-infected patients to reduce relapse rates, even in patients with recent immune reconstitution, but the precise role of LAmB in this context remains to be established. CONCLUSION In summary, LAmB can be used as an useful alternative in the treatment of candidaemia in patients with renal impairment or where there is concomitant use of nephrotoxic drugs, as well as for the treatment of Candida meningitis and endocarditis; in the latter cases, a combination with flucytosine appears to be attractive. LAmB is currently the first-line therapy for disseminated histoplasmosis in HIV-positive or HIV-negative patients, and for cryptococcal meningitis treatment in patients with renal impairment. The drug is very useful for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in cases where there is a risk of potential major drug–drug interactions, and for patients with liver insufficiency or azole intolerance. When zygomycosis is present or likely, a high dose should be administered. Owing to its broad antifungal spectrum, LAmB is perfectly suited for empirical treatment of persisting febrile neutropenia. It is of interest that LAmB tolerance has also been well-demonstrated in paediatric patients, including preterms infants, and the drug is effective against candidaemia in children. In conclusion, based on results of several randomised prospective trials, the LAmB deserves a major place in the 2008 antifungal armamentarium.

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

Lanternier and Lortholary

REFERENCES 1. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Gibbs DL et al. Results from the ARTEMIS DISK Global Antifungal Surveillance Study, 1997 to 2005: an 8.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species and other yeast species to fluconazole and voriconazole determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion testing. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 1735–1745. 2. Trick WE, Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Hajjeh RA, Gaynes RP. Secular trend of hospital-acquired candidemia among intensive care unit patients in the United States during 1989–1999. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: 627–630. 3. Tortorano AM, Peman J, Bernhardt H et al. Epidemiology of candidaemia in Europe: results of 28-month European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) hospitalbased surveillance study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 23: 317–322. 4. Hajjeh RA, Sofair AN, Harrison LH et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections due to Candida species and in vitro susceptibilities of isolates collected from 1998 to 2000 in a population-based active surveillance program. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 1519–1527. 5. Pfaller MA, Messer SA, Hollis RJ, Jones RN, Diekema DJ. 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 2002; 46: 1723–1727. 6. Mora-Duarte J, Betts R, Rotstein C et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 2020–2029. 7. Kullberg BJ, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M et al. Voriconazole versus a regimen of amphotericin B followed by fluconazole for candidaemia in non-neutropenic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1435–1442. 8. Ringden O, Meunier F, Tollemar J et al. Efficacy of amphotericin B encapsulated in liposomes (AmBisome) in the treatment of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 28 (suppl B): 73–82. 9. Scarcella A, Pasquariello MB, Giugliano B, Vendemmia M, de Lucia A. Liposomal amphotericin B treatment for neonatal fungal infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: 146–148. 10. Juster-Reicher A, Leibovitz E, Linder N et al. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) in the treatment of neonatal candidiasis in very low birth weight infants. Infection 2000; 28: 223–226. 11. Linder N, Klinger G, Shalit I et al. Treatment of candidaemia in premature infants: comparison of three amphotericin B preparations. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 663–667. 12. Kuse ER, Chetchotisakd P, da Cunha CA et al. Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 1519–1527. 13. Wingard JR, White MH, Anaissie E, Raffalli J, Goodman J, Arrieta A. A randomized, double-blind comparative trial evaluating the safety of liposomal amphotericin B versus amphotericin B lipid complex in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia. L Amph ⁄ ABLC Collaborative Study Group. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 1155–1163. 14. Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Marr KA, Rex JH, Cohen SH. Amphotericin B: time for a new ‘gold standard’. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 415–425.

Liposomal amphotericin B 81

15. Pappas PG, Rex JH, Sobel JD et al. Guidelines for treatment of candidiasis. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 161–189. 16. Denning DW, Kibbler CC, Barnes RA. British Society for Medical Mycology proposed standards of care for patients with invasive fungal infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3: 230–240. 17. Bretagne S, Durand C, Bille J et al. Conference de conscensus prise en charge des candidoses et des aspergilloses invasives 2004. Med Mal Infect 2004; Nume´ro special. 18. Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 408–415. 19. Patterson TF, Boucher HW, Herbrecht R et al. Strategy of following voriconazole versus amphotericin B therapy with other licensed antifungal therapy for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis: impact of other therapies on outcome. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 1448–1452. 20. Leenders AC, Daenen S, Jansen RL et al. Liposomal amphotericin B compared with amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of documented and suspected neutropenia-associated invasive fungal infections. Br J Haematol 1998; 103: 205–212. 21. Ellis M, Spence D, de Pauw B et al. An EORTC international multicenter randomized trial (EORTC number 19923) comparing two dosages of liposomal amphotericin B for treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27: 1406–1412. 22. Walsh TJ, Goodman JL, Pappas P et al. Safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of high-dose liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) in patients infected with Aspergillus species and other filamentous fungi: maximum tolerated dose study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 3487– 3496. 23. Cornely OA, Maertens J, Bresnik M et al. Liposomal amphotericin B as initial therapy for invasive mold infection: a randomized trial comparing a high-loading dose regimen with standard dosing (AmBiLoad trial). Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 1289–1297. 24. Cordonnier C, Bresnik M, Ebrahimi R. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) efficacy in confirmed invasive aspergillosis and other filamentous fungal infections in immunocompromised hosts: a pooled analysis. Mycoses 2007; 50: 205–209. 25. Wheat J, Sarosi G, McKinsey D et al. Practice guidelines for the management of patients with histoplasmosis. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30: 688–695. 26. Lortholary O, Denning DW, Dupont B. Endemic mycoses: a treatment update. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999; 43: 321– 331. 27. Johnson PC, Wheat LJ, Cloud GA et al. Safety and efficacy of liposomal amphotericin B compared with conventional amphotericin B for induction therapy of histoplasmosis in patients with AIDS. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 105–109. 28. Wheat LJ, Cloud G, Johnson PC et al. Clearance of fungal burden during treatment of disseminated histoplasmosis with liposomal amphotericin B versus itraconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001; 45: 2354–2357. 29. Brouwer AE, Rajanuwong A, Chierakul W et al. Combination antifungal therapies for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 1764– 1767.

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

82 Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 14, Supplement 4, May 2008

30. Dromer F, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Launay O, Lortholary O. Determinants of disease presentation and outcome during cryptococcosis: the CryptoA ⁄ D study. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e21. 31. Saag MS, Graybill RJ, Larsen RA et al. Practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30: 710– 718. 32. Leenders AC, Reiss P, Portegies P et al. Liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome) compared with amphotericin B both followed by oral fluconazole in the treatment of AIDS-associated cryptococcal meningitis. AIDS 1997; 11: 1463–1471. 33. Dannaoui E, Meletiadis J, Mouton JW, Meis JF, Verweij PE. In vitro susceptibilities of zygomycetes to conventional and new antifungals. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51: 45– 52. 34. Dannaoui E, Meis JF, Loebenberg D, Verweij PE. Activity of posaconazole in treatment of experimental disseminated zygomycosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 3647–3650. 35. Greenberg RN, Mullane K, van Burik JA et al. Posaconazole as salvage therapy for zygomycosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 126–133. 36. van Burik JA, Hare RS, Solomon HF, Corrado ML, Kontoyiannis DP. Posaconazole is effective as salvage therapy in zygomycosis: a retrospective summary of 91 cases. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: e61–e65. 37. Torres HA, Hachem RY, Chemaly RF, Kontoyiannis DP, Raad II. Posaconazole: a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 775–785. 38. Herbrecht R. Posaconazole: a potent, extended-spectrum triazole anti-fungal for the treatment of serious fungal infections. Int J Clin Pract 2004; 58: 612–624. 39. Pagano L, Offidani M, Fianchi L et al. Mucormycosis in hematologic patients. Haematologica 2004; 89: 207–214. 40. Nosari A, Oreste P, Montillo M et al. Mucormycosis in hematologic malignancies: an emerging fungal infection. Haematologica 2000; 85: 1068–1071. 41 Walsh TJ, Chanock SJ. Diagnosis of invasive fungal infections: advances in nonculture systems. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 1998; 18: 101–153. 42. Herbrecht R, Letscher-Bru V, Bowden RA et al. Treatment of 21 cases of invasive mucormycosis with amphotericin B colloidal dispersion. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2001; 20: 460–466. 43. Bjorkholm M, Runarsson G, Celsing F, Kalin M, Petrini B, Engervall P. Liposomal amphotericin B and surgery in the successful treatment of invasive pulmonary mucormycosis in a patient with acute T-lymphoblastic leukemia. Scand J Infect Dis 2001; 33: 316–319. 44. Parkyn T, McNinch AW, Riordan T, Mott M. Zygomycosis in relapsed acute leukaemia. J Infect 2000; 41: 265–268. 45. EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Empiric antifungal therapy in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Am J Med 1989; 86: 668–672. 46. Pizzo PA, Robichaud KJ, Gill FA, Witebsky FG. Empiric antibiotic and antifungal therapy for cancer patients with prolonged fever and granulocytopenia. Am J Med 1982; 72: 101–111. 47. Maertens J, Theunissen K, Verhoef G et al. Galactomannan and computed tomography-based preemptive antifungal therapy in neutropenic patients at high risk for invasive

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

fungal infection: a prospective feasibility study. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 1242–1250. Walsh TJ, Finberg RW, Arndt C et al. Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 764–771. Walsh TJ, Pappas P, Winston DJ et al. Voriconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropenia and persistent fever. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 225–234. Walsh TJ, Teppler H, Donowitz GR et al. Caspofungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1391–1402. Girmenia C, Moleti ML, Micozzi A et al. Breakthrough Candida krusei fungemia during fluconazole prophylaxis followed by breakthrough zygomycosis during caspofungin therapy in a patient with severe aplastic anemia who underwent stem cell transplantation. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 5395–5396. Goodman D, Pamer E, Jakubowski A, Morris C, Sepkowitz K. Breakthrough trichosporonosis in a bone marrow transplant recipient receiving caspofungin acetate. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: E35–E36. Safdar A, Papadopoulos EB, Young JW. Breakthrough Scedosporium apiospermum (Pseudallescheria boydii) brain abscess during therapy for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis following high-risk allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Scedosporiasis and recent advances in antifungal therapy. Transpl Infect Dis 2002; 4: 212–217. Wagner D, Sander A, Bertz H, Finke J, Kern WV. Breakthrough invasive infection due to Debaryomyces hansenii (teleomorph Candida famata) and Scopulariopsis brevicaulis in a stem cell transplant patient receiving liposomal amphotericin B and caspofungin for suspected aspergillosis. Infection 2005; 33: 397–400. Pavie J, Lacroix C, Hermoso DG et al. Breakthrough disseminated Aspergillus ustus infection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients receiving voriconazole or caspofungin prophylaxis. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 4902–4904. Charlier C, Hart E, Lefort A et al. Fluconazole for the management of invasive candidiasis: where do we stand after 15 years? J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57: 384–410. Ullmann AJ, Lipton JH, Vesole DH et al. Posaconazole or fluconazole for prophylaxis in severe graft-versus-host disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 335–347. Cornely OA, Maertens J, Winston DJ et al. Posaconazole vs. fluconazole or itraconazole prophylaxis in patients with neutropenia. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 348–359. Cordonnier C, Mohty M, Faucher C et al. Safety of a weekly high dose of liposomal amphotericin B for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infection in immunocompromised patients: PROPHYSOME Study. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2008; 31: 135–141. El-Cheikh J, Faucher C, Furst S et al. High-dose weekly liposomal amphotericin B antifungal prophylaxis following reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2007; 39: 301–306. Roman E, Osunkwo I, Militano O, Cooney E, van de Ven C, Cairo MS. Liposomal amphotericin B prophylaxis of

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83

Lanternier and Lortholary

62.

63.

64.

65.

invasive mold infections in children post allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008; 50: 325–328. Olliaro PL, Guerin PJ, Gerstl S, Haaskjold AA, Rottingen JA, Sundar S. Treatment options for visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review of clinical studies done in India, 1980– 2004. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5: 763–774. Sundar S, Agrawal G, Rai M, Makharia MK, Murray HW. Treatment of Indian visceral leishmaniasis with single or daily infusions of low dose liposomal amphotericin B: randomised trial. BMJ 2001; 323: 419–422. Davidson RN, di Martino L, Gradoni L et al. Short-course treatment of visceral leishmaniasis with liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome). Clin Infect Dis 1996; 22: 938–943. Sundar S, Jha TK, Thakur CP, Mishra M, Singh VP, Buffels R. Single-dose liposomal amphotericin B in the treatment

Liposomal amphotericin B 83

of visceral leishmaniasis in India: a multicenter study. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 800–804. 66. Laguna F, Videla S, Jimenez-Mejias ME et al. Amphotericin B lipid complex versus meglumine antimoniate in the treatment of visceral leishmaniasis in patients infected with HIV: a randomized pilot study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52: 464–468. 67. van der Horst CM, Saag MS, Cloud GA et al. Treatment of cryptococcal meningitis associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group and AIDS Clinical Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 15–21. 68. Roden MM, Zaoutis TE, Buchanan WL et al. Epidemiology and outcome of zygomycosis: a review of 929 reported cases. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41: 634–653.

 2008 The Authors Journal Compilation  2008 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, CMI, 14 (Suppl. 4), 71–83