Formulation of a topical amphotericin B gel significantly reduces parasite burden in mice, indicating enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is the most prevalent form, with increasing incidence linked to factors such as drug resistance, HIV co-infection, and lack of effective vaccines. Amphotericin B (AmB) is an effective antileishmanial drug; however, its clinical use is limited by nephrotoxicity, high cost, and the requirement for parenteral administration. Therefore, there is a need for safer, non-invasive topical formulations with improved efficacy and reduced systemic toxicity. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a novel Amphotericin B-loaded nanoemulsion gel (AmB-NEG) for the topical treatment of Leishmania major infection in mice. AmB was incorporated into a Carbomer 940-based nanoemulsion gel, and its physicochemical properties, including pH, stability, and particle size, were characterized. In vivo efficacy was assessed in BALB/c mice infected with L. major . Lesion size, splenic parasite burden (by qPCR), histopathological changes, and cytokine gene expression (IFN-γ, IL-12, IL-4, and IL-10) were evaluated. The optimized AmB-NEG exhibited uniform nanodroplets (< 50 nm), excellent stability, and a near-neutral pH suitable for dermal application. Topical AmB-NEG significantly reduced lesion size and splenic parasite burden compared with both untreated and conventional AmB-treated groups ( P < 0.01). Histopathological analysis revealed reduced inflammation and parasite density, while qRT-PCR confirmed upregulation of Th1 cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-12) and downregulation of Th2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-10). The developed AmB-NEG demonstrated enhanced therapeutic efficacy and immunomodulatory activity against cutaneous leishmaniasis while minimizing systemic toxicity. This topical nanoformulation offers a promising, patient-friendly alternative to conventional AmB therapy and warrants further preclinical and clinical evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Safavi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: