Table of contents
- Overview of the trials
- Conditions and patient groups
- Study designs and phases
- Main outcomes and endpoints
- Key trial details
- What these studies mean for patients
Overview of the trials
The trial data show that Amphotericin B is being studied in several different clinical settings, mostly around fungal disease and infection prevention.[1][2][3] The studies also include research in inflammatory bowel disease, kidney transplantation, and leukemia, where Amphotericin B appears as part of a broader treatment plan or study list.[4][5][6]
Conditions and patient groups
The trials include healthy adults with no history of gastrointestinal disease and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission.[4] IBD in remission means the disease is not active at the time of the study.[4]
Other studies focus on people with esophageal cancer undergoing surgery, patients with chronic pulmonary aspergillosis, and patients with simple aspergilloma.[2][3] One large study also includes adults with invasive mold infections caused by several fungi, including Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., Lomentospora prolificans, Mucorales fungi, and other multidrug resistant molds.[1]
Two additional trials involve kidney transplant recipients and adults with very high-risk T-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).[5][6] In these studies, Amphotericin B is listed among several other treatments being used in the overall care plan.[5][6]
Study designs and phases
The trials cover a wide range of research stages, from Phase 1 to Phase 3, plus a low-intervention study.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Phase 1 studies usually focus on early safety and how a treatment behaves in the body, while Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies look more closely at possible benefit in larger groups.[3][1]
The NIMBUS study is a Phase 1 trial with 18 participants and uses inhaled liposomal Amphotericin B to study lung distribution.[3] The simple aspergilloma study is a Phase 2, single-center, prospective, nonrandomized, open-label study with 20 participants.[2] The invasive mold infection study is Phase 3 with 210 participants, and the esophagectomy prevention study is a low-intervention trial with 853 participants.[1][4]
Other studies include a Phase 2 trial in IBD and healthy volunteers with 45 participants, a Phase 1 kidney transplant study with 27 participants, and a Phase 2 leukemia study with 31 participants.[4][5][6]
Main outcomes and endpoints
The main outcome in the NIMBUS study is the amount of AmBisome deposited in the lungs, measured by SPECT/CT, which is an imaging test that shows where the treatment goes in the body.[3] The study also compares lung levels with blood concentrations and looks for the best nebulised dose based on pulmonary deposition and pharmacokinetics.[3]
In the simple aspergilloma study, the primary outcome is the relative change in lesion size from before treatment to after treatment.[2] This helps show whether the treatment may reduce the fungal mass in the lung.[2]
The Phase 3 invasive mold infection study measures all-cause mortality at Day 42, meaning death from any cause within that time point.[1] The esophagectomy study measures the cumulative incidence of postoperative pneumonia within 30 days after surgery.[4]
The IBD study measures energy metabolism of major immune cell types in blood, using single-cell energetic metabolism profiling after translation inhibition.[4] The kidney transplant study measures safety outcomes such as acute toxicity, over-suppression of the immune system, chronic toxicity, and biopsy-confirmed acute rejection within 60 weeks.[5] The leukemia study measures MRD negativity after induction, which means no minimal residual disease is detected after the first treatment cycle.[6]
Key trial details
NIMBUS study: This Phase 1 trial studies inhaled liposomal Amphotericin B in adults with chronic pulmonary aspergillosis and uses Technetium-99m labelled AmBisome to help measure where the drug goes in the lungs.[3] The goal is to understand lung deposition and support treatment design.[3]
Simple aspergilloma trial: This Phase 2 study is open-label and nonrandomized, and it tests intrabronchial instillation of liposomal Amphotericin B in patients with simple aspergilloma.[2] “Open-label” means both the researchers and the participants know what treatment is given.[2]
Esophagectomy prevention trial: This low-intervention randomized multicenter study looks at selective decontamination of the digestive tract to prevent severe infectious complications after surgery for primary resectable esophageal carcinoma.[4] Amphotericin B is one of the oral study drugs used in this prevention approach.[4]
Invasive mold infection trial: This Phase 3 study compares fosmanogepix with several other treatment options, including Amphotericin B, in adults with invasive mold infections caused by difficult-to-treat fungi.[1] The study is focused on survival at Day 42.[1]
IBD and healthy volunteer study: This Phase 2 study examines how the gut microbiota, and changes in it, affect energy metabolism in blood immune cells.[4] Amphotericin B is listed among the oral interventions in this study.[4]
Kidney transplant study: This Phase 1 trial tests regulatory T cells in kidney transplant recipients and includes Ampho-Moronal among the listed oral medicines.[5] The study focuses on safety, immune effects, and whether the transplant is rejected.[5]
Leukemia study: This Phase 2 study adds daratumumab to the national treatment program for very high-risk T-cell ALL and includes Amphotericin B among multiple supportive medicines in the treatment list.[6] The main endpoint is MRD negativity after induction therapy.[6]
What these studies mean for patients
For patients, these trials show that Amphotericin B is being studied in different ways: as an inhaled treatment, an intrabronchial treatment, an oral prevention drug, and as part of broader treatment plans.[1][2][3][4]
Some studies are trying to improve how much of the drug reaches the lungs, while others are trying to prevent infection after surgery or measure whether a treatment plan leads to better clinical results.[2][3][4][1]
Because the trials involve different diseases and different study methods, the expected benefit and the type of patient who may join are not the same from one trial to another.[1][2][3][4][5][6]





