Amphotericin B Formulation Selection During Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Two Case Reports Illustrating Clinical Dilemmas in the Absence of Data.

IF 0.9 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
M Gabriela Cabanilla, Joseph A Iovine
{"title":"Amphotericin B Formulation Selection During Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Two Case Reports Illustrating Clinical Dilemmas in the Absence of Data.","authors":"M Gabriela Cabanilla, Joseph A Iovine","doi":"10.1177/00185787261422120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of amphotericin B (AmB) in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains poorly characterized because of concerns about drug sequestration within the circuit, particularly with liposomal formulations. We describe 2 patients with life-threatening coccidioidomycosis who received different AmB formulations during veno-venous (VV) ECMO support. The first patient, a 23-year-old male with disseminated disease involving massive splenomegaly and multi-organ failure, received liposomal AmB at 5 mg/kg/day but died within 8 days of antifungal initiation due to progressive critical illness before treatment efficacy could be assessed. The second patient, a 37-year-old male with pulmonary disease, was transitioned from liposomal to conventional AmB at 1 mg/kg/day upon VV-ECMO initiation due to theoretical sequestration concerns and survived to hospital discharge, although he developed acute kidney injury potentially attributable to conventional AmB nephrotoxicity. These cases highlight medication use dilemmas associated with AmB formulation selection during VV-ECMO, including potential underexposure with liposomal formulations and nephrotoxicity with conventional AmB. Our experience highlights that formulation selection requires an individualized risk-benefit assessment that balances potential drug underexposure against nephrotoxicity in already vulnerable patients. These cases contribute to the limited literature on AmB use during ECMO but, more importantly, highlight the urgent need for systematic pharmacokinetic studies with therapeutic drug monitoring to transform clinical decision making from expert opinion to evidence-based practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":13002,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"00185787261422120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12924767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787261422120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of amphotericin B (AmB) in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains poorly characterized because of concerns about drug sequestration within the circuit, particularly with liposomal formulations. We describe 2 patients with life-threatening coccidioidomycosis who received different AmB formulations during veno-venous (VV) ECMO support. The first patient, a 23-year-old male with disseminated disease involving massive splenomegaly and multi-organ failure, received liposomal AmB at 5 mg/kg/day but died within 8 days of antifungal initiation due to progressive critical illness before treatment efficacy could be assessed. The second patient, a 37-year-old male with pulmonary disease, was transitioned from liposomal to conventional AmB at 1 mg/kg/day upon VV-ECMO initiation due to theoretical sequestration concerns and survived to hospital discharge, although he developed acute kidney injury potentially attributable to conventional AmB nephrotoxicity. These cases highlight medication use dilemmas associated with AmB formulation selection during VV-ECMO, including potential underexposure with liposomal formulations and nephrotoxicity with conventional AmB. Our experience highlights that formulation selection requires an individualized risk-benefit assessment that balances potential drug underexposure against nephrotoxicity in already vulnerable patients. These cases contribute to the limited literature on AmB use during ECMO but, more importantly, highlight the urgent need for systematic pharmacokinetic studies with therapeutic drug monitoring to transform clinical decision making from expert opinion to evidence-based practice.

两性霉素B在静脉-静脉体外膜氧合中的配方选择:两例报告在缺乏数据的情况下说明临床困境。
两性霉素B (AmB)在需要体外膜氧合(ECMO)的患者中的使用仍然缺乏特征,因为担心药物在电路内的隔离,特别是脂质体制剂。我们描述了2例危及生命的球孢子菌病患者,他们在静脉-静脉(VV) ECMO支持期间接受了不同的AmB配方。第一位患者为男性,23岁,弥散性疾病,伴大面积脾肿大和多器官功能衰竭,接受5mg /kg/天剂量的AmB脂质体治疗,但在开始抗真菌治疗后8天内因病情进展危重而死亡,尚未评估治疗效果。第二例患者是一名患有肺部疾病的37岁男性,由于理论上的隔离问题,在VV-ECMO开始时,从脂质体过渡到常规AmB,剂量为1mg /kg/天,并存活至出院,尽管他出现了可能归因于常规AmB肾毒性的急性肾损伤。这些病例强调了在VV-ECMO期间与AmB制剂选择相关的药物使用困境,包括脂质体制剂的潜在暴露不足和传统AmB的肾毒性。我们的经验强调,配方选择需要个性化的风险-收益评估,以平衡潜在的药物暴露不足和已经脆弱的患者的肾毒性。这些病例对ECMO期间AmB使用的文献有限有所贡献,但更重要的是,突出了迫切需要系统的药代动力学研究和治疗药物监测,将临床决策从专家意见转变为循证实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hospital Pharmacy
Hospital Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Hospital Pharmacy is a monthly peer-reviewed journal that is read by pharmacists and other providers practicing in the inpatient and outpatient setting within hospitals, long-term care facilities, home care, and other health-system settings The Hospital Pharmacy Assistant Editor, Michael R. Cohen, RPh, MS, DSc, FASHP, is author of a Medication Error Report Analysis and founder of The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), a nonprofit organization that provides education about adverse drug events and their prevention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书