Suppr超能文献

[发热性中性粒细胞减少症的预防与治疗]

[Prevention and treatment of febrile neutropenia].

作者信息

Montemurro F, Gallicchio M, Aglietta M

机构信息

Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche ed Oncologia Umana, Università di Torino, Italy.

出版信息

Tumori. 1997;83(2 Suppl):S15-9.

PMID:9235724
Abstract

Many chemotherapy regimens are associated with variable periods of myelosuppression. In cancer patients, neutropenia (less than 500 neutrophils/microL) is the most important risk factor for infections. The incidence and severity of infectious complications are related to depth and duration of neutropenia, with the highest risk if neutrophils are less than 100/microL for more than a week. The period required for neutrophil recovery is usually short with standard regimens, but prolonged after high dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplant (-ABMT) or peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) infusion. Under these conditions, the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) accelerates neutrophil recovery and shortens the duration of hospitalization. In standard chemotherapy settings, prophylactic use of CSF's is a matter of debate. Several studies have reached contrasting conclusion, but, combining effectiveness and costs, it results that this use of CSF'S is not to be recommended unless the risk of infections (elderly patients, reduced marrow reserve) is high. The administration of G-CSF or GM-CSF to a febrile neutropenic patient (cfr CSF's therapy) shortens the duration of neutropenia, although no great clinical benefits are evident. Nevertheless the identification of subsets of patients with additional risk factors (i.e. absolute neutrophil count < 100/microL at the onset of fever or delayed neutrophil recovery) should be helpful in establishing the role of CSF's therapy. When prolonged periods of severe neutropenia (less than 500 neutrophils/microL) are expected, antibiotics should be prophylactically administered. Fluoroquinolones seem to be the optimal choice in heavily myelosuppressed patients (ie. bone marrow transplant recipients). Fluoroquinolones are effective in reducing the frequency of gram-negative bacteremia, but, because of incomplete coverage, gram-positive infections are becoming increasingly problematic. The association with an agent that can be absorbed orally, active against gram-positive cocci, seems to be an effective strategy. Fungal infections are an important cause of morbility and mortality in severely neutropenic patients. Safety and efficacy of antifungal triazoles and the lipid formulations of amphotericin B used prophylactically still require investigation. In patients at high risk for fungal infections, monitoring cultures are predictive for systemic mycoses and should guide prophylactic and therapeutic choices. The standard treatment of oncologic patients with potential infectious neutropenia complications is admission to the hospital and treatment with broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Until third generation cephalosporin and carbapenems became available, most neutropenic febrile patients were treated with associations of an aminoglycoside plus a beta-lactam. Monotherapy with the new antibiotics has proven to be effective as an association therapy and offers advantages in terms of cost and tolerability. Whether or not vancomycin is included in the initial antibiotic regimen should be decided on the basis of epidemiological consideration (i.e. prevalence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Staphylococcus mitis in certain centers). Antifungal therapy is indicated in neutropenic patients who remain febrile after one week of broad-spectrum antibiotics or have recurrent fever. Amphotericin B should be promptly administered in patients suspected of invasive mycoses. Selected patients with fever and neutropenia, that can be identified on the basis of reduced risk of severe complications, do not need hospitalization. In the first reports, outpatient treatment has proven to be effective, cost saving and well received by patients, but further studies are needed to accurately define low risk status and the optimal home antibiotic regimens.

摘要

许多化疗方案都伴有不同时期的骨髓抑制。在癌症患者中,中性粒细胞减少(低于500个中性粒细胞/微升)是感染的最重要危险因素。感染并发症的发生率和严重程度与中性粒细胞减少的程度和持续时间有关,如果中性粒细胞低于100/微升超过一周,风险最高。采用标准方案时,中性粒细胞恢复所需的时间通常较短,但在大剂量化疗后进行自体骨髓移植(-ABMT)或外周血干细胞(PBSC)输注后,恢复时间会延长。在这些情况下,给予粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)或粒细胞-巨噬细胞集落刺激因子(GM-CSF)可加速中性粒细胞恢复并缩短住院时间。在标准化疗环境中,预防性使用集落刺激因子(CSF)存在争议。多项研究得出了相互矛盾的结论,但综合有效性和成本来看,除非感染风险较高(老年患者、骨髓储备减少),否则不建议使用CSF。对发热性中性粒细胞减少患者给予G-CSF或GM-CSF(参见CSF治疗)可缩短中性粒细胞减少的持续时间,尽管没有明显的临床益处。然而,识别具有额外危险因素的患者亚组(即发热开始时绝对中性粒细胞计数<100/微升或中性粒细胞恢复延迟)应有助于确定CSF治疗的作用。当预计会出现长时间的严重中性粒细胞减少(低于500个中性粒细胞/微升)时,应预防性使用抗生素。氟喹诺酮类药物似乎是骨髓严重抑制患者(如骨髓移植受者)的最佳选择。氟喹诺酮类药物可有效降低革兰氏阴性菌血症的发生率,但由于覆盖不完全,革兰氏阳性菌感染问题日益突出。联合使用一种可口服吸收、对革兰氏阳性球菌有效的药物似乎是一种有效的策略。真菌感染是严重中性粒细胞减少患者发病和死亡的重要原因。预防性使用抗真菌三唑类药物和两性霉素B的脂质制剂的安全性和有效性仍需研究。对于真菌感染高危患者,监测培养物可预测系统性真菌病,并应指导预防性和治疗性选择。对有潜在感染性中性粒细胞减少并发症的肿瘤患者的标准治疗是住院并用广谱静脉内抗生素治疗。在第三代头孢菌素和碳青霉烯类药物出现之前,大多数中性粒细胞减少发热患者采用氨基糖苷类加β-内酰胺类联合治疗。事实证明,使用新型抗生素进行单药治疗与联合治疗一样有效,并且在成本和耐受性方面具有优势。初始抗生素治疗方案中是否包括万古霉素应根据流行病学因素决定(如某些中心耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌或缓症葡萄球菌的流行情况)。对于接受广谱抗生素治疗一周后仍发热或反复发热的中性粒细胞减少患者,应进行抗真菌治疗。对于怀疑有侵袭性真菌病的患者,应立即给予两性霉素B。根据严重并发症风险降低可识别出的部分发热性中性粒细胞减少患者无需住院。在最初的报告中,门诊治疗已被证明是有效的、节省成本的且患者接受度良好,但需要进一步研究以准确界定低风险状态和最佳家庭抗生素治疗方案。

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