Suppr超能文献

针对已证实、可能或疑似侵袭性真菌感染的婴幼儿和儿童的抗真菌治疗。

Antifungal therapy in infants and children with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infections.

作者信息

Blyth Christopher C, Hale Katherine, Palasanthiran Pamela, O'Brien Tracey, Bennett Michael H

机构信息

Centre for Infectious Disease and Microbiology, ICPMR, Westmead Hospital, Darcy Road, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia, 2145.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;2010(2):CD006343. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006343.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Invasive fungal infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in children. Optimal treatment strategies are yet to be defined.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to systematically identify and summarise the effects of different antifungal therapies in children with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infections.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (1980 to September 2008) and CINAHL (1988 to September 2008) without language restrictions. We also handsearched reference lists and abstracts of conference proceedings and scientific meetings, and contacted authors of included studies and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing a systemic antifungal agent with a comparator (including placebo) in children (one month to 16 years) with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied selection criteria, performed quality assessment, and extracted data using an intention-to-treat approach. We synthesised data using the random-effects model and expressed results as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials of antifungal agents in children with prolonged fever and neutropenia (suspected fungal infection) and candidaemia or invasive candidiasis (proven fungal infection). Four trials compared a lipid preparation of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B (395 participants), one trial compared an echinocandin with a lipid preparation of amphotericin B (82 participants) in suspected infection; one trial compared an echinocandin with a lipid preparation of amphotericin B in children with candidaemia or invasive candidiasis (109 participants) and one trial compared different azole antifungals in children with candidaemia (43 participants). No difference in all-cause mortality and other primary endpoints (mortality related to fungal infection or complete resolution of fungal infections) were observed. No difference in breakthrough fungal infection was observed in children with prolonged fever and neutropenia.When lipid preparations and conventional amphotericin B were compared in children with prolonged fever and neutropenia, nephrotoxicity was less frequently observed with a lipid preparation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90, P = 0.02) however substantial heterogeneity was observed (I(2) = 59%, P = 0.06). Children receiving liposomal amphotericin B were less likely to develop infusion-related reactions compared with conventional amphotericin B (chills: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, P = 0.0005). Children receiving a colloidal dispersion were more likely to develop such reactions than with liposomal amphotericin B (chills: RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.85, P = 0.02). The rate of other clinically significant adverse reactions attributed to the antifungal agent (total reactions; total reactions leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction or change in therapy; hypokalaemia and hepatotoxicity) were not significantly different. When echinocandins and lipid preparations were compared, the rate of clinically significant adverse reactions (total reactions; total reactions leading to treatment discontinuation, dose reduction or change in therapy) were not significantly different.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited paediatric data are available comparing antifungal agents in children with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infection. No differences in mortality or treatment efficacy were observed when antifungal agents were compared. Children are less likely to develop nephrotoxicity with a lipid preparation of amphotericin B compared with conventional amphotericin B. Further comparative paediatric antifungal drug trials and epidemiological and pharmacological studies are required highlighting the differences between neonates, children and adults with invasive fungal infections.

摘要

背景

侵袭性真菌感染与儿童的高发病率和死亡率相关。最佳治疗策略尚未明确。

目的

本综述旨在系统地识别和总结不同抗真菌疗法对已证实、可能或疑似侵袭性真菌感染儿童的疗效。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2008年第3期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2008年9月)、EMBASE(1980年至2008年9月)和CINAHL(1988年至2008年9月),无语言限制。我们还手工检索了参考文献列表以及会议论文集和科学会议的摘要,并联系了纳入研究的作者和制药厂商。

选择标准

我们纳入了随机临床试验(RCT),这些试验比较了全身用抗真菌药与对照剂(包括安慰剂)在1个月至16岁已证实、可能或疑似侵袭性真菌感染儿童中的疗效。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立应用选择标准,进行质量评估,并采用意向性分析方法提取数据。我们使用随机效应模型合成数据,并将结果表示为相对风险(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)。

主要结果

我们纳入了7项关于抗真菌药治疗长期发热和中性粒细胞减少(疑似真菌感染)以及念珠菌血症或侵袭性念珠菌病(已证实真菌感染)儿童的试验。4项试验比较了两性霉素B脂质体制剂与传统两性霉素B(395名参与者),1项试验在疑似感染中比较了棘白菌素与两性霉素B脂质体制剂(82名参与者);1项试验在念珠菌血症或侵袭性念珠菌病儿童中比较了棘白菌素与两性霉素B脂质体制剂(109名参与者),1项试验在念珠菌血症儿童中比较了不同的唑类抗真菌药(43名参与者)。未观察到全因死亡率及其他主要终点(与真菌感染相关的死亡率或真菌感染完全缓解)存在差异。在长期发热和中性粒细胞减少的儿童中,未观察到突破性真菌感染存在差异。在长期发热和中性粒细胞减少的儿童中比较脂质体制剂和传统两性霉素B时,脂质体制剂的肾毒性发生率较低(RR = 0.43,95% CI 0.21至0.90,P = 0.02),但观察到显著的异质性(I² = 59%,P = 0.06)。与传统两性霉素B相比,接受脂质体两性霉素B的儿童发生输液相关反应的可能性较小(寒战:RR = 0.37,95% CI 0.21至0.64,P = 0.0005)。接受胶体分散液的儿童比接受脂质体两性霉素B的儿童更易发生此类反应(寒战:RR = 1.76,95% CI 1.09至2.85,P = 0.02)。归因于抗真菌药的其他具有临床意义的不良反应发生率(总反应;导致治疗中断、剂量减少或治疗改变的总反应;低钾血症和肝毒性)无显著差异。比较棘白菌素和脂质体制剂时,具有临床意义的不良反应发生率(总反应;导致治疗中断、剂量减少或治疗改变的总反应)无显著差异。

作者结论

关于已证实、可能或疑似侵袭性真菌感染儿童抗真菌药比较的儿科数据有限。比较抗真菌药时,未观察到死亡率或治疗效果存在差异。与传统两性霉素B相比,两性霉素B脂质体制剂使儿童发生肾毒性的可能性较小。需要进一步开展儿科抗真菌药物比较试验以及流行病学和药理学研究,以突出侵袭性真菌感染的新生儿、儿童和成人之间的差异。

相似文献

1
Antifungal therapy in infants and children with proven, probable or suspected invasive fungal infections.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;2010(2):CD006343. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006343.pub2.
2
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 16;2016(1):CD004920. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004920.pub3.
3
Interventions for the prevention and management of oropharyngeal candidiasis associated with HIV infection in adults and children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD003940. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003940.pub3.
4
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25(1):CD004920. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004920.pub2.
5
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 9;1(1):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3.
7
Voriconazole versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25(1):CD004707. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004707.pub2.
9
Interventions for the prevention and management of oropharyngeal candidiasis associated with HIV infection in adults and children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19(3):CD003940. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003940.pub2.
10
Systemic antifungal drugs for invasive fungal infection in preterm infants.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(1):CD003953. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003953.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
The Burden of Neonatal Invasive Candidiasis in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2025 Jun 11;12(7):ofaf329. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaf329. eCollection 2025 Jul.
2
Invasive fungal infections in critically ill children: epidemiology, risk factors and antifungal drugs.
Drugs Context. 2024 Jun 17;13. doi: 10.7573/dic.2023-9-2. eCollection 2024.
3
Invasive Fungal Infections in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Hong Kong Study.
Curr Pediatr Rev. 2024;20(4):540-547. doi: 10.2174/1573396320666230811092915.
4
Administration and Dosing of Systemic Antifungal Agents in Pediatric Patients.
Paediatr Drugs. 2020 Apr;22(2):165-188. doi: 10.1007/s40272-020-00379-2.
5
Interventions to treat cutaneous leishmaniasis in children: A systematic review.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Dec 14;12(12):e0006986. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006986. eCollection 2018 Dec.
6
Adverse effects of amphotericin B in children; a retrospective comparison of conventional and liposomal formulations.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 May;84(5):1006-1012. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13521. Epub 2018 Mar 1.
8
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 16;2016(1):CD004920. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004920.pub3.
9
Congenital Systemic Fungus Infection in Twin Prematurity-A Case Report and Literature Review.
AJP Rep. 2015 Apr;5(1):e46-50. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1548730. Epub 2015 Mar 12.
10
Management of Invasive Fungal Infections in Pediatric Acute Leukemia and the Appropriate Time for Restarting Chemotherapy.
Turk J Haematol. 2015 Dec;32(4):329-37. doi: 10.4274/tjh.2014.0035. Epub 2015 Apr 27.

本文引用的文献

3
Empirical antifungal therapy for patients with neutropenia and persistent fever: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Oct;44(15):2192-203. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.06.040. Epub 2008 Aug 14.
6
Anidulafungin versus fluconazole for invasive candidiasis.
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 14;356(24):2472-82. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa066906.
10
Adverse effects of antifungal therapies in invasive fungal infections: review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;25(2):138-49. doi: 10.1007/s10096-005-0080-0.

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