Suppr超能文献

雾化吸入与口服利巴韦林治疗呼吸道合胞病毒感染的比较疗效:一项单中心回顾性队列研究及文献综述

Comparative effectiveness of aerosolized versus oral ribavirin for the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus infections: A single-center retrospective cohort study and review of the literature.

作者信息

Trang Tracy P, Whalen Meghan, Hilts-Horeczko Alexandra, Doernberg Sarah B, Liu Catherine

机构信息

Inpatient Pharmacy, Kaiser Permanente, Downey, CA, USA.

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California-San Francisco School of Pharmacy, San Francisco, CA, USA.

出版信息

Transpl Infect Dis. 2018 Apr;20(2):e12844. doi: 10.1111/tid.12844. Epub 2018 Mar 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of viral infections in immunocompromised hosts and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In January 2015, our institution switched from aerosolized to oral ribavirin (RBV) for primary treatment of RSV infection among high-risk immunocompromised adult patients. The objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes associated with this switch.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients diagnosed with RSV infection and treated with RBV between January 1, 2013, and May 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Of 46 patients, 20 (43%) patients received oral RBV and 26 (57%) received aerosolized RBV. Underlying conditions included lung transplant (n = 22), hematopoietic cell transplant (n = 16), hematological malignancy (n = 5), and structural lung diseases (n = 4). At the time of RSV diagnosis, 42 (91%) were hospitalized, 36 (78%) had clinical and radiographic evidence of lower respiratory tract infection (RTI), 9 (20%) were admitted to the ICU, and 4 (9%) required intubation. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups with regard to adverse events, progression from upper to lower RTI, escalation of care, or 30-day mortality. Three (15%) in the oral group and 1 (4%) in the aerosolized group died within 30 days (P = .33). The cost avoidance attributable to the switch in therapy over 1 year is $1.2 million.

CONCLUSION

Oral RBV appears to be a safe and cost-effective alternative to aerosolized RBV for the management of RSV infection in immunocompromised patients. Larger studies are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of this approach.

摘要

背景

呼吸道合胞病毒(RSV)是免疫功能低下宿主中病毒感染的主要原因,与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。2015年1月,我们机构将高危免疫功能低下成年患者RSV感染的主要治疗药物从雾化利巴韦林(RBV)改为口服RBV。本研究的目的是评估这一转变带来的临床和经济结果。

方法

对2013年1月1日至2016年5月31日期间诊断为RSV感染并接受RBV治疗的成年患者进行回顾性队列分析。

结果

46例患者中,20例(43%)接受口服RBV,26例(57%)接受雾化RBV。基础疾病包括肺移植(n = 22)、造血细胞移植(n = 16)、血液系统恶性肿瘤(n = 5)和结构性肺病(n = 4)。RSV诊断时,42例(91%)住院,36例(78%)有下呼吸道感染(RTI)的临床和影像学证据,9例(20%)入住重症监护病房(ICU),4例(9%)需要插管。两组在不良事件、从上呼吸道感染进展为下呼吸道感染、治疗升级或30天死亡率方面的临床结果无差异。口服组3例(15%)和雾化组1例(4%)在30天内死亡(P = 0.33)。治疗方法转变在1年内节省的费用为120万美元。

结论

对于免疫功能低下患者RSV感染的管理,口服RBV似乎是雾化RBV的一种安全且具有成本效益的替代方案。需要更大规模的研究来验证这种方法的安全性和有效性。

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