• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

万古霉素与利奈唑胺治疗新生儿革兰氏阳性菌败血症的临床疗效及安全性比较

[Clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with linezolid for the treatment of neonatal gram-positive bacterial sepsis].

作者信息

Tang L, Fang J, Wang S N, Weng X H, Li J J, Shang E N

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Suzhou 215002, China.

出版信息

Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2016 Sep;54(9):686-91. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1310.2016.09.011.

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1310.2016.09.011
PMID:27596084
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin and linezolid for the treatment of gram-positive neonatal bacterial sepsis.

METHOD

The data of neonates diagnosed as gram-positive bacterial sepsis in neonatology department of Suzhou Municipal Hospital from June 2009 to December 2015 were retrospectively collected. These neonates were divided into vancomycin group and linezolid group. Propensity score matching (PSM) on baseline variables was used to balance the two groups by identifying a comparable group of neonates who received vancomycin and linezolid therapy. Clinical and microbiologic success rates were compared by chi-square test, and changes of laboratory parameters before and after treatment at the end of treatment were then directly compared by rank-sum test between the matched groups. In vancomycin group, correlation between trough concentration of vancomycin and clinical efficacy were evaluated.

RESULT

Totally 108 and 209 cases were respectively selected in vancomycin and linezolid groups; 108 cases with well-matched baseline characteristics were included in matched linezolid group. The clinical success rates of vancomycin vs. linezolid therapy were 86.1%(93/108) and 88.9%(96/108)(P=0.681), and the microbiologic success rates were 91.7%(99/108) and 93.5%(101/108)(P=0.795). The average trough concentration of vancomycin was (12±8) mg/L. The rate of reaching the high trough concentration standard was only 33.3%(36/108). In 50 (46.3%) cases the dose was adjusted according to the initial concentration data. Compared to less than 10 mg/L, the clinical efficacy of trough concentration in 10-20 mg/L was much higher(93.9%(46/49) vs. 78.6%(33/42), P=0.031). Total bilirubin and platelet count had significant difference between the two-matched groups (34.1(14.9, 91.0)μmol/L vs. 53.0(27.0, 121.6)μmol/L, P=0.034; 301.0(198.8, 416.0)×10(9)/L vs. 195.5(94.0, 283.2)×10(9)/L, P=0.000). The incidence of linezolid related thrombocytopenia was 13.4%(28 cases).

CONCLUSION

The clinical effect of vancomycin and linezolid on gram-positive bacterial sepsis in neonates is comparable. The rate of trough concentration of vancomycin reaching the high trough concentration standard is low, and the clinical efficacy is related to trough concentration. Linezolid have an effect on bilirubin and platelet count, the risk of thrombocytopenia should be monitored closely during linezolid treatment.

摘要

目的

评估万古霉素和利奈唑胺治疗革兰阳性菌所致新生儿败血症的临床疗效及安全性。

方法

回顾性收集2009年6月至2015年12月苏州市立医院新生儿科诊断为革兰阳性菌败血症的新生儿资料。将这些新生儿分为万古霉素组和利奈唑胺组。采用倾向得分匹配法(PSM)对基线变量进行匹配,以平衡两组接受万古霉素和利奈唑胺治疗的新生儿。通过卡方检验比较临床和微生物学成功率,并在治疗结束时采用秩和检验直接比较匹配组治疗前后实验室参数的变化。在万古霉素组中,评估万古霉素谷浓度与临床疗效之间的相关性。

结果

万古霉素组和利奈唑胺组分别入选108例和209例;匹配后的利奈唑胺组纳入108例基线特征匹配良好的病例。万古霉素与利奈唑胺治疗的临床成功率分别为86.1%(93/108)和88.9%(96/108)(P = 0.681),微生物学成功率分别为91.7%(99/108)和93.5%(101/108)(P = 0.795)。万古霉素的平均谷浓度为(12±8)mg/L。达到高谷浓度标准的比例仅为33.3%(36/108)。50例(46.3%)根据初始浓度数据调整了剂量。与低于10mg/L相比,谷浓度在10 - 20mg/L时的临床疗效更高(93.9%(46/49)对78.6%(33/42),P = 0.031)。两组匹配后总胆红素和血小板计数有显著差异(34.1(14.9,91.0)μmol/L对53.0(27.0,121.6)μmol/L,P = 0.034;301.0(198.8,416.0)×10⁹/L对195.5(94.0,283.2)×10⁹/L,P = 0.000)。利奈唑胺相关血小板减少症的发生率为13.4%(28例)。

结论

万古霉素和利奈唑胺对新生儿革兰阳性菌败血症的临床疗效相当。万古霉素谷浓度达到高谷浓度标准的比例较低,且临床疗效与谷浓度有关。利奈唑胺对胆红素和血小板计数有影响,利奈唑胺治疗期间应密切监测血小板减少症的风险。

相似文献

1
[Clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with linezolid for the treatment of neonatal gram-positive bacterial sepsis].万古霉素与利奈唑胺治疗新生儿革兰氏阳性菌败血症的临床疗效及安全性比较
Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2016 Sep;54(9):686-91. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1310.2016.09.011.
2
Clinical efficacy of oral linezolid compared with intravenous vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a retrospective, propensity score-matched, case-control analysis.口服利奈唑胺与静脉万古霉素治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌合并皮肤软组织感染的临床疗效:回顾性、倾向评分匹配、病例对照分析。
Clin Ther. 2012 Aug;34(8):1667-73.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.06.018. Epub 2012 Jul 6.
3
Linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of known or suspected resistant gram-positive infections in neonates.利奈唑胺与万古霉素治疗新生儿已知或疑似耐药革兰氏阳性菌感染的疗效比较
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Sep;22(9 Suppl):S158-63. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000086955.93702.c7.
4
Linezolid more efficacious than vancomycin to eradicate infecting organism in critically ill patients with Gram-positive infections.利奈唑胺在根除革兰氏阳性菌感染的重症患者体内感染病原体方面比万古霉素更有效。
Rev Esp Quimioter. 2010 Mar;23(1):27-35.
5
Linezolid for the treatment of children with bacteremia or nosocomial pneumonia caused by resistant gram-positive bacterial pathogens.利奈唑胺用于治疗由耐药革兰氏阳性菌病原体引起的儿童菌血症或医院获得性肺炎。
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Sep;22(9 Suppl):S164-71. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000086956.45566.55.
6
[Retrospective analysis of the Gram-positive bacteria-infected cases in the Department of Hematology].血液科革兰氏阳性菌感染病例的回顾性分析
Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2013 Oct;21(5):1291-5. doi: 10.7534/j.issn.1009-2137.2013.05.041.
7
Linezolid versus vancomycin for treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections in children.利奈唑胺与万古霉素治疗儿童耐革兰氏阳性菌感染的比较
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Aug;22(8):677-86. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000078160.29072.42.
8
Comparative study on safety of linezolid and vancomycin in the treatment of infants and neonates for Gram-positive bacterial infections.利奈唑胺与万古霉素治疗婴幼儿革兰氏阳性菌感染安全性的对比研究。
J Infect Chemother. 2018 Sep;24(9):695-701. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.04.006. Epub 2018 May 25.
9
Efficacy and safety of linezolid in liver transplant patients.利奈唑胺在肝移植患者中的疗效与安全性。
Transpl Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;13(4):353-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2011.00617.x. Epub 2011 Feb 28.
10
A comparative evaluation of adverse platelet outcomes among Veterans' Affairs patients receiving linezolid or vancomycin.比较退伍军人事务部接受利奈唑胺或万古霉素治疗的患者中不良血小板结局。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Mar;67(3):727-35. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr522. Epub 2011 Dec 15.

引用本文的文献

1
A real-world cost-effectiveness study of vancomycin versus linezolid for the treatment of late-onset neonatal sepsis in the NICU in China.中国新生儿重症监护病房(NICU)中万古霉素与利奈唑胺治疗晚发型新生儿败血症的真实世界成本效果研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jul 19;23(1):771. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09628-9.
2
Relationship between Vancomycin Trough Serum Concentrations and Clinical Outcomes in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.万古霉素谷浓度与儿童临床结局的关系:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022 Aug 16;66(8):e0013822. doi: 10.1128/aac.00138-22. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
3
A Regression Model to Predict Linezolid Induced Thrombocytopenia in Neonatal Sepsis Patients: A Ten-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.
预测新生儿败血症患者利奈唑胺诱导血小板减少症的回归模型:一项十年回顾性队列研究。
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Feb 3;13:710099. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.710099. eCollection 2022.