Farmacologia y Toxicologia

  • ISSN: 2174-8365
  • Journal h-index: 1
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Euro Pub
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
Share This Page

Case Report - (2023) Volume 13, Issue 1

Anti - proliferative medication pharmacodynamics: practical considerations for enhancing quality of care

Bahare Salehi*
Division of Systems Biomedicine and Pharmacology, Leiden University, Iran
*Correspondence: Bahare Salehi, Division of Systems Biomedicine and Pharmacology, Leiden University, Iran, Email:

Received: 02-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. ipft-23-13474;; Editor assigned: 04-Feb-2023, Pre QC No. PQ- ipft-23-13474; Reviewed: 18-Feb-2023, QC No. ipft-23-13474; Revised: 25-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. ipft-23-13474 (R); Published: 28-Feb-2023, DOI: 10.36648/2174-8365-13.1-154


Given the high mortality rate of invasive fungal infections (IFIs), it appears essential for therapeutic efficacy and safety to receive the proper antifungal exposure. Materials and procedures: In this study, the pharmacokinetic data on systemically administered antifungals with an emphasis on target-site penetration, comorbidities, and combination antifungal therapy are summarised. Discussion and conclusions: Through the urine and faeces, amphotericin B is removed unaltered. Both flucytosine and fluconazole have a low affinity for proteins and are excreted by the kidney. The liver is where itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, and isavuconazole are metabolised. Azoles are implicated in a variety of drug-drug interactions because they are substrates and inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes. In the plasma, anidulafungin degrades on its own. CYP is not involved in the enzymatic metabolism of capsofungin or micafungin in the liver. Despite the fact that various drug-drug interactions take place Echinocandins exhibit a lesser likelihood for drug-drug interactions when used in the caspofungin and micafungin treatments. The majority of pertinent tissues can be reached by flucytosine and azoles. Amphotericin B builds up in the spleen and liver. Its concentrations in the brain and myocardium are moderate, whereas those in the kidney and lung are low. Echinocandins have a comparable tissue distribution as amphotericin. For other IFIs such invasive aspergillosis and mucormycosis, such as cryptococcosis, combination antifungal therapy is debatable but has been proven effective for cryptococcosis


Polyenes, Amphotericin B lipid formulations, Liposomal amphotericin B, Itraconazole, Voriconazole, Echinocandins, Caspofungin, Critically ill, Renal replacement therapy, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.


IFIs, or invasive fungal infections, are known to have significant morbidity and fatality rates. Life-threatening IFIs are primarily caused by Candida species, Cryptococci, Aspergilli, Mucorales, and other fungus in immunocompromised patients. Critically sick individuals are at risk for developing candidaemia and other invasive candidiasis symptoms, especially if they are receiving wide spectrum antibiotic therapy, renal replacement therapy, total parenteral nutrition, corticosteroids, or other immunosuppressive medications. A classic opportunistic infection of immunodeficiency brought on by HIV infection is cryptococcosis. Additionally, systemic therapy will be needed for a number of endemic fungal diseases [1-2]. Patients with haematological malignancies, particularly those with acute myelogenous leukaemia, and those who have received a haematopoietic stem cell transplant are the main populations affected by invasive aspergillosis. Recipients of solid organ transplants are another vulnerable group. critically unwell patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or significant liver cirrhosis illness also have a higher chance of developing invasive aspergillosis. Immunosuppression, diabetes, blood transfusions, and chelator medication are common risk factors for mucormycosis [3-4]. For IFIs to be successful, prompt, strong antifungal treatment is essential. In many instances, empirical or preventative antifungal medication is advised due to the challenging and frequently delayed nature of the diagnosis. Antifungal prophylaxis is necessary for patients who are most at risk for IFI, such as those who have prolonged neutropenia following induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome or those who are receiving aggressive immunosuppression for graft versus host disease following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. There are detailed management standards for the IFIs that are most common.

The pathogen must be exposed to the appropriate antifungal agent at the right time and in an amount that is high enough to be effective [5]. However, the majority of patients with IFIs have serious underlying illnesses and a variety of co-morbidities, increasing their susceptibility to negative medication reactions. Additionally, co-morbidities may impact how antifungals and other crucial medications are absorbed, distributed, metabolised, and eliminated. Subtherapeutic exposure to azoles or flucytosine may occur from gastro-intestinal dysfunction, such as that brought on by anticancer chemotherapy or poor gastro-intestinal perfusion. Impaired hepatic and renal function may affect metabolism and elimination. Drug distribution in critical illness may be impacted by common pathophysiological alterations as altered hydration and hemodynamics, tissue perfusion, and plasma protein levels. Antifungals frequently cause pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic medication interactions. Antifungals are categorised as either fungicidal (echinocandins on Aspergilli) or fungistatic (azoles, 5-flucytosine, etc.) based on their pharmacodynamic effects (amphotericin B, echinocandins on Candida [6] . The area under the concentrationtime curve (AUC) to the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the causing fungal pathogen (AUC/MIC) ratio is the one that most closely relates to antifungal efficacy for azoles, 5-flucytosine, and echinocandins. A relevant post-antifungal effect is demonstrated by the concentration-dependent antifungal drug amphotericin B. The pertinent pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameter, thus, is the ratio of its peak concentration (C max) to the fungus's MIC (C max/MIC) . Animal models are used to determine the parameters' target values. The probability of target attainment (PTA) for different antifungals under diverse clinical settings was evaluated using pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling and Monte Carlo simulations [7].

Target-site kinetics of antifungals constitute a major problem in the management of IFIs that are localised outside the circulation. The majority of the data up to this point have come from tissue homogenates collected from animal research. Tissue biopsies, samples taken during surgery or autopsies, and bodily fluids including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), peritoneal fluid, or pleural effusion all yield only scant information. A common way to measure drug target-site penetration is to compare the tissue (target-site) concentration to the concurrent plasma level. However, hysteresis, or the discrepancy between the targetsite and plasma concentration-time profiles, might cause single measurements to yield inaccurate drug penetration estimates. More representative data can be obtained by contrasting the area under the concentration-time curves (AUC) at the target site and in the plasma. obtained. Naturally, this method necessitates the simultaneous monitoring of plasma concentrations at several target sites [8]. Target-site concentrations have also been used in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling. simulations. The combination antifungal therapy (CAF), when considering the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties and modes of action of antifungal drugs, displays distinct drug-drug interactions (synergism, additivity, indifference, and antagonism), as well as varying efficiency in various tissues. The mechanisms underlying these effects are explained by a number of models. CAF has been researched in numerous organised clinical investigations. On CAF, there are case reports for uncommon conditions. Several CAF signals at the time are supported by the recommendations at hand.

This review's goal is to provide an overview of the pharmacokinetics of the antifungals currently being utilised to treat IFIs. We emphasise [9] . We concentrate on unique clinical situations, such as critical illness, renal and hepatic impairment, the effects on antifungal selection and dosage, and the contentious topic of CAF. Numerous studies demonstrate that CAF treatment may be effective in treating some patient populations, despite conflicting claims. Treatment of cryptococcal illness with CAF treatment, based on amphotericin B plus flucytosine, was effective, especially in individuals with HIV infection. When treating haematological patients with invasive aspergillosis, typically those with a positive galactomannan test, voriconazole combined with anidulafungin was effective, as was voriconazole combined with echinocandin when used in salvage situations. Although the use of CAF therapy to treat Candida infections is quite limited, current recommendations encourage using this therapy to to treat Candida endocarditis and CNS candidiasis (amphotericin B plus flucytosine). Current recommendations for treating the refractory form of zygomycosis call for salvaging therapy with the drugs posaconazole and liposomal amphotericin B. Although theorised, polyene with caspofungin is only sporadically supported by the recommendations. Posaconazole and caspofungin concurrent therapy is an option for amphotericin B intolerance. For other fungi infections, the benefit of CAF treatment over monotherapy has not been established [10].


  1. Sauer BL (2006) Student-directed learning in a community geriatrics advanced pharmacy practice experience. Am J Pharm Educ 70:75.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Herndon CM, Jackson K II, Fike DS, Woods T(2003) End-of-life care education in United States pharmacy schools. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 20: 340-344.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Dutta AP, Daftary MN (2005) Geriatric education in US schools of pharmacy: a snapshot. Consult Pharm 20: 45-52.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Bloom MZ (2005) How teaching students about geriatric pharmacy can help patients-and you. Consult Pharm 20: 16-21
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Dawson GD(2000) Geriatric-care education and training: pharmacy education and state home care association surveys. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 20: 51-71.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  11. Harden RM (2000) Best Evidence Medical Education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 5: 71-90.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  13. Ballentine NH (2008) Polypharmacy in the elderly: maximizing benefit, minimizing harm. Crit Care Nurs Q 31: 40-45.
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  15. van den Bemt PM (2000) Drug-related problems in hospitalised patients. Drug Saf 22: 321-333.
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  17. Odegard PS, Breslow RM (2007) Geriatric pharmacy education: a strategic plan for the future. Am J Pharm Educ 71:74.
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

Citation: Salehi B (2023) Anti - proliferative medication pharmacodynamics: practical considerations for enhancing quality of care. Farmacologiay Toxicologia, Vol.13 No. 1: 104.