Li Zhuo, Zong Yuan, Chen Dayu, Ma Juan, Zhang Peng, Cao Lu
Department of Pharmacy, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025 May 21;15:1584950. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1584950. eCollection 2025.
To compare and analyze the efficacy and safety of different antifungal drug treatment regimens for patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in the intensive care unit (ICU).
We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with IPA in the ICU in two grade-A tertiary hospitals from January 2019 to January 2024 using the HIS system and compared the clinical efficacy, incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and all-cause mortality at discharge among different antifungal treatments, such as voriconazole alone, caspofungin alone, and a combination of voriconazole plus caspofungin.
A total of 151 patients were enrolled, including 129 in the monotherapy group (with 92 in the voriconazole subgroup and 37 in the caspofungin subgroup) and 22 in the voriconazole plus caspofungin combination group. was the most common pathogenic fungus in patients with IPA, followed by . In terms of clinical efficacy, monotherapy and combination therapy were equally effective (=0.618), and the efficacy of voriconazole or caspofungin alone and that of voriconazole combined with caspofungin in the treatment of IPA was equivalent (=0.630). In terms of safety, the total incidence of ADRs in the combination therapy group was greater than that in the monotherapy group, but the difference was not statistically significant (=0.109). The two groups were also equally safe in terms of causing renal dysfunction, liver dysfunction, visual abnormalities, and hypokalemia. However, compared with the monotherapy group, the combination therapy group exhibited a significantly greater incidence of pancytopenia (=0.013, =0.004). The all-cause mortality in the combination therapy group was significantly greater than that in the monotherapy group (=0.027, =0.009).
Voriconazole is still the preferred treatment for critically ill patients with IPA, and caspofungin has good clinical efficacy and safety and can effectively replace voriconazole for these patients. However, the combination treatment with voriconazole and caspofungin did not improve the all-cause mortality rate of critically ill patients with IPA, is associated with increased total ADR and pancytopenia incidence and is not recommended as an initial treatment plan.
比较和分析重症监护病房(ICU)中侵袭性肺曲霉病(IPA)患者不同抗真菌药物治疗方案的疗效和安全性。
我们使用医院信息系统(HIS)回顾性收集了2019年1月至2024年1月期间两家三级甲等医院ICU中IPA患者的临床资料,并比较了不同抗真菌治疗(如单独使用伏立康唑、单独使用卡泊芬净以及伏立康唑加卡泊芬净联合治疗)之间的临床疗效、药物不良反应(ADR)发生率和出院时的全因死亡率。
共纳入151例患者,其中单药治疗组129例(伏立康唑亚组92例,卡泊芬净亚组37例),伏立康唑加卡泊芬净联合治疗组22例。[此处原文似乎遗漏了最常见致病真菌的具体信息]是IPA患者中最常见的致病真菌,其次是[此处原文似乎遗漏了相关信息]。在临床疗效方面,单药治疗和联合治疗同样有效(P=0.618),单独使用伏立康唑或卡泊芬净以及伏立康唑与卡泊芬净联合治疗IPA的疗效相当(P=0.630)。在安全性方面,联合治疗组ADR的总发生率高于单药治疗组,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.109)。两组在导致肾功能障碍、肝功能障碍、视觉异常和低钾血症方面的安全性也相当。然而,与单药治疗组相比,联合治疗组全血细胞减少的发生率显著更高(P=0.013,P=0.004)。联合治疗组的全因死亡率显著高于单药治疗组(P=0.027,P=0.009)。
伏立康唑仍是重症IPA患者的首选治疗药物,卡泊芬净具有良好的临床疗效和安全性,可有效替代伏立康唑用于这些患者。然而,伏立康唑与卡泊芬净联合治疗并未改善重症IPA患者的全因死亡率,且与总ADR和全血细胞减少发生率增加相关,不建议作为初始治疗方案。