Amphotericin B Disposition after Aerosol Inhalation in Lung Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchopulmonary fungal infections continue to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients, and amphotericin B remains the drug of choice for prophylaxis of most fungal infections. Unfortunately, intravenous amphotericin B has numerous serious adverse effects; thus, nebulized amphotericin B could decrease the incidence of adverse effects seen with the intravenous formulation and provide high local concentrations in the lung tissue. We performed a prospective pilot study to characterize the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), lung tissue, and plasma concentrations of amphotericin B following inhalation administration to lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Amphotericin B 30 mg was administered by nebulizer prior to a routine bronchoscopy. Amphotericin B concentrations in BAL samples from the upper and lower lobes, transbronchial biopsies, and plasma (obtained by drawing a blood sample 30 min after the amphotericin B inhalation) were analyzed by HPLC. RESULTS: Eight patients were enrolled in the study (mean age 50.0 +/- 16.1 y; number of years posttransplant 3.0 +/- 1.9; type of transplant 5 double-lung, 3 single-lung). The mean amphotericin B concentration in the upper and lower lobe BAL samples were 0.68 +/- 0.36 and 0.50 +/- 0.31 microgram/mL, respectively. Amphotericin B concentrations, detected in only 2 of 5 biopsy samples, were 0.118 and 0.03 microgram/g. Amphotericin B was detected in the plasma of only 1 patient (0.19 mg/L). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that detectable concentrations of amphotericin B can be attained in both the upper and lower BAL samples following aerosol administration. However, the frequency of the dose and duration of treatment still need to be determined in a larger study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".