Next Article in Journal
Endophytic Fungal Community of Stellera chamaejasme L. and Its Possible Role in Improving Host Plants’ Ecological Flexibility in Degraded Grasslands
Next Article in Special Issue
Invasive Fungal Infections Associated with COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
Amesia hispanica sp. nov., Producer of the Antifungal Class of Antibiotics Dactylfungins
Previous Article in Special Issue
What Is New in Pulmonary Mucormycosis?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/jof9040464
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Clinical Uses of Inhaled Antifungals for Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Disease: Promises and Challenges

by
Nancy N. Vuong
1,
Danielle Hammond
2 and
Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis
3,*
1
Division of Pharmacy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
2
Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
3
Department of Infectious Disease, Division of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(4), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9040464
Submission received: 21 February 2023 / Revised: 8 April 2023 / Accepted: 9 April 2023 / Published: 12 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Treatment of Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Infections)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The role of inhaled antifungals for prophylaxis and treatment of invasive fungal pneumonias remains undefined. Herein we summarize recent clinically relevant literature in high-risk groups such as neutropenic hematology patients, including those undergoing stem cell transplant, lung and other solid transplant recipients, and those with sequential mold lung infections secondary to viral pneumonias. Although there are several limitations of the available data, inhaled liposomal amphotericin B administered 12.5 mg twice weekly could be an alternative method of prophylaxis in neutropenic populations at high risk for invasive fungal pneumonia where systemic triazoles are not tolerated. In addition, inhaled amphotericin B has been commonly used as prophylaxis, pre-emptive, or targeted therapy for lung transplant recipients but is considered as a secondary alternative for other solid organ transplant recipients. Inhaled amphotericin B seems promising as prophylaxis in fungal pneumonias secondary to viral pneumonias, influenza, and SARS CoV-2. Data remain limited for inhaled amphotericin for adjunct treatment, but the utility is feasible.

1. Introduction and Background

Inhalation of ubiquitously present fungal conidia is an everyday phenomenon and not surprisingly, invasive fungal disease commonly manifests as pneumonia. Fungal pneumonia is most commonly caused by opportunistic molds, Cryptococcus, and geographically restricted dimorphic fungi [1]. These acute, subacute, or chronic lung fungal infections result in significant morbidity, and along with disseminated disease are associated with the highest mortality [2,3]. Despite tremendous improvement in supportive care and systemic antifungal prophylaxis, these infections continue to constitute a formidable therapeutic challenge for an ever-expanding population of patients with severe and protracted immunosuppression. Patients treated with a variety of immunosuppressive treatments for malignant or autoimmune diseases are frequently affected and as of lately, sequential lung mold infections are commonly encountered due to an increasing population of patients with severe viral pneumonia such as influenza or SARS CoV2 [4,5,6].
Because of the tremendous burden of opportunistic fungal pneumonias, antifungal prophylaxis with oral triazoles has become a standard of care in high-risk patients, especially those with acute leukemia or transplant recipients. This strategy has been shown to be effective and reasonably well tolerated. However, despite their success, oral triazoles can be problematic due to significant drug–drug interactions, suboptimal pharmacokinetics, and acute, subacute, or chronic toxicities [7,8]. These considerations have sparked interest in the use of alternative administration of antifungals via aerosolization as prophylaxis and as adjunct treatment in select cases of fungal pneumonia in high-risk patients. In this review, we aim to provide a brief overview of the conundrums in defining a “space” for inhaled antifungals in the context of our current antifungal armamentarium which is comprised with 12 FDA-approved systemic antifungals. We will also critically review the limited literature of the various antifungal drugs, mainly amphotericin B, used as inhalation in randomized or open labelled prospective studies and discuss potential prospects of the inhalation approach in the future as prophylaxis and treatment in the populations at most risk for invasive pulmonary fungal disease.

2. Methods

We used PubMed Medline to search for the currently published literature on the clinical uses of inhaled antifungal agents for invasive pulmonary fungal infections. Our search included articles in English and studies in humans of any age. We used the following list of keywords in our search query: inhale(d), aerosol(ized), nebulize(d), antifungal, -azole, itraconazole, isavuconazole, isavuconazonium, fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, echinocandin, anidulafungin, micafungin, caspofungin, polyene, amphotericin B, and invasive pulmonary fungal infection. Additional articles of interest were also reviewed for inclusion. Articles published from 1960–2022 were reviewed, but only those published from 2002–2022 are included. The following was excluded from our review: topical instillation, interventional bronchoscopic treatment, pentamidine, cyclosporin, infections due to Pneumocystis jirovecii, case reports, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, aspergillomas and fungal asthma as these entities do not pathophysiologically belong to invasive fungal pneumonias.

3. Problems in Interpreting Inhaled Antifungal Literature

The literature on the use of inhaled antifungals in high-risk patients is limited. With two exceptions in neutropenic and lung transplant patients, respectively [9,10], there are no randomized studies in that area. Available studies are hard to compare, as study designs used different doses or dosing intervals, different delivery systems, frequently enrolled a mixed population at risk (leukemia, stem cell transplant, solid organ transplant, intensive care unit), spanned over several decades, and commonly used historical controls. Typically, most of these studies are underpowered, single center, have variable follow up, and frequently applied different neutrophil thresholds for enrollment of neutropenic patients and different criteria for diagnosing proven of probable pneumonia. Thus, not surprisingly, the background incidence of the main targeted pulmonary mycosis, invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA), differs among studies, adding another layer of difficulty and complexity in cross- study evaluation. Furthermore, formal cost-effectiveness analysis and details regarding discontinuation data, logistical challenges (e.g., technical issues with the nebulizers), and compliance difficulties are lacking. In addition, most of the studies did not stratify regarding status of underlying malignant disease (e.g., during remission induction, refractory/relapse leukemia, or underlying stem cell transplant, and whether patients were housed in HEPA filtered rooms). Finally, concomitant systemic antifungal therapy is reported for most but not all studies.
Amphotericin B (AMB)-based formulations were the predominant antifungal drug used in such studies. All the studies had a primary prophylaxis scope to prevent the development of IPA. Importantly, there are no head-to-head comparison studies on inhaled antifungals (i.e., AMB) versus other systemic mold-active antifungals commonly used for primary prophylaxis such as triazoles (i.e., posaconazole, voriconazole, or isavuconazole). Outside prophylaxis studies, there are only case series and case reports on the use of inhaled antifungals as adjunct therapies in refractory cavitary mold pneumonia reporting promising results, but which might be inherently subject to publication biases and confounding issues. Table 1 and Table 2 show the published clinical studies using nebulized AMB as prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies and lung transplant recipients, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity, the aforementioned limitations and lack of good quality studies, there has not been a consensus on the role of inhaled AMB as a primary mode for mold-active prophylaxis by the different societies such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia(ECIL), the International Society for Heaty & Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) or the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Based on the single available randomized placebo-controlled study in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancy, an inhaled liposomal AMB dosed at 12.5 mg twice weekly appears to be the most optimal regimen that has reasonable tolerability and potential efficacy [10]. In addition, the use of an inhaled AMB-based strategy seems appealing in patients undergoing lung transplantation and is frequently used as prophylaxis and adjunct treatment of IPA [17]. Specifically, inhaled AMB is a common practice because of the unique pathophysiological features of IPA in lung transplants where airway disease and anastomotic stump Aspergillus tracheobronchitis are common and amenable to local antifungal delivery [18]. Thus, inhaled AMB is a recommended strategy as universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy and as adjunct treatment for IPA in lung transplant recipients [12,15,19]. In contrast, the published experience of inhaled AMB outside lung transplant in other solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients (e.g., heart and liver) is scarce and is limited to small non-randomized trials, case series, and meta-analyses [9,20,21,22,23]. Consensus from transplant societies (ESCMID, European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM), European Respiratory Society (ERS), the American Society of Transplantation-Infectious Disease Community of Practice (AST-IDCOP), ISHLT) differ and the role also appears limited in the era of broad azole prophylaxis and risk stratification [13,15,16].

4. Inhaled AMB as Treatment in Patients with Fungal Pneumonia

There are only two retrospective, single institution case series, indicating a potential adjunct role of inhaled AMB in hematological malignancies, including those undergoing stem cell transplant, for the treatment of fungal pneumonia.
In 2013, Safdar and Rodriguez evaluated the efficacy and safety of aerosolized ABLC as an adjunct treatment for fungal lung disease. This retrospective study identified 32 immunosuppressed adult patients that received aerosolized ABLC 50 mg twice daily with concurrent systemic antifungal therapy. Probable or proven fungal lung pneumonia was documented in 13 patients. Clinical and radiographic resolution occurred in 16 patients (50%). Treatment with aerosolized ABLC was tolerated without serious toxicity [30].
In 2019, Venanzi et al. evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of systemic antifungal therapy with and without aerosolized lipid AMB (10 received ABLC and 1 patient received L-AMB) in cases of probable or proven IPA. This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients with proven or probable IPA were started on systemic antifungal therapy (SAT) with or without aerosolized lipid AMB for 4 weeks. Patients who were started on aerosolized lipid AMB after the 4 weeks of SAT were considered secondary prophylaxis. Patients with hematological and solid tumor malignancies, solid organ transplant recipients, and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included. A total of 33 patients were included for analysis, 22 in the SAT only group and 11 that received aerosolized treatment (5 as adjunct and 6 as secondary prophylaxis). Clinical outcomes at 3 months were better for those receiving aerosolized lipid AMB, but this was not significant. Reduced mortality was seen at 12 months after multivariate analysis (HR 0.258; 95% CI 0.072–0.922; p = 0.037) [31].

5. Inhaled AMB as Treatment or Prophylaxis in Patients with Post-Viral Fungal Pneumonia

IPA has been reported to complicate severe respiratory infections from influenza and lately SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) [32]. The incidence of influenza-associated aspergillosis (IAA) is considerably variable based on the geographical location but is documented in up to 14% in patients without the typical immune suppressive host factors previously mentioned [4,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Although the definition and classification criteria for the diagnosis of COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains uncertain, it has been reported that 1.6 to 38% of patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit develop CAPA [33,39,40]. Similarities in risk factors with IAA prompted concerns for IPA that emerged early in the COVID-19 pandemic [41]. Systemic antifungal therapy remains the standard of care for the management of post-viral IPA, with the potential use of adjunct aerosolized AMB as an option [5,42,43,44,45]. This might be especially important for post influenza aspergillosis, as Aspergillus tracheobronchitis is a common clinical manifestation of post influenza aspergillosis [46].
There are only four small studies on prophylactic inhalation of AMB showing promising results for those at high risk of CAPA [6,47,48,49]. Table 3 summarizes the available studies of inhaled amphotericin B as prophylaxis. Literature using inhaled antifungals for both IAA and CAPA as either treatment or prophylaxis are limited and consensus based on expert opinions have not been established [12,42,50].

6. Inhaled Antifungals under Clinical Testing

Outside AMB-based inhalation formulations, nebulization of azoles (voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole) have been tried with disappointing results, as these drugs have a very rapid elimination and swift systemic absorption, both in animal models and in a limited number of human subjects [51]. The use of inhaled echinocandins is theoretically possible but there are very limited clinical data [51]. The spectrum of echinocandins is limited and its lack of activity against non-Aspergillus molds makes them less suitable for development as an inhaled formulation. In contrast, there is promise for the use of opelconazole (PC945) as a nebulized suspension [52]. Opelconazole is a novel broad spectrum triazole antifungal that was administered in animal models via nebulization and showed a long duration of action in the lung. It only achieves very low systemic plasma concentrations and thus is devoid of systemic drug-drug interactions [52]. In preclinical testing, the antifungal effects of opelconazole against Aspergillus fumigatus accumulate on repeat dosing and the inhaled drug synergizes when it is given in combination with various systemic antifungal agents [52]. Opelconazole was well tolerated in heathy volunteers and patients with asthma, and as with preclinical models, a long lung residency time and minimal systemic absorption was seen [52]. Anecdotal evidence from cases where inhaled opelconazole was used in IPA unresponsive to systemic antifungals show the agents appear to work [52]. A phase three trial investigating the safety and efficacy of inhaled opelconazole in combination with other antifungal therapy for the treatment of refractory IPA is under way [53]. Opelconazole might also have promise as prophylaxis in patients with cystic fibrosis, in lung transplant recipients and in other patients with chronic aspergillosis lung diseases. A clinical program to study opelconazole in these contexts is being developed [54].

7. Perspectives

In view of the significant biochemical, pharmacologic, and manufacturing challenges along with challenges for preclinical validations, there is currently no perfect inhaled antifungal. Table 4 depicts the key characteristics of an optimal inhaled antifungal product and some difficulties in preclinical validation. Regarding existing inhaled antifungals, only AMB based formulations were tested and available literature is suboptimal to allow firm conclusions. It seems that inhaled liposomal AMB could be an alternative method of prophylaxis in selected high-risk neutropenic populations where systemic triazoles are not tolerated, although it remains unclear whether that subgroup of patients is also in need for protection by non-azole based systemic prophylaxis with parenteral echinocandins. In addition, inhaled AMB has been commonly used as prophylaxis, pre-emptive or targeted therapy for lung transplant recipients but is considered a secondary alternative for other solid organ transplant recipients. Whether these patients would benefit from systemic prophylaxis against non-mold fungal infections, specifically Candida, remains uncertain and patient-level risk stratification is paramount. Finally, although data are limited, inhaled AMB seems promising as prophylaxis in fungal pneumonias secondary to viral pneumonias, influenza, and SARS CoV-2 in patients that are mechanically ventilated.
The recent developments with the emergence of resistance of fungi to azoles and the shift to more targeted therapies for the treatment of hematologic cancer might force us to reevaluate the merit of inhaled antifungals [55]. The emergence of azole resistance in Aspergillus, partially driven by the widespread agricultural used of azoles [56], has devitalized to some extent the potency of triazoles. Theoretically, the local delivery of a high concentration fungicidal drug such as AMB in the lungs would result in less selection pressure for antifungal resistance, although this concept has not been studied. Furthermore, the explosion of molecularly active therapies with which azoles have significant drug–drug interactions, the improvement of non-culture based diagnostic methods that allow early therapy, and the expansion of the antifungal armamentarium with new first in class antifungals might revitalize the interest in using inhaled antifungals [57,58,59,60,61]. However, in view of the introduction to clinical testing of antifungals with novel in mechanism of action, it remains to be seen if those agents that are devoid of the problem of azole resistance and drug–drug interactions and which allow systemic protection might be better options for prophylaxis, thus still leaving inhaled antifungals as second options [62]. Finally, the role of promising non-AMB based inhaled antifungals, such as PC945 (opelconazole), currently undergoing clinical testing awaits further validation. Table 5 lists some of the challenges and questions in future preclinical and clinical studies in the field of inhaled antifungals.

Author Contributions

D.P.K.; methodology, N.N.V. and D.P.K.; data curation, N.N.V.; writing—original draft preparation, N.N.V. and D.P.K.; writing—review and editing, N.N.V., D.H. and D.P.K.; supervision, D.P.K.; project administration, D.P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

D.P.K. acknowledges the Robert C. Hickey Endowment in Clinical Care.

Conflicts of Interest

Nancy N. Vuong and Danielle Hammond declare no conflict of interest. Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis reports honoraria and research support from Gilead Sciences and Astellas Pharma. He received consultant fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck, and Gilead Sciences, and is a member of the Data Review Committee of Cidara Therapeutics, AbbVie, Scynexis, and the Mycoses Study Group.

References

  1. Li, Z.; Lu, G.; Meng, G. Pathogenic Fungal Infection in the Lung. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Hahn-Ast, C.; Glasmacher, A.; Muckter, S.; Schmitz, A.; Kraemer, A.; Marklein, G.; Brossart, P.; von Lilienfeld-Toal, M. Overall survival and fungal infection-related mortality in patients with invasive fungal infection and neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy in a tertiary care centre from 1995 to 2006. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Rayens, E.; Norris, K.A. Prevalence and Healthcare Burden of Fungal Infections in the United States 2018. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2022, 9, ofab593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vanderbeke, L.; Spriet, I.; Breynaert, C.; Rijnders, B.J.A.; Verweij, P.E.; Wauters, J. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis complicating severe influenza: Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 31, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Trujillo, H.; Fernandez-Ruiz, M.; Gutierrez, E.; Sevillano, A.; Caravaca-Fontan, F.; Morales, E.; Lopez-Medrano, F.; Aguado, J.M.; Praga, M.; Andres, A. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19 in a kidney transplant recipient. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2021, 23, e13501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Ackerbroeck, S.; Rutsaert, L.; Roelant, E.; Dillen, K.; Wauters, J.; Van Regenmortel, N. Inhaled liposomal amphotericin-B as a prophylactic treatment for COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis/aspergillus tracheobronchitis. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bruggemann, R.J.; Verheggen, R.; Boerrigter, E.; Stanzani, M.; Verweij, P.E.; Blijlevens, N.M.A.; Lewis, R.E. Management of drug-drug interactions of targeted therapies for haematological malignancies and triazole antifungal drugs. Lancet Haematol. 2022, 9, e58–e72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Neofytos, D.; Avdic, E.; Magiorakos, A.P. Clinical safety and tolerability issues in use of triazole derivatives in management of fungal infections. Drug Healthc. Patient Saf. 2010, 2, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Drew, R.H.; Dodds Ashley, E.; Benjamin, D.K., Jr.; Duane Davis, R.; Palmer, S.M.; Perfect, J.R. Comparative safety of amphotericin B lipid complex and amphotericin B deoxycholate as aerosolized antifungal prophylaxis in lung-transplant recipients. Transplantation 2004, 77, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Rijnders, B.J.; Cornelissen, J.J.; Slobbe, L.; Becker, M.J.; Doorduijn, J.K.; Hop, W.C.; Ruijgrok, E.J.; Lowenberg, B.; Vulto, A.; Lugtenburg, P.J.; et al. Aerosolized liposomal amphotericin B for the prevention of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis during prolonged neutropenia: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008, 46, 1401–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Maertens, J.A.; Girmenia, C.; Bruggemann, R.J.; Duarte, R.F.; Kibbler, C.C.; Ljungman, P.; Racil, Z.; Ribaud, P.; Slavin, M.A.; Cornely, O.A.; et al. European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: Summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 3221–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Patterson, T.F.; Thompson, G.R., 3rd; Denning, D.W.; Fishman, J.A.; Hadley, S.; Herbrecht, R.; Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Marr, K.A.; Morrison, V.A.; Nguyen, M.H.; et al. Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Aspergillosis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 63, e1–e60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ullmann, A.J.; Aguado, J.M.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; Denning, D.W.; Groll, A.H.; Lagrou, K.; Lass-Florl, C.; Lewis, R.E.; Munoz, P.; Verweij, P.E.; et al. Diagnosis and management of Aspergillus diseases: Executive summary of the 2017 ESCMID-ECMM-ERS guideline. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2018, 24 (Suppl. 1), e1–e38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mellinghoff, S.C.; Panse, J.; Alakel, N.; Behre, G.; Buchheidt, D.; Christopeit, M.; Hasenkamp, J.; Kiehl, M.; Koldehoff, M.; Krause, S.W.; et al. Primary prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in patients with haematological malignancies: 2017 update of the recommendations of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO). Ann. Hematol. 2018, 97, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Husain, S.; Camargo, J.F. Invasive Aspergillosis in solid-organ transplant recipients: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Clin. Transplant. 2019, 33, e13544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Husain, S.; Sole, A.; Alexander, B.D.; Aslam, S.; Avery, R.; Benden, C.; Billaud, E.M.; Chambers, D.; Danziger-Isakov, L.; Fedson, S.; et al. The 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the management of fungal infections in mechanical circulatory support and cardiothoracic organ transplant recipients: Executive summary. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2016, 35, 261–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Pennington, K.M.; Yost, K.J.; Escalante, P.; Razonable, R.R.; Kennedy, C.C. Antifungal prophylaxis in lung transplant: A survey of United States’ transplant centers. Clin. Transplant. 2019, 33, e13630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Krenke, R.; Grabczak, E.M. Tracheobronchial manifestations of Aspergillus infections. Sci. World J. 2011, 11, 2310–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Peghin, M.; Monforte, V.; Martin-Gomez, M.T.; Ruiz-Camps, I.; Berastegui, C.; Saez, B.; Riera, J.; Ussetti, P.; Sole, J.; Gavalda, J.; et al. 10 years of prophylaxis with nebulized liposomal amphotericin B and the changing epidemiology of Aspergillus spp. infection in lung transplantation. Transpl. Int. 2016, 29, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Doligalski, C.T.; Benedict, K.; Cleveland, A.A.; Park, B.; Derado, G.; Pappas, P.G.; Baddley, J.W.; Zaas, D.W.; Harris, M.T.; Alexander, B.D. Epidemiology of invasive mold infections in lung transplant recipients. Am. J. Transplant. 2014, 14, 1328–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Borro, J.M.; Sole, A.; de la Torre, M.; Pastor, A.; Fernandez, R.; Saura, A.; Delgado, M.; Monte, E.; Gonzalez, D. Efficiency and safety of inhaled amphotericin B lipid complex (Abelcet) in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections following lung transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 2008, 40, 3090–3093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bhaskaran, A.; Mumtaz, K.; Husain, S. Anti-Aspergillus Prophylaxis in Lung Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2013, 15, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pilarczyk, K.; Haake, N.; Heckmann, J.; Carstens, H.; Haneya, A.; Cremer, J.; Jakob, H.; Pizanis, N.; Kamler, M. Is universal antifungal prophylaxis mandatory in adults after lung transplantation? A review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Clin. Transplant. 2016, 30, 1522–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Alexander, B.D.; Dodds Ashley, E.S.; Addison, R.M.; Alspaugh, J.A.; Chao, N.J.; Perfect, J.R. Non-comparative evaluation of the safety of aerosolized amphotericin B lipid complex in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2006, 8, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hullard-Pulstinger, A.; Holler, E.; Hahn, J.; Andreesen, R.; Krause, S.W. Prophylactic application of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B in hematologic patients with neutropenia. Onkologie 2011, 34, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Nihtinen, A.; Anttila, V.J.; Ruutu, T.; Juvonen, E.; Volin, L. Low incidence of invasive aspergillosis in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients receiving amphotericin B inhalation prophylaxis. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2012, 14, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chong, G.L.; Broekman, F.; Polinder, S.; Doorduijn, J.K.; Lugtenburg, P.J.; Verbon, A.; Cornelissen, J.J.; Rijnders, B.J. Aerosolised liposomal amphotericin B to prevent aspergillosis in acute myeloid leukaemia: Efficacy and cost effectiveness in real-life. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2015, 46, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Minari, A.; Husni, R.; Avery, R.K.; Longworth, D.L.; DeCamp, M.; Bertin, M.; Schilz, R.; Smedira, N.; Haug, M.T.; Mehta, A.; et al. The incidence of invasive aspergillosis among solid organ transplant recipients and implications for prophylaxis in lung transplants. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2002, 4, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Monforte, V.; Ussetti, P.; Gavalda, J.; Bravo, C.; Laporta, R.; Len, O.; Garcia-Gallo, C.L.; Tenorio, L.; Sole, J.; Roman, A. Feasibility, tolerability, and outcomes of nebulized liposomal amphotericin B for Aspergillus infection prevention in lung transplantation. J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2010, 29, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Safdar, A.; Rodriguez, G.H. Aerosolized amphotericin B lipid complex as adjunctive treatment for fungal lung infection in patients with cancer-related immunosuppression and recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Pharmacotherapy 2013, 33, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Venanzi, E.; Martin-Davila, P.; Lopez, J.; Maiz, L.; de la Pedrosa, E.G.; Gioia, F.; Escudero, R.; Filigheddu, E.; Moreno, S.; Fortun, J. Aerosolized Lipid Amphotericin B for Complementary Therapy and/or Secondary Prophylaxis in Patients with Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Single-Center Experience. Mycopathologia 2019, 184, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rouze, A.; Lemaitre, E.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Povoa, P.; Diaz, E.; Nyga, R.; Torres, A.; Metzelard, M.; Du Cheyron, D.; Lambiotte, F.; et al. Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis among intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia: A European multicenter comparative cohort study. Crit. Care 2022, 26, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alanio, A.; Delliere, S.; Fodil, S.; Bretagne, S.; Megarbane, B. Prevalence of putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, e48–e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sharma, A.; Mishra, T.; Kumar, N.; Soubani, A.O. Influenza-Associated Aspergillosis: Nationwide Trends, Predictors and Outcomes From 2005 to 2014. Chest 2020, 158, 1857–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schauwvlieghe, A.; Rijnders, B.J.A.; Philips, N.; Verwijs, R.; Vanderbeke, L.; Van Tienen, C.; Lagrou, K.; Verweij, P.E.; Van de Veerdonk, F.L.; Gommers, D.; et al. Invasive aspergillosis in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with severe influenza: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2018, 6, 782–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schwartz, I.S.; Friedman, D.Z.P.; Zapernick, L.; Dingle, T.C.; Lee, N.; Sligl, W.; Zelyas, N.; Smith, S.W. High Rates of Influenza-Associated Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis May Not Be Universal: A Retrospective Cohort Study from Alberta, Canada. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, 1760–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Uyeki, T.M.; Ison, M.G.; Wolfe, C.R.; Pavia, A.T. Reply to Verweij et al. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 70, 350–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rijnders, B.J.A.; Schauwvlieghe, A.; Wauters, J. Influenza-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Local or Global Lethal Combination? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, 1764–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lamoth, F.; Lewis, R.E.; Walsh, T.J.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Navigating the Uncertainties of COVID-19-Associated Aspergillosis: A Comparison With Influenza-Associated Aspergillosis. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 224, 1631–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Egger, M.; Bussini, L.; Hoenigl, M.; Bartoletti, M. Prevalence of COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Critical Review and Conclusions. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gangneux, J.P.; Bougnoux, M.E.; Dannaoui, E.; Cornet, M.; Zahar, J.R. Invasive fungal diseases during COVID-19: We should be prepared. J. Mycol. Med. 2020, 30, 100971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Koehler, P.; Bassetti, M.; Chakrabarti, A.; Chen, S.C.A.; Colombo, A.L.; Hoenigl, M.; Klimko, N.; Lass-Florl, C.; Oladele, R.O.; Vinh, D.C.; et al. Defining and managing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: The 2020 ECMM/ISHAM consensus criteria for research and clinical guidance. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, e149–e162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Boots, R.J.; Paterson, D.L.; Allworth, A.M.; Faoagali, J.L. Successful treatment of post-influenza pseudomembranous necrotising bronchial aspergillosis with liposomal amphotericin, inhaled amphotericin B, gamma interferon and GM-CSF. Thorax 1999, 54, 1047–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Zhou, Q.Y.; Yang, W.J.; Zhao, X.Q. Pulmonary aspergillosis treated with inhaled amphotericin B. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 54, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Melchers, M.; Festen, B.; den Dekker, B.M.; Mooren, E.R.M.; van Binsbergen, A.L.; van Bree, S.H.W.; Heusinkveld, M.; Schellaars, R.; Buil, J.B.; Verweij, P.E.; et al. A 67-Year-Old Male Patient With COVID-19 With Worsening Respiratory Function and Acute Kidney Failure. Chest 2022, 161, e5–e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Van de Veerdonk, F.L.; Wauters, J.; Verweij, P.E. Invasive Aspergillus Tracheobronchitis Emerging as a Highly Lethal Complication of Severe Influenza. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 646–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rutsaert, L.; Steinfort, N.; Van Hunsel, T.; Bomans, P.; Naesens, R.; Mertes, H.; Dits, H.; Van Regenmortel, N. COVID-19-associated invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Melchers, M.; van Zanten, A.R.H.; Heusinkveld, M.; Leeuwis, J.W.; Schellaars, R.; Lammers, H.J.W.; Kreemer, F.J.; Haas, P.J.; Verweij, P.E.; van Bree, S.H.W. Nebulized Amphotericin B in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients to Prevent Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Crit. Care Explor. 2022, 4, e0696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Soriano, M.C.; Narvaez-Chavez, G.; Lopez-Olivencia, M.; Fortun, J.; de Pablo, R. Inhaled amphotericin B lipid complex for prophylaxis against COVID-19-associated invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Intensive Care Med. 2022, 48, 360–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Verweij, P.E.; Rijnders, B.J.A.; Bruggemann, R.J.M.; Azoulay, E.; Bassetti, M.; Blot, S.; Calandra, T.; Clancy, C.J.; Cornely, O.A.; Chiller, T.; et al. Review of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis in ICU patients and proposal for a case definition: An expert opinion. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1524–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Brunet, K.; Martellosio, J.P.; Tewes, F.; Marchand, S.; Rammaert, B. Inhaled Antifungal Agents for Treatment and Prophylaxis of Bronchopulmonary Invasive Mold Infections. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Murray, A.; Cass, L.; Ito, K.; Pagani, N.; Armstrong-James, D.; Dalal, P.; Reed, A.; Strong, P. PC945, a Novel Inhaled Antifungal Agent, for the Treatment of Respiratory Fungal Infections. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pulmocide Ltd. Safety and Efficacy of PC945 in Combination with Other Antifungal Therapy for the Treatment of Refractory Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis; Pulmocide Ltd.: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pulmocide Ltd. PC945 Prophylaxis or Pre-Emptive Therapy against Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Lung Transplant Recipients; Pulmocide Ltd.: London, UK, 19 November 2021. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gamaletsou, M.N.; Walsh, T.J.; Sipsas, N.V. Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with Hematological Malignancies: Emergence of Resistant Pathogens and New Antifungal Therapies. Turk. J. Haematol. 2018, 35, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Berger, S.; El Chazli, Y.; Babu, A.F.; Coste, A.T. Azole Resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: A Consequence of Antifungal Use in Agriculture? Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Suttle, A.B.; Grossmann, K.F.; Ouellet, D.; Richards-Peterson, L.E.; Aktan, G.; Gordon, M.S.; LoRusso, P.M.; Infante, J.R.; Sharma, S.; Kendra, K.; et al. Assessment of the drug interaction potential and single- and repeat-dose pharmacokinetics of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 55, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Beavers, C.J.; Rodgers, J.E.; Bagnola, A.J.; Beckie, T.M.; Campia, U.; Di Palo, K.E.; Okwuosa, T.M.; Przespolewski, E.R.; Dent, S.; American Heart Association Clinical Pharmacology Committee; et al. Cardio-Oncology Drug Interactions: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2022, 145, e811–e838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Solana-Altabella, A.; Ballesta-Lopez, O.; Megias-Vericat, J.E.; Martinez-Cuadron, D.; Montesinos, P. Emerging FLT3 inhibitors for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Expert Opin. Emerg. Drugs 2022, 27, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cronin, S.; Chandrasekar, P.H. Safety of triazole antifungal drugs in patients with cancer. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2010, 65, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Swaisland, H.C.; Ranson, M.; Smith, R.P.; Leadbetter, J.; Laight, A.; McKillop, D.; Wild, M.J. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of gefitinib with rifampicin, itraconazole and metoprolol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2005, 44, 1067–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lamoth, F.; Lewis, R.E.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Investigational Antifungal Agents for Invasive Mycoses: A Clinical Perspective. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 75, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies/undergoing stem cell transplant.
Table 1. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis in patients with hematological malignancies/undergoing stem cell transplant.
ReferenceType of StudyStudy PopulationFormulation and Delivery SystemDosage and DurationConcomitant AntifungalOutcomeSide EffectsComments
2006 Alexander et al. [24]Prospective, open-label non-comparative study assessing safety and tolerabilityAllogeneic stem cell transplant
n = 40		Aerosolized ABLC50 mg daily × 4 days, then once per week for 13 weeks (total 17 doses)Fluconazole daily as prophylaxis through transplant day 1003 cases of proven IFI, of which 1 developed while on treatmentSafe and well-tolerated
Cough, nausea, taste disturbance or vomiting in 2.2%
2008 Rijnder et al. [10]Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trialNeutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies, neutropenia expected >10 days
n = 271		Nebulized L-AMB
vs.
Placebo		12.5 mg nebulized twice weekly until neutrophils above 300 cells/mm3All patients received prophylactic fluconazoleDeveloped IPA (ITT):
L-AMB 6/139
vs.
Placebo
18/132
(OR 0.26; 95%CI, 0.09–0.72; p = 0.005)		Some, but none serious
Cough:
L-AMB 16
vs.
Placebo 1
(p = 0.002)		On-treatment analysis:
L-AMB 2/91
vs.
Placebo 13/97
(OR 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02–0.66; p = 0.007)
2011 Hullard-Pulstinger et al. [25]Prospective phase II trial, an evaluation of toxicity vs. historical control (n = 105)Patients expected to be neutropenic >10 days after chemotherapy or stem cell transplant
Treatment
n = 98		Nebulized L-AMB12.5 mg for 4 consecutive days, then twice weekly until neutrophil recovery (>500 cells/mm3)Fluconazole prophylaxis allowed and used in majority of patientsUnable to show reduction in IFI, early termination of trial41 patients terminated trial early due to unpleasant treatment experiences, not toxicitiesVoriconazole was available for intervention group but not for control group
2012 Nihtinen et al. [26]Retrospective, single center study with historical control evaluating inhaled AMB as
prophylaxis
Vs. historical control (n = 257)		Stem cell transplant patients (acute GvHD treated with high-dose methylprednisolone)
n = 357		Nebulized AMB-d25 mg daily for 2 or 3 months, per attendingSystemic antifungal prophylaxis not routinely used in either groupSignificantly more patients in control group had detectable IPA
17/257 (6.6%)
vs.
Prophylaxis group
9/354 (2.5%)
p = 0.007		Prophylaxis was well tolerated
2015 Chong et al. [27]Prospective cohort evaluation of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of aerosolized L-AMBAML patients
n = 127		Nebulized L-AMB12.5 mg twice a week at beginning of first and second cycle of chemotherapy, continued until recovery of neutrophils (2 consecutive counts of ≥0.2 × 109 L−1 or one ≥0.5 × 109 L−1)Prophylaxis with fluconazoleIncidence of IPA during the first and second chemotherapy cycles was 9.5% and was a significant decrease when compared to the control group (23.4%), p = 0.0064 Prophylaxis with inhaled L-AMB stopped during auto or allogeneic stem cell transplant
AMB: amphotericin; AMB-d: amphotericin B deoxycholate; ABLC: amphotericin B lipid complex; CI: confidence interval; L-AMB: liposomal amphotericin; AML: acute myeloid leukemia; GvHD: graft versus host disease; IPA: invasive pulmonary Aspergillosis; IFI: invasive fungal infection; ITT: intention to treat; OR: odds ratio.
Table
Table 2. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients.
Table 2. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients.
ReferenceType of StudyStudy
Population		Formulation and Delivery SystemDosage and
Duration		Concomitant Prophylactic AntifungalOutcomeSide EffectsComments
2002 Minari et al. [28]Retrospective study with historical control (10-year study) of universal Aspergillus prophylaxis in lung transplantLung transplant recipients
n = 183		Aerosolized AMB-d5–10 mg twice daily, immediately post-transplant for up to two weeksOnce oral intake tolerated, patients converted to itraconazole24 patients diagnosed with IPA
All had lung involvement with an incidence of 40.5/1000patient-years and overall mortality of 50%
The incidence of IA was significantly higher in a historical control group (49.7/1000patient-years vs. 31.6/1000 patient-years, p ≤ 0.05)		 Advocate using aerosolized AMB followed by itraconazole as prophylaxis in lung transplant recipients
2004 Drew et al. [9]Prospective, randomized, double-blind study comparing safety and tolerability of AMB-d and ABLCLung transplant recipients
n = 100
Randomized 1:1		Aerosolized AMB-d
Or
Aerosolized ABLC		AMB-dd 25 mg
Or
ABLC 50 mg
Once daily for four days, then once weekly for 7 weeks		Nonabsorbable antifungal agent (nystatin) permittedPrimary prophylaxis failure was similar in both groups (14.3% AMB-d vs. 11.8% ABLC) with Aspergillus infections documented in only 2 patients
No fungal pneumonias were observed in either group		Adverse events more common in AMB-d
2010 Monforte et al. [29]Comparative, prospective observational study with historical control on the feasibility, tolerability, and outcomes of nebulized amphotericinLung transplant recipients
n = 104 L-AMB
Historical control:
n = 49 AMB-d		Nebulized L-AMB
vs.
AMB-d		L-AMB 25 mg three times weekly for 60 days post-transplant, continued at 25 mg once weekly on days 60–180, then 25 mg once every two weeks thereafter
AMB-d 6 mg every 8 h immediately post-transplant for 120 days, then 6mg once daily for life		Not statedDevelopment of IPA:
L-AMB 2/104 (1.9%)
vs.
AMB-d historical control 2/49 4.1%
p = 0.43		Well tolerated
AMB: amphotericin B; AMB-d: amphotericin B deoxycholate; ABLC: amphotericin B lipid complex; L-AMB: liposomal amphotericin; IPA: invasive pulmonary Aspergillosis; IFI: invasive fungal infection.
Table
Table 3. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis for IPA following viral pneumonia.
Table 3. Inhaled AMB as prophylaxis for IPA following viral pneumonia.
ReferenceType of StudyStudy PopulationFormulation and Delivery SystemDosage and DurationOutcomeSide EffectsComments
2020 Rutsaert et al. [47]Prospective study of L-AMB as prophylaxis after raised suspicion of IPA in COVID-19 patientsAll mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, sample size not definedNebulized L-AMB12.5 mg, duration not specifiedNo new cases of IPA identified after initiation of prophylaxis Environmental sources ruled out by air sampling. All mechanically ventilated patients screened with serum galactomannan twice weekly
2021 Van Ackerbroeck et al. [6]Retrospective observational comparison of L-AMB for prophylaxis of CAPAMechanically ventilated
n = 32 received L-AMB
n = 18 no prophylaxis		Nebulized L-AMB12.5 mg twice a week, duration not specifiedDevelopment of CAPA/AT occurred in 11 patients that did not receive prophylaxis compared to 3 that did (risk ratio 0.15, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.48, p < 0.001)
Further development of Aspergillus colonization in endotracheal aspirates was significantly lower in the prophylaxis group (risk ratio 0.28, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.81, p = 0.017)		Well-tolerated
2022 Soriano et al. [49]Prospective observational cohort study evaluating use of inhaled ABLCAll mechanically ventilated patients
n = 45		Inhaled ABLC50 mg every 48 h, duration not specifiedNone developed CAPAWell-tolerated
8.8% bronchospasm
33.3% with drug buildup in ventilator		Surveillance protocol for CAPA in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients identified an outbreak
2022 Melchers et al. [48]Retrospective cohort study evaluating use of nebulized AMB-d as prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated ICU patients with COVID-19Mechanically ventilated ICU patients with COVID-19
n = 39
n = 16 nebulized AMB-d		Nebulized AMB-d20 mg in two or four divided dosesIncidence of positive Aspergillus cultures, positive BAL serological markers, and tracheobronchial lesions was significantly lower in the prophylaxis group compared to the control (9% vs. 53%, 20% vs. 60%, and 9% vs. 47%), respectively
No observed cases of proven CAPA were seen in the prophylaxis group
Overall frequency of probable or proven CAPA was much lower in the prophylaxis group
Overall mortality at 90-days was 21% and was similar in both groups
AMB: amphotericin B; AMB-d: amphotericin B deoxycholate; ABLC: amphotericin B lipid complex; AT: Aspergillus tracheobronchitis; BAL: bronchoalveolar lavage; CAPA: COVID-19 associated pulmonary Aspergillosis; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; L-AMB: liposomal amphotericin; IPA: invasive pulmonary Aspergillosis.
Table
Table 4. Clinical characteristics of an ideal inhaled antifungal.
Table 4. Clinical characteristics of an ideal inhaled antifungal.
Slow absorption from the lungs and minimal systemic absorption
No systemic toxicity
No drug–drug interactions
High protein plasma binding
   Minimization of systemic free drug concentration
Sustained local concentrations in the airways
   Increased antifungal efficacy
   Less likelihood of acquisition of resistance
High lung residence times
   Longer duration of action → No need for high doses or frequent administration
    Accumulation on repeat dosing → extended prophylactic effect
Small antifungal drug particles (e.g., <5 mm)
   Deposition to distal airways
Limited interference with mechanical ventilation machinery
Delivery system (e.g., nebulizers) that is convenient, portable, easy to operate, has low cost
Broad spectrum of activity against respiratory fungal pathogens
Activity against fungal biofilms
Intracellular accumulation within lung neutrophils and macrophages
Synergy with systemically administered antifungals and effector immune cells in lungs
No local respiratory side effects (e.g., bronchospasm, metallic taste, breathlessness, decrease in PFTs) *
Proof of principle demonstration of safety and activity in in vitro and preclinical in vivo studies
* Including in patients with underlying lung diseases (e.g., asthma); PFTs: pulmonary function tests.
Table
Table 5. Some ongoing and future questions regarding inhaled antifungals.
Table 5. Some ongoing and future questions regarding inhaled antifungals.
Preclinical/Translational
What are the optimal physicochemical properties (e.g., size, lipophilicity, solubility) of an inhaled antifungal?
Since an inhaled drug achieves a concentration gradient in the airways (central > distal airways), is there an increased likelihood of resistance?
Is a microbiological end point predictive of a meaningful clinical endpoint?
   Is a decrease of the burden more realistic than fungal eradication?
What is the role of fungal biomarkers (e.g., Aspergillus GM) in BAL and/or serum for fungal load assessment?
How do in vitro studies (e.g., bronchial epithelial cell lines) predict in vivo behavior and toxicity potential of an inhaled antifungal?
Due to differences in anatomy, physiology and local immunology, how useful are mouse models of infections using inhaled antifungals?
How to best estimate relevant PKs of inhaled antifungals in normal and infected human lungs?
    Role of NMR spectroscopy, PET, compound concentration in sputum, BAL, or epithelial lining fluid (or combinations)?
Clinical
Are inhaled antifungals best used as adjunct treatment only for central airway or cavitary disease?
Are inhaled antifungals best used as primary prophylaxis/?
   Is there a role for secondary prophylaxis?
For lipid formulations of antifungals (e.g., liposomal AMB), is there a concern of fatty infiltration and foamy macrophage accumulation in the lungs?
Do inhaled antifungals work less well in the setting of excess mucus (e.g., COPD, bronchiectasis) or biofilms (e.g., CF)?
In addition to AMB, what is the potential for aerosolized echinocandins, azoles or other antifungal drugs?
What is the impact of aerosolized antifungals on the treatment of fungal sinusitis?
What is the optimal delivery technology to deliver intact drugs to the distal airways?
What is the optimal regulatory pathway for the development and approval of an inhaled antifungal?
What is an optimal trial design, end points and scenarios for use?
As a portion of inhaled antifungals might be swallowed, how does one evaluate the impact of oral absorption, when orally active compounds are repurposed for delivery via the inhalation route?
GM: galactomannan; BAL: bronchoalveolar lavage, NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance; PET: Positron Emission Tomography; COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases; CF: Cystic Fibrosis; PK: pharmacokinetics; AMB: Amphotericin B.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vuong, N.N.; Hammond, D.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Clinical Uses of Inhaled Antifungals for Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Disease: Promises and Challenges. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9040464

AMA Style

Vuong NN, Hammond D, Kontoyiannis DP. Clinical Uses of Inhaled Antifungals for Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Disease: Promises and Challenges. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(4):464. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9040464

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vuong, Nancy N., Danielle Hammond, and Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis. 2023. "Clinical Uses of Inhaled Antifungals for Invasive Pulmonary Fungal Disease: Promises and Challenges" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 4: 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9040464

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop