文章快速检索 高级检索
  中国感染控制杂志  2020, Vol. 20 Issue (6): 532-536   DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20216690
0

引用本文 [复制中英文]

杨凌婧, 高凌云, 付泽伟, 等. ICU危重症患者侵袭性肺曲霉病抗真菌药物联合治疗临床经验初探[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2020, 20(6): 532-536. DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20216690.
[复制中文]
YANG Ling-jing, GAO Ling-yun, FU Ze-wei, et al. Clinical experience of combination antifungal therapy for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients in intensive care unit[J]. Chin J Infect Control, 2020, 20(6): 532-536. DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20216690.
[复制英文]

作者简介

杨凌婧(1983-), 女(汉族), 四川省成都市人, 主治医师, 主要从事肺部重症感染及肺损伤与修复研究

通信作者

杨凌婧  E-mail: 41310750@qq.com

文章历史

收稿日期:2020-03-13
ICU危重症患者侵袭性肺曲霉病抗真菌药物联合治疗临床经验初探
杨凌婧 , 高凌云 , 付泽伟 , 李熙霞 , 杨丽青 , 熊丽 , 胥青     
四川省医学科学院四川省人民医院(东院)呼吸与危重症医学科, 四川 成都 610100
摘要目的 探讨伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净治疗能否改善重症监护病房(ICU)并发侵袭性肺曲霉病(IPA)危重症患者的预后。方法 回顾性收集2014年6月—2019年6月ICU临床诊断及确诊为IPA患者的临床资料,比较伏立康唑单药治疗组(单药组)及伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净治疗组(联合组)两组患者临床疗效、急性肾损伤情况、抗真菌治疗42 d生存状况的差异,分析IPA危重症患者死亡的危险因素。结果 共纳入IPA危重症患者35例,其中单药组25例(71.4%),联合组10例(28.6%)。联合组患者临床总有效率、对肾功能的影响以及治疗42 d生存状况,与单药组患者比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。多因素Cox回归分析显示,联合治疗(HR=0.664,95%CI:0.222~1.984,P=0.464)不是IPA危重症患者死亡的独立影响因素。结论 伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净治疗ICU危重症IPA患者未能改善其预后。
关键词伏立康唑    卡泊芬净    侵袭性肺曲霉病    危重症患者    联合治疗    
Clinical experience of combination antifungal therapy for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients in intensive care unit
YANG Ling-jing , GAO Ling-yun , FU Ze-wei , LI Xi-xia , YANG Li-qing , XIONG Li , XU Qing     
Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Sichuan Academy of Mdedical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital[East Hospital], Chengdu 610100, China
Abstract: Objective To explore whether voriconazole combined with caspofungin can improve the prognosis of critically ill patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in intensive care unit (ICU). Methods Clinical data of patients clinically diagnosed and confirmed with IPA in ICU from June 2014 to June 2019 were retrospectively collected, difference in clinical efficacy, acute kidney damage and 42-day survival status after antifungal therapy between voriconazole monotherapy group (monotherapy group) and voriconazole combined with caspofung group (combination group) were compared, risk factors for death in critically ill patients with IPA were analyzed. Results A total of 35 critically ill patients with IPA were included, 25 cases (71.4%) in monotherapy group and 10 cases (28.6%) in combination group. There were no significant differences in overall clinical effective rate, impact on renal function and 42-day survival status between combination group and monotherapy group (all P>0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that combination therapy (HR=0.664, 95%CI: 0.222-1.984, P=0.464) was not an independent influencing factor for death in critically ill patients with IPA. Conclusion Voriconazole combined with caspofungin can't improve the prognosis of critically ill ICU patients with IPA.
Key words: voriconazole    caspofungin    invasive pulmonary aspergillosis    critically ill patient    combination therapy    

重症监护病房(intensive care unit, ICU)危重症患者发生侵袭性肺曲霉病(invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, IPA)者越来越多[1-2],发生率0.3%~5.8%[3-4],总病死率超过80%[4-6],但这些患者并不具备经典的危险因素[6-9]。2016年美国感染病学会(IDSA)曲霉病诊断和管理指南推荐,伏立康唑为IPA首选药物,卡泊芬净是次选和挽救治疗的重要选择之一,联合治疗多用于挽救治疗[10]。但IPA治疗的建议与推荐大多基于恶性血液病中性粒细胞缺乏人群的研究,不能完全适用于ICU危重症患者。鉴于ICU中IPA治疗存在较低成功率和较高病死率[11-12],而临床实际中高达30%的ICU IPA危重症患者需要进行挽救治疗[13],故近年国内外专家推荐危重症患者丝状真菌感染可使用卡泊芬净加伏立康唑联合抗真菌治疗。ICU危重症患者IPA联合抗真菌治疗相关研究样本量较少,缺乏前瞻性随机对照研究,联合治疗临床应用经验不足,国内更罕有报道。本研究旨在进一步探讨伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净治疗能否改善ICU并发IPA危重症患者的预后,为临床医生提供治疗经验。

1 对象与方法 1.1 研究对象

2014年6月—2019年6月四川省人民医院(东院)ICU住院的IPA患者。

1.2 纳入与排除标准

纳入标准:(1)年龄>18岁。(2)确诊或临床诊断为IPA。(3)使用伏立康唑单药或伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净抗真菌治疗,并符合伏立康唑首日负荷剂量为静脉途径6 mg/kg,1次/12 h,维持剂量静脉途径4 mg/kg,1次/12 h;卡泊芬净负荷剂量70 mg/d,维持剂量50 mg/d。(4)临床资料完整。排除标准:(1)血液系统恶性肿瘤患者;(2)中性粒细胞缺乏症患者。

1.3 IPA诊断标准

符合欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织/侵袭性真菌感染协作组和美国国立变态反应和感染病研究院真菌病研究组(EORTC/IFICG)制定的侵袭性真菌病诊断标准或符合2016年美国IDSA曲霉病诊断和管理指南或危重症患者IPA诊断标准[9-10, 14-16]

1.4 研究方法

回顾性收集患者以下临床资料:年龄、性别、基础疾病,入ICU原因、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、入ICU糖皮质激素使用情况,抗真菌治疗疗程、疗效及42 d生存状况,抗真菌治疗开始及结束时急性肾损伤(AKI)分级、血肌酐值及使用持续肾替代治疗(CRRT)情况。根据抗真菌治疗使用药物情况分为伏立康唑单药治疗组(单药组)和伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净治疗组(联合组)。

1.5 临床疗效评估

以单药或联合抗真菌治疗开始为疗效判定起点,以单药或联合抗真菌治疗结束为截点。疗效评估包括临床有效及临床无效。临床有效包括痊愈和显效。痊愈指IPA症状、体征、实验室及病原学检验均恢复正常,放射学检查基本正常;显效指IPA病情明显好转,但以上4项中1项未恢复正常,放射学检查>50%好转。临床无效指用药后病情无明显好转或加重,影像学检查无明显好转或加重,或死亡。总有效率=(痊愈患者数+显效患者数)/所有患者数×100%。

1.6 统计学方法

应用SPSS 23.0软件对结果进行分析。计数资料采用频数表示,组间比较采用χ2检验;计量指标若符合正态分布,通过均值±标准差(x±s)表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验,组内比较采用配对样本T检验;非正态分布资料采用中位数(四分位数)M(Q1Q3)表示,组间比较采用秩和检验。采用单因素Cox回归分析死亡的重要危险因素,多因素Cox回归分析死亡的独立危险因素,两条生存曲线之间的比较采用Log-rank检验, 以P≤0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 一般资料

35例IPA危重症患者中,男性21例(60.0%),女性14例(40.0%);年龄34~92岁,平均(66.2±17.1)岁;单药组25例(71.4%),联合组10例(28.6%);确诊诊断3例(8.6%),临床诊断32例(91.4%);主要合并高血压(42.9%)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(40.0%)、冠心病(20.0%),使用糖皮质激素者占45.7%;抗真菌治疗疗程10(7,18)d(范围5~73 d),抗真菌治疗42 d死亡14例(40.0%)。两组患者在年龄、性别、诊断级别、基础疾病、使用糖皮质激素情况、入ICU原因、抗真菌治疗当日SOFA评分、1,3-β-D葡聚糖检测(G试验)、半乳甘露聚糖抗原检测(GM试验)、抗真菌治疗疗程及抗真菌治疗42 d病死率比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。见表 1

表 1 两组IPA危重症患者临床资料比较 Table 1 Comparison of clinical data between two groups of critically ill patients with IPA
2.2 临床疗效

临床总有效率:联合组患者为30.0%,单药组患者为32.0%,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。见表 2

表 2 两组IPA危重症患者临床疗效比较 Table 2 Comparison of clinical therapeutic efficacy between two groups of critically ill patients with IPA
2.3 两组抗真菌治疗前后肾功能的变化

单药组与联合组在抗真菌治疗前后AKI分级及肌酐值比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。见表 3

表 3 两组IPA危重症患者抗真菌治疗前后AKI分级及肌酐检测结果 Table 3 AKI grades and creatinine test results of two groups of critically ill patients with IPA before and after antifungal therapy
2.4 两组患者抗真菌治疗42 d生存曲线

联合组与单药组42 d生存率分别为50.0%、64.0%,两组生存状况差异无统计学意义(P=0.458)。见图 1

图 1 单药组与联合组患者生存曲线 Figure 1 Survival curves of patients in monotherapy group and combination group
2.5 死亡影响因素分析

经单因素Cox回归分析,年龄、冠心病是死亡的重要影响因素,联合治疗不是死亡的重要影响因素。经多因素Cox回归分析,联合治疗也不是死亡的影响因素。见表 4

表 4 IPA危重症症患者42 d死亡的影响因素Cox回归分析 Table 4 Cox regression analysis on influencing factors for 42-day death of critically ill patients with IPA
3 讨论

鉴于ICU危重症IPA患者预后不良,各种抗真菌药物组合已被用于治疗该种疾病。其中,唑类和棘白菌素联合治疗在理论上是最具前景的组合策略。然而,高成本、毒性以及不足的支持证据,联合治疗在临床使用中经验不足。

本研究回顾性分析近5年ICU使用伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净抗真菌治疗仅存的10例病例。与伏立康唑单药治疗组相比,联合治疗组在临床疗效、42 d病死率和存活状况无明显优势,联合治疗并非ICU危重症IPA患者死亡的独立影响因素。本研究显示,联合抗真菌治疗可能不会改善ICU危重症患者预后。国外一系统评价复习截至2011年数据,包括7个观察性研究和一个随机控制试验,共1 071例患者,发现对原发性IPA治疗,联合抗真菌药物治疗的证据(评级为中等强度)是相互冲突的[17],本研究与此结论一致。而另一纳入16项研究包括1 833例患者的荟萃分析结果显示,棘白菌素与三唑类或两性霉素B联合,与非棘白菌素单药治疗比较,联合治疗改善挽救性治疗的临床结果[18]。此外一项纳入40例实体器官移植受者的研究结果显示,伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净作为初始治疗,与单药组相比,联合组病死率显著降低[19]。多项研究显示了伏立康唑联合卡泊芬净的治疗优势[20-22],但存在相互矛盾的研究结果,考虑与不同的患者群体、缺乏特定的临床特征和不同的共存疾病相关。

联合抗真菌治疗的初衷是希望实现药物的协同作用,在病情最危重的ICU患者中体现联合治疗的优越性,证明联合治疗的生存优势。但本研究结果显示,对IPA危重症患者的抗真菌联合治疗与死亡无关,年龄是危重症IPA患者死亡的独立影响因素。

本研究存在一定的局限性。首先,本研究为回顾性研究,样本量极其有限;其次,不同医院、医生对IPA严重程度评估及治疗方式存在一定差异,故本研究结果可能不能代表其他医院ICU危重症IPA患者的疗效。

目前,关于联合治疗ICU危重症患者IPA临床疗效及联合药物的药代动力学及药效学的数据非常有限,需要科学设计更多随机、对照、多中心临床试验,以充分解决联合治疗可行性的问题;未来的药代动力学和药效学研究将优化药物选择和给药方案,进一步优化治疗方案。总之,使用或研究抗真菌药物联合治疗最常见原因是希望实现药物协同作用;然而,联合治疗所致活性衰减[23-26]、毒性增加、成本增加[27]及药物相互作用必须考虑。在缺乏一项控制良好、前瞻性的临床试验的情况下,抗真菌药物联合治疗用于IPA的初始治疗并不是IDSA常规推荐的,但对于住院期间呼吸衰竭进一步恶化、出现脓毒症,或单药抗真菌治疗症状恶化的ICU危重症IPA患者,可考虑开始联合治疗[28]

参考文献
[1]
Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Al-Obaidi M. Invasive fungal infections in the intensive care unit[J]. Infect Dis Clin North Am, 2017, 31(3): 475-487. DOI:10.1016/j.idc.2017.05.005
[2]
Limper AH. Clinical approach and management for selected fungal infections in pulmonary and critical care patients[J]. Chest, 2014, 146(6): 1658-1666. DOI:10.1378/chest.14-0305
[3]
Meersseman W, Vandecasteele SJ, Wilmer A, et al. Invasive aspergillosis in critically ill patients without malignancy[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2004, 170(6): 621-625. DOI:10.1164/rccm.200401-093OC
[4]
Cornillet A, Camus C, Nimubona S, et al. Comparison of epidemiological, clinical, and biological features of invasive aspergillosis in neutropenic and nonneutropenic patients: a 6-year survey[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2006, 43(5): 577-584. DOI:10.1086/505870
[5]
Guinea J, Torres-Narbona M, Gijón P, et al. Pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: incidence, risk factors, and outcome[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2010, 16(7): 870-877. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03015.x
[6]
Khasawneh F, Mohamad T, Moughrabieh MK, et al. Isolation of Aspergillus in critically ill patients: a potential marker of poor outcome[J]. J Crit Care, 2006, 21(4): 322-327. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2006.03.006
[7]
Vandewoude K, Blot S, Benoit D, et al. Invasive aspergillosis in critically ill patients: analysis of risk factors for acquisition and mortality[J]. Acta Clin Belg, 2004, 59(5): 251-257. DOI:10.1179/acb.2004.037
[8]
Garnacho-Montero J, Amaya-Villar R, Ortiz-Leyba C, et al. Isolation of Aspergillus spp. from the respiratory tract in critically ill patients: risk factors, clinical presentation and outcome[J]. Crit Care, 2005, 9(3): R191-R199. DOI:10.1186/cc3488
[9]
Vandewoude KH, Blot SI, Depuydt P, et al. Clinical relevance of Aspergillus isolation from respiratory tract samples in critically ill patients[J]. Crit Care, 2006, 10(1): R31. DOI:10.1186/cc4823
[10]
Patterson TF, Thompson GR 3rd, Denning DW, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aspergillosis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2016, 63(4): e1-e60. DOI:10.1093/cid/ciw326
[11]
Taccone FS, Van den Abeele AM, Bulpa P, et al. Epidemiology of invasive aspergillosis in critically ill patients: clinical presentation, underlying conditions, and outcomes[J]. Crit Care, 2015, 19(1): 7. DOI:10.1186/s13054-014-0722-7
[12]
Colombo AL, de Almeida Júnior JN, Slavin MA, et al. Candida and invasive mould diseases in non-neutropenic critically ill patients and patients with haematological cancer[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2017, 17(11): e344-e356. DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30304-3
[13]
Garnacho-Montero J, Olaechea P, Alvarez-Lerma F, et al. Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of fungal respiratory infections in the critically ill patient[J]. Rev Esp Quimioter, 2013, 26(2): 173-188.
[14]
De Pauw B, Walsh TJ, Donnelly JP, et al. Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2008, 46(12): 1813-1821. DOI:10.1086/588660
[15]
Garnacho-Montero J, Amaya-Villar R. A validated clinical approach for the management of aspergillosis in critically ill patients: ready, steady, go![J]. Crit Care, 2006, 10(2): 132. DOI:10.1186/cc4860
[16]
Blot SI, Taccone FS, Van den Abeele AM, et al. A clinical algorithm to diagnose invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2012, 186(1): 56-64. DOI:10.1164/rccm.201111-1978OC
[17]
Garbati MA, Alasmari FA, Al-Tannir MA, et al. The role of combination antifungal therapy in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a systematic review[J]. Int J Infect Dis, 2012, 16(2): e76-e81. DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2011.10.004
[18]
Panackal AA, Parisini E, Proschan M. Salvage combination antifungal therapy for acute invasive aspergillosis may improve outcomes: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Int J Infect Dis, 2014, 28: 80-94. DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2014.07.007
[19]
Singh N, Limaye AP, Forrest G, et al. Combination of voriconazole and caspofungin as primary therapy for invasive aspergillosis in solid organ transplant recipients: a prospective, multicenter, observational study[J]. Transplantation, 2006, 81(3): 320-326. DOI:10.1097/01.tp.0000202421.94822.f7
[20]
Marr KA, Schlamm HT, Herbrecht R, et al. Combination antifungal therapy for invasive aspergillosis: a randomized trial[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(2): 81-89. DOI:10.7326/M13-2508
[21]
Marr KA, Boeckh M, Carter RA, et al. Combination antifungal therapy for invasive aspergillosis[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2004, 39(6): 797-802. DOI:10.1086/423380
[22]
Upton A, Kirby KA, Carpenter P, et al. Invasive aspergillosis following hematopoietic cell transplantation: outcomes and prognostic factors associated with mortality[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2007, 44(4): 531-540. DOI:10.1086/510592
[23]
Meletiadis J, Stergiopoulou T, O'haughnessy EM, et al. Concentration-dependent synergy and antagonism within a triple antifungal drug combination against Aspergillus species: ana-lysis by a new response surface model[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2007, 51(6): 2053-2064. DOI:10.1128/AAC.00873-06
[24]
Manavathu EK, Alangaden GJ, Chandrasekar PH. Differential activity of triazoles in two-drug combinations with the echinocandin caspofungin against Aspergillus fumigatus[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2003, 51(6): 1423-1425. DOI:10.1093/jac/dkg242
[25]
Meletiadis J, te Dorsthorst DT, Verweij PE. The concentration-dependent nature of in vitro amphotericin B-itraconazole interaction against Aspergillus fumigatus: isobolographic and response surface analysis of complex pharmacodynamic interactions[J]. Int J Antimicrob Agents, 2006, 28(5): 439-449. DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2006.07.011
[26]
Kontoyiannis DP, Lewis RE, Sagar N, et al. Itraconazole-amphotericin B antagonism in Aspergillus fumigatus: an E-test-based strategy[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2000, 44(10): 2915-2918. DOI:10.1128/AAC.44.10.2915-2918.2000
[27]
Kim A, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL. Hospital costs and outcomes among intravenous antifungal therapies for patients with invasive aspergillosis in the United States[J]. Mycoses, 2011, 54(5): e301-e312. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0507.2010.01903.x
[28]
Garnacho-Montero J, Olaechea P, Alvarez-Lerma F, et al. Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of fungal respiratory infections in the critically ill patient[J]. Rev Esp Quimioter, 2013, 26(2): 173-188.