Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Hou Zonglian medical class of 2014, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Nov 22;61(12). doi: 10.1128/AAC.00620-17. Print 2017 Dec.
The use of antifungal interventions in critically ill patients prior to invasive fungal infection (IFI) being microbiologically confirmed and the preferred drug are still controversial. A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared untargeted antifungal treatments applied to nonneutropenic critically ill patients. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proven IFI rates. A random-effects model was used with trial sequential analyses (TSA), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to obtain indirect evidence, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model was completed from the patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. In total, 19 RCTs involving 2,556 patients (7 interventions) were included. Untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly decrease the incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 0.70 to 1.14), but it did reduce the incidence of proven IFI (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.29 to 0.71) relative to placebo/no intervention. The TSA showed that there was sufficient evidence supporting these findings. In the NMA, the only significant difference found for both primary outcomes was between fluconazole and placebo/no intervention in preventing proven IFI (OR = 0.35, 95%CI = 0.19 to 0.65). Based on drug and hospital costs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved for fluconazole, caspofungin, and micafungin relative to placebo/no intervention corresponded to US$889, US$9,994, and US$10,351, respectively. Untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced proven IFI rates in nonneutropenic critically ill patients but with no mortality benefits relative to placebo/no intervention. Among the well-tolerated antifungals, fluconazole remains the only one that is effective for IFI prevention and significantly cheaper than echinocandins.
在侵袭性真菌感染(IFI)得到微生物学确认之前,对重症患者使用抗真菌干预措施以及首选药物仍存在争议。进行了系统的文献检索,以确定比较非中性粒细胞减少的重症患者接受靶向抗真菌治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局是全因死亡率和确诊 IFI 率。使用试验序贯分析(TSA)进行随机效应模型分析,进行网络荟萃分析(NMA)以获得间接证据,并从患者角度在终生时间范围内使用决策分析模型进行成本效益分析。总共纳入了 19 项 RCT,涉及 2556 名患者(7 种干预措施)。与安慰剂/无干预相比,靶向抗真菌治疗并未显著降低全因死亡率的发生率(比值比[OR] = 0.89,95%置信区间[95%CI] = 0.70 至 1.14),但确实降低了确诊 IFI 的发生率(OR = 0.45,95%CI = 0.29 至 0.71)。TSA 表明,有足够的证据支持这些发现。在 NMA 中,仅发现氟康唑和安慰剂/无干预在预防确诊 IFI 方面存在两个主要结局的唯一显著差异(OR = 0.35,95%CI = 0.19 至 0.65)。基于中国的药物和医院成本,氟康唑、卡泊芬净和米卡芬净相对于安慰剂/无干预每挽救一个生命年的增量成本效益比分别为 889 美元、9994 美元和 10351 美元。非中性粒细胞减少的重症患者中,靶向抗真菌治疗显著降低了确诊 IFI 的发生率,但与安慰剂/无干预相比,死亡率没有获益。在耐受良好的抗真菌药物中,氟康唑仍然是唯一一种对 IFI 预防有效的药物,且价格明显低于棘白菌素类药物。