替考拉宁与万古霉素在中性粒细胞缺乏伴发热的恶性血液病患儿中的有效性和安全性分析

孙丹, 张涛, 成华, 滕蒙蒙, 韩瑞英, 王陶陶, 董亚琳

中国药学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (17) : 1482-1488.

PDF(1052 KB)
PDF(1052 KB)
中国药学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (17) : 1482-1488. DOI: 10.11669/cpj.2022.17.012
论著

替考拉宁与万古霉素在中性粒细胞缺乏伴发热的恶性血液病患儿中的有效性和安全性分析

  • 孙丹1,2, 张涛1, 成华3, 滕蒙蒙1, 韩瑞英1, 王陶陶1, 董亚琳1*
作者信息 +

The Efficacy and Safety of Teicoplanin and Vancomycin in Haematological Malignancy Children with Febrile Neutropenia

  • SUN Dan1,2, ZHANG Tao1, CHENG Hua3, TENG Meng-meng1, HAN Rui-ying1, WANG Tao-tao1, DONG Ya-lin1*
Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

目的 在发生中性粒细胞缺乏伴发热(粒缺伴发热)的恶性血液病儿童患者中比较替考拉宁及万古霉素经验性覆盖革兰阳性菌时的有效性和安全性。方法 使用倾向评分匹配均衡万古霉素组和替考拉宁组患者的基线特征,进而比较两组的临床有效性、谷浓度达标率和达标时间以及肾毒性发生率。结果 最初共纳入126名粒缺伴发热的恶性血液病儿童患者。经匹配后,共纳入74名替考拉宁组患者和37名万古霉素组患者,两组的基线特征均衡可比。用药72 h和用药结束时的临床有效率在两组患者中均无显著性差异(P值分别为0.673和0.477),有效谷浓度的达标率及达标时间也均无显著性差异(P值分别为0.439和0.103)。但替考拉宁治疗组的肾毒性发生率显著低于万古霉素组(P=0.026)。结论 在粒缺伴发热的恶性血液病儿童患者中经验性覆盖革兰阳性菌时,相比万古霉素,更推荐使用肾毒性发生率较低的替考拉宁。

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin in haematologicalmalignancy children with febrile neutropenia for empirically treating suspected gram-positive bacterial infections, to provide the choice for appropriately selecting the empirical antibiotics in clinical practice early.CONCLUSION The medical records of patients received teicoplanin/vancomycin were retrospectively collected. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced using propensity score matching(1:2) to compare the clinical efficacy, the target attainment of trough concentration and the related time, as well as the incidence of nephrotoxicity of the two groups.RESULTS A total of 126 haematologicalmalignancy children with febrile neutropenia were enrolled. There were 89 and 37 patients in the teicoplanin and the vancomycin treatment group, respectively. After matching, a total of 74 patients in the teicoplanin group and 37 patients in the vancomycin group were enrolled, and there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the demographic data and baseline laboratory tests. There were no significant differences in the clinical effective rate at 72 h(P=0.673) and at the end of medication(P=0.477) between the two groups, and there were also no significant differences in the attainment rate of the target trough concentration and the reaching time between the two groups(P=0.439 and 0.103, respectively). However, the incidence of nephrotoxicity in teicoplanin group was significantly lower than that in the vancomycin group(P=0.026).CONCLUSION Teicoplanin is recommended to treat the suspected gram-positive bacterial infections in haematologicalmalignancy children with febrile neutropenia empirically.

关键词

儿童 / 中性粒细胞缺乏伴发热 / 替考拉宁 / 万古霉素

Key words

pediatric / febrile neutropenia / teicoplanin / vancomycin

引用本文

导出引用
孙丹, 张涛, 成华, 滕蒙蒙, 韩瑞英, 王陶陶, 董亚琳. 替考拉宁与万古霉素在中性粒细胞缺乏伴发热的恶性血液病患儿中的有效性和安全性分析[J]. 中国药学杂志, 2022, 57(17): 1482-1488 https://doi.org/10.11669/cpj.2022.17.012
SUN Dan, ZHANG Tao, CHENG Hua, TENG Meng-meng, HAN Rui-ying, WANG Tao-tao, DONG Ya-lin. The Efficacy and Safety of Teicoplanin and Vancomycin in Haematological Malignancy Children with Febrile Neutropenia[J]. Chinese Pharmaceutical Journal, 2022, 57(17): 1482-1488 https://doi.org/10.11669/cpj.2022.17.012
中图分类号: R969   

参考文献

[1] HEMATOLOGY BRANCH OF CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; HEMATOLOGIST BRANCH OF CHINESE MEDICAL DOCTOR ASSOCIATION. Chinese guidelines for the clinical application of antibacterial drugs for agranulocytosis with fever(2020)[J]. Chin J Hematol(中华血液学杂志), 2020, 41(12): 969-978.
[2] HU L N, XIE M, LI G Q, et al. Clinical efficacy and treatment cost of first-line empirical anti-infective therapy for patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia of hematological malignancy[J]. Chin J Infect Control(中国感染控制杂志), 2020, 19(8): 715-720.
[3] HU J D, YAN C H, FENG S Z. Chinese guidelines for the clinical application of antibacterial drugs for agranulocytosis with fever(2016)[J]. Chin J Hematol(中华血液学杂志), 2016, 37(5): 353-359.
[4] HU F P, GUO Y, ZHU D M, et al. CHINET surveillance of bacterial resistance across tertiary hospitals in 2019[J]. Chin J Infect Chemother(中国感染与化疗杂志), 2020, 20(3): 233-243.
[5] YAN C H,XU T,ZHENG X Y, et al. Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia in patients with hematological disease-a prospectivemulticentre survey in China[J]. Chin J Hematol(中华血液学杂志), 2016, 37(3): 177-182.
[6] ZHU J, ZHOU Y F, BAI H T, et al. Bacterial species and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of pathogens in febrileneutropenic patients[J]. Chin J Infect Chemother(中国感染与化疗杂志), 2016, 16(3): 241-246.
[7] HU F P, GUO Y, ZHU D M, et al. CHINET surveillance of bacterial resistance in China:2018 report[J]. Chin J Infect Chemother(中国感染与化疗杂志), 2020, 20(1): 1-10.
[8] ZHU C Y, NIU X F. Analysis of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin hydrochloride in the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections[J]. China Pract Med(中国实用医药), 2018, 13(18): 18-20.
[9] WOOD M J. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 1996, 37(2): 209-222.
[10] SVETITSKY S, LEIBOVICI L, PAUL M. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2009, 53(10): 4069-4079.
[11] KATO-HAYASHI H, NIWA T, OHATA K, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation[J]. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2019, 44(6): 888-894.
[12] HAHN-AST C, GLASMACHER A, ARNS A, et al. An audit of efficacy and toxicity of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenia: is the different toxicity profile clinically relevant[J]. Infection,2008, 36(1): 54-58.
[13] SIDI V, ROILIDES E, BIBASHI E, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin in children with antineoplastic therapy-associated febrile neutropenia and gram-positive bacteremia[J]. J Chemother, 2000, 12(4): 326-331.
[14] HU S S, WANG T T, YOU H S, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of teicoplanin in haematological malignancy patients with febrile neutropenia and optimizing dosage regimens[J]. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol, 2018, 123(5): 594-601.
[15] YAMADA T, KUBOTA T, YONEZAWA M, et al. Evaluation of teicoplanin trough values after the recommended loading dose in children with associated safety analysis[J]. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2017, 36(4): 398-400.
[16] HARUKI Y, HAGIYA H, HARUKI M, et al. Concomitant vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam treatment is associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury in Japanese patients[J]. J Infect Chemother, 2020, 26(10): 1026-1032.
[17] PAN K M, WU Y, CHEN C, et al. Vancomycin-induced acute kidney injury in elderly Chinese patients: a single-centre cross-sectional study[J]. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2018, 84(8): 1706-1718.
[18] ZHANG R G, ZHANG R X, ZHANG Y.Determination of teicoplanin in human plasma and related factors analysis[J]. Chin Pharm J(中国药学杂志), 2019, 54(8): 654-658.
[19] EMC. Targocid EMC 200 mg powder for solution for injection/infusion ororal solution[EB/OL]. (2021-02-01).https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2926/smpc.
[20] HE N, SU S, YE Z K, et al. Evidence-based guideline for therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin: 2020 update by the division of therapeutic drug monitoring, Chinese Pharmacological Society[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2020, 71(Suppl 4): S363-S371.
[21] HU S S, PANG C S, DONG H Y, et al. Determination of teicoplanin serum concentration in critically ill patients[J]. Chin J Hosp Pharm(中国医院药学杂志), 2011, 31(9): 753-755.
[22] ZHANG T, CHENG H, LI Y, et al. Pediatric acute kidney injury induced by vancomycin monotherapy versus combined vancomycin and meropenem[J]. J Clin Pharm Ther, 2019, 44(3): 440-446.
[23] PENG Y, YE X H, LI Y, et al. Teicoplanin as an effective alternative to vancomycin for treatment of MRSA infection in Chinese population: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(11): e79782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079782.
[24] DIOGO D G B, ALEXANDRE B C, ANDERSON R G, et al. Cochrane meta-analysis: teicoplanin versus vancomycin for proven or suspected infection[J]. Einstein, 2011, 9(3): 265-282.
[25] D′ANTONIO D, STANISCIA T, PICCOLOMINI R, et al. Addition of teicoplanin or vancomycin for the treatment of documented bacteremia due to gram-positive cocci in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies: microbiological, clinical and economic evaluation[J]. Chemotherapy, 2004, 50(2): 81-87.
[26] MOFFETT B S, GOLDSTEIN S L. Acute kidney injury and increasing nephrotoxic medication exposure in noncritically-ill children[J]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2011, 6(4): 856-863.
[27] SANCAR A A, YEGENOGLU S, DE VRIES R, et al. Vancomycin vs teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a pharmacoeconomic analysis in a Turkish university hospital[J]. Pharm World Sci, 2008, 30(6): 916-923.
[28] VÁZQUEZ L, ENCINAS M P, MORÍN L S, et al. Randomized prospective study comparing cost-effectiveness of teicoplanin and vancomycin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients[J]. Haematologica, 1999, 84(3): 231-236.
[29] ZHAO W, ZHANG D L, STORME T, et al. Population pharmacokinetics and dosing optimization of teicoplanin in children with malignant haematological disease[J]. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2015, 80(5): 1197-1207.
[30] YOU Y L, HE X L, LIU W, et al. Relationship between vancomycin serum concentration and clinical therapeutic in paediatrics[J]. Jilin Med J(吉林医学), 2013, 34(1):26-28.
[31] LIU C, BAYER A, COSGROVE S E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the infectious diseases society of America for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children: executive summary[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2011, 52(3): 285-292.

基金

陕西省重点研发计划项目资助(2019ZDLSF01-05)
PDF(1052 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/