Suppr超能文献

连续与间歇静脉输注利奈唑胺治疗重症医院获得性肺炎和呼吸机相关性肺炎患者:疗效与安全性挑战

Continuous Versus Intermittent Linezolid Infusion for Critically Ill Patients with Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Efficacy and Safety Challenges.

作者信息

Abou Warda Ahmed E, Sarhan Rania M, Al-Fishawy Hussein Saeed, Moharram Ayman N, Salem Heba F

机构信息

Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, October 6 University, Giza P.O. Box 12585, Egypt.

Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef P.O. Box 62514, Egypt.

出版信息

Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022 Feb 28;15(3):296. doi: 10.3390/ph15030296.

Abstract

High variability of linezolid blood concentrations with partial subtherapeutic levels was observed in critically ill patients who received a standard intravenous dose of linezolid, contributing to drug resistance and toxicity. Continuous infusions of linezolid have been suggested as an alternative and provide good serum and alveolar levels without fluctuations in trough concentration. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of continuous linezolid infusion versus the standard regimen in critically ill patients. A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 179 patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received IV linezolid 600 mg twice daily, while the second group received 600 mg IV as a loading dose, followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/day (50 mg/h) for at least 8−10 days. The continuous infusion group showed a higher clinical cure rate than the intermittent infusion group (p = 0.046). Furthermore, efficacy was proven by greater improvement of P/F ratio (p = 0.030) on day 7 of treatment, a lower incidence of developing sepsis after beginning treatment (p = 0.009), and a shorter time to reach clinical cure (p < 0.001). Hematological parameters were also assessed during the treatment to evaluate the safety between the two groups. The incidence of thrombocytopenia was significantly lower in the continuous infusion group than in the intermittent infusion group. In addition, a stepwise logistic regression model revealed that the intermittent infusion of linezolid was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia (OR =4.128; 95% CI = 1.681−10.139; p =0.001). The current study is the first to assess the clinical aspects of continuous infusion of linezolid beyond pharmacokinetic studies. Continuous infusion of linezolid outperforms intermittent delivery in safety and improves clinical effectiveness in critically ill patients with Gram-positive nosocomial pneumonia.

摘要

在接受标准静脉注射剂量利奈唑胺的重症患者中,观察到利奈唑胺血药浓度高度变异,部分低于治疗水平,这会导致耐药性和毒性。有人建议持续输注利奈唑胺作为一种替代方法,它能提供良好的血清和肺泡药物浓度,且谷浓度无波动。本研究旨在评估利奈唑胺持续输注与标准方案相比在重症患者中的有效性和安全性。对179例医院获得性肺炎患者进行了一项前瞻性随机对照研究。患者被随机分为两组。第一组每天两次静脉注射600mg利奈唑胺,而第二组先静脉注射600mg负荷剂量,随后以1200mg/天(50mg/小时)的速度持续输注至少8 - 10天。持续输注组的临床治愈率高于间歇输注组(p = 0.046)。此外,在治疗第7天时,持续输注组的P/F比值改善更大(p = 0.030),开始治疗后发生脓毒症的发生率更低(p = 0.009),达到临床治愈的时间更短(p < 0.001),这些都证明了其疗效。在治疗期间还评估了血液学参数以评估两组之间的安全性。持续输注组血小板减少症的发生率显著低于间歇输注组。此外,逐步逻辑回归模型显示,利奈唑胺间歇输注与血小板减少症显著相关(OR = 4.128;95%CI = 1.681 - 10.139;p = 0.001)。本研究是首个评估利奈唑胺持续输注临床情况的研究,超越了药代动力学研究范畴。在患有革兰氏阳性医院获得性肺炎的重症患者中,利奈唑胺持续输注在安全性方面优于间歇给药,并提高了临床疗效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0af1/8949268/652ad524bce9/pharmaceuticals-15-00296-g001.jpg

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