ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2022
Comparative Colloidal Stability of Commercial Amphotericin B Nanoformulations Using Dynamic and Static Multiple Light Scattering Techniques.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a static multiple light scattering (SMLS) method for real-time colloidal stability assessment in nanoparticle formulations.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026Article
- Enhanced Skin Delivery of Amphotericin B: Development and Evaluation of Polymeric Nanoparticles Using a Porcine Ear Model.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Developments in nanotechnology approaches for the treatment of solid tumors.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2025Review
- Using Static Multiple Light Scattering to Develop Microplastic-Free Seed Film-Coating Formulations.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- AmBisomePharmaceutics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amphotericin B (AmB) nanoformulations have been widely used for the treatment of invasive fungal infections in clinical practice, all of which are lyophilized solid dosage forms that improve storage stability. The colloidal stability of reconstituted lyophilized nanoparticles in an injection medium is a critical quality attribute that directly affects their safety and efficacy during clinical use. Methods: In the present study, the colloidal stability of commercial AmB nanoformulations, including AmB cholesteryl sulfate complex (AmB-CSC) and AmB liposome (AmB-Lipo), was evaluated using the dynamic (DLS) and static multiple light scattering (SMLS) techniques. Results: Compared to the DLS technique, the SMLS technique allows for a more objective and accurate evaluation of the colloidal stability of AmB nanoformulations. The results obtained using the SMLS technique demonstrated that AmB-CSC and AmB-Lipo exhibited excellent colloidal stability in both sterile water and 5% dextrose injection. The disk-like structure of the AmB-CSC nanoparticles more readily adsorbed serum proteins to form protein corona compared to the spherical structure of AmB-Lipo after incubation with serum. Additionally, AmB-CSC and AmB-Lipo can significantly reduce the in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo nephrotoxicity of AmB, which may be attributed to the good colloidal stability and the improved pharmacokinetic profiles of AmB nanoformulations. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the colloidal stability of commercial AmB nanoformulations. These findings will provide useful information not only to inform the clinical use of available AmB nanoformulations but also for improving the design and conduct of translational research on novel AmB nanomedicines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.