• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Fungal Theory Debated in Amphotericin B Controversy

by Sue Pondrom • March 1, 2008

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

He said that both studies also used drug formulations (putting the drug in glucose) that changed the osmotic pressure gradient. In order for the drug to work, it has to penetrate into the mucus, he said. By putting the drug into glucose, they reduced the osmolaric pressure gradient between the amphotericin B solution and the mucus, to the effect that lesser amphotericin B diffuses in.

You Might Also Like

  • The Etiology of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Remains Unclear
  • Is Topical Amphotericin B Efficacious in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis?
  • Report May Change Diagnosis, Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
  • Early Diagnosis, Treatment Essential in Acute Invasive Fungal Sinusitis in Patients with Recent COVID-19 Infection
Explore This Issue
March 2008

Dr. Ebbens responded by pointing out a study by Kintzel et al. (Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49:1156-64) that adding glucose instead of water to the solution reduced nasal irritation because of low osmolarity and has no effect on drug bioavailability. She also said that the addition of glucose is advised as diluent by the manufacturer. No proof exists that a pressure gradient is needed for treatment effect.

Also pointing out flaws in the Weschta and Ebbens studies was Francis E. O’Donnell Jr., MD, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Accentia BioPharmaceuticals, who said the limitation in the Weschta study is that he used a pump spray, not a lavage. And, he used a very high concentration of amphotericin B, 30 times the concentration that Mayo and we used in our clinical trials. He used 3 milligrams per cc and anything above 500 micrograms, or half a milligram per cc, is likely to be toxic to the epithelia.

Both Dr. Ponikau, who is not affiliated with Accentia, and Dr. O’Donnell also criticized Dr. Ebbens’s use of a gravity-fed drug delivery device that was designed to deliver 250 cc. However, in their trials, it was only filled with 25 cc-indicating that the pressure may have been too low to effectively administer the drug. Dr. O’Donnell noted that SinuNase, in contrast, is delivered with the equivalent of a bulb syringe so patients can apply sufficient pressure to deliver it throughout the nasal cavity.

Dr. O’Donnell was enthusiastic about his own company’s current Phase III clinical trials of SinuNase. He said that Accentia expects to present the unblinded Phase III clinical trial primary results in mid-March. These will include complete resolution of the cardinal symptoms of nasal congestion and sinus headache/facial pressure. The secondary endpoints, including endoscopy and CT scan results, will be available at a later point and presented at a scientific forum.

In January of this year, Dr. O’Donnell announced in a news release and letter to shareholders that we now have interim, blinded, intent-to-treat data on the primary endpoint (complete resolution of both cardinal symptoms) at the conclusion of the study for approximately 80% of the patients in the study. This interim blinded data shows that approximately 20% of all patients are achieving the primary endpoint of complete resolution of both cardinal symptoms and another 23% of patients are achieving complete resolution of one or the other cardinal symptom at 16 weeks. To put these results in perspective, it is important to remember that 50% of the patients received SinuNase and that 50% received a placebo control that had no antifungal activity.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Single Page

Filed Under: Allergy, Departments, Medical Education, Practice Focus, Rhinology Tagged With: allergic sinusitis, CT, debate, fungus, medication, research, rhinosinusitis, Sinusitis, treatmentIssue: March 2008

You Might Also Like:

  • The Etiology of Chronic Rhinosinusitis Remains Unclear
  • Is Topical Amphotericin B Efficacious in the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis?
  • Report May Change Diagnosis, Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
  • Early Diagnosis, Treatment Essential in Acute Invasive Fungal Sinusitis in Patients with Recent COVID-19 Infection

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939