Suppr超能文献

脂质体两性霉素B用于持续发热和中性粒细胞减少患者的经验性治疗。美国国立过敏和传染病研究所真菌病研究组。

Liposomal amphotericin B for empirical therapy in patients with persistent fever and neutropenia. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group.

作者信息

Walsh T J, Finberg R W, Arndt C, Hiemenz J, Schwartz C, Bodensteiner D, Pappas P, Seibel N, Greenberg R N, Dummer S, Schuster M, Holcenberg J S

机构信息

Division of Clinical Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 1999 Mar 11;340(10):764-71. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199903113401004.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In patients with persistent fever and neutropenia, amphotericin B is administered empirically for the early treatment and prevention of clinically occult invasive fungal infections. However, breakthrough fungal infections can develop despite treatment, and amphotericin B has substantial toxicity.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial comparing liposomal amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy.

RESULTS

The mean duration of therapy was 10.8 days for liposomal amphotericin B (343 patients) and 10.3 days for conventional amphotericin B (344 patients). The composite rates of successful treatment were similar (50 percent for liposomal amphotericin B and 49 percent for conventional amphotericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors. The outcomes were similar with liposomal amphotericin B and conventional amphotericin B with respect to survival (93 percent and 90 percent, respectively), resolution of fever (58 percent and 58 percent), and discontinuation of the study drug because of toxic effects or lack of efficacy (14 percent and 19 percent). There were fewer proved breakthrough fungal infections among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (11 patients [3.2 percent]) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (27 patients [7.8 percent], P=0.009). With the liposomal preparation significantly fewer patients had infusion-related fever (17 percent vs. 44 percent), chills or rigors (18 percent vs. 54 percent), and other reactions, including hypotension, hypertension, and hypoxia. Nephrotoxic effects (defined by a serum creatinine level two times the upper limit of normal) were significantly less frequent among patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B (19 percent) than among those treated with conventional amphotericin B (34 percent, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liposomal amphotericin B is as effective as conventional amphotericin B for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with fever and neutropenia, and it is associated with fewer breakthrough fungal infections, less infusion-related toxicity, and less nephrotoxicity.

摘要

背景

在持续发热和中性粒细胞减少的患者中,经验性使用两性霉素B进行早期治疗和预防临床隐匿性侵袭性真菌感染。然而,尽管进行了治疗,仍可能发生突破性真菌感染,且两性霉素B具有较大毒性。

方法

我们进行了一项随机、双盲、多中心试验,比较脂质体两性霉素B与传统两性霉素B作为经验性抗真菌治疗的效果。

结果

脂质体两性霉素B治疗组(343例患者)的平均治疗时间为10.8天,传统两性霉素B治疗组(344例患者)为10.3天。成功治疗的综合率相似(脂质体两性霉素B组为50%,传统两性霉素B组为49%),且与抗真菌预防用药或集落刺激因子的使用无关。脂质体两性霉素B和传统两性霉素B在生存(分别为93%和90%)、发热消退(均为58%)以及因毒性作用或缺乏疗效而停用研究药物(分别为14%和19%)方面的结果相似。脂质体两性霉素B治疗的患者中确诊的突破性真菌感染病例数(11例[3.2%])少于传统两性霉素B治疗的患者(27例[7.8%],P = 0.009)。使用脂质体制剂时,发生输液相关发热的患者明显减少(17%对44%)、寒战或畏寒(18%对54%)以及其他反应,包括低血压、高血压和低氧血症。脂质体两性霉素B治疗的患者中肾毒性作用(定义为血清肌酐水平高于正常上限两倍)的发生率(19%)明显低于传统两性霉素B治疗的患者(34%,P < 0.001)。

结论

脂质体两性霉素B在发热和中性粒细胞减少患者的经验性抗真菌治疗中与传统两性霉素B效果相当,且突破性真菌感染较少,输液相关毒性和肾毒性较小。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验