Suppr超能文献

两性霉素B脂质复合物与两性霉素B脱氧胆酸盐作为雾化抗真菌预防用药在肺移植受者中的安全性比较

Comparative safety of amphotericin B lipid complex and amphotericin B deoxycholate as aerosolized antifungal prophylaxis in lung-transplant recipients.

作者信息

Drew Richard H, Dodds Ashley Elizabeth, Benjamin Daniel K, Duane Davis R, Palmer Scott M, Perfect John R

机构信息

Division of Infectious Diseases, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

出版信息

Transplantation. 2004 Jan 27;77(2):232-7. doi: 10.1097/01.TP.0000101516.08327.A9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Aerosolized administrations of amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmBd) and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) in lung transplant recipients were compared for safety and tolerability. The incidence of invasive fungal infections in patients receiving aerosolized amphotericin B formulations as sole prophylaxis was determined.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial was conducted with 100 subjects. AmBd and ABLC were administered postoperatively by nebulizer at doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, respectively, which were doubled in mechanically ventilated patients. The planned treatment was once every day for 4 days, then once per week for 7 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events and invasive fungal infections were quantitated for 2 months after study drug initiation.

RESULTS

Intent-to-treat analysis revealed study drug was discontinued for intolerance in 6 of 49 (12.2%) and 3 of 51 (5.9%) patients in the AmBd- and ABLC-treated groups, respectively (p=0.313). Subjects receiving AmBd were more likely to have experienced an adverse event (odds ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.10, 4.24, p=0.02). Primary prophylaxis failure within 2 months of study drug initiation was observed in 7 of 49 (14.3%) AmBd-treated patients and 6 of 51 (11.8%) ABLC-treated patients. No fungal pneumonias were observed. Only two (2%) patients experienced documented primary prophylaxis failure with Aspergillus infections within the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both aerosol AmBd and ABLC appear to be associated with a low rate of invasive pulmonary fungal infection in the early posttransplant period. Patients receiving ABLC were less likely to experience a treatment-related adverse event.

摘要

背景

比较了肺移植受者雾化吸入两性霉素B脱氧胆酸盐(AmBd)和两性霉素B脂质复合物(ABLC)的安全性和耐受性。确定了接受雾化两性霉素B制剂作为唯一预防措施的患者侵袭性真菌感染的发生率。

方法

对100名受试者进行了一项前瞻性、随机(1:1)、双盲试验。术后通过雾化器分别以25mg和50mg的剂量给予AmBd和ABLC,机械通气患者的剂量加倍。计划治疗为每天1次,共4天,然后每周1次,共7周。在开始研究药物治疗后2个月内对治疗相关不良事件和侵袭性真菌感染进行定量分析。

结果

意向性分析显示,AmBd治疗组和ABLC治疗组分别有49名患者中的6名(12.2%)和51名患者中的3名(5.9%)因不耐受而停用研究药物(p=0.313)。接受AmBd治疗的受试者更有可能发生不良事件(比值比2.16,95%置信区间1.10,4.24,p=0.02)。在开始研究药物治疗后2个月内,49名接受AmBd治疗的患者中有7名(14.3%)和51名接受ABLC治疗的患者中有6名(11.8%)出现了一级预防失败。未观察到真菌性肺炎。在随访期内,只有两名(2%)患者记录到因曲霉菌感染导致的一级预防失败。

结论

雾化AmBd和ABLC在移植后早期似乎都与侵袭性肺部真菌感染的低发生率相关。接受ABLC治疗的患者发生治疗相关不良事件的可能性较小。

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