中国药学杂志
    
           首页  |  期刊介绍  |  编 委 会  |  投稿指南  |  期刊订阅  |  广告服务  |  会议信息  |  联系我们  | 
�й�ҩѧ��־ 2014, Vol. 49 Issue (16) :1470-1475    DOI: 10.11669/cpj.2014.16.023
ҩ�����ٴ� ����Ŀ¼ | ����Ŀ¼ | ������� | �߼����� << | >>
�׿��Ҿ�/����������Ԥ�������������Ⱦ����Ч�밲ȫ�Ե�Meta����
������1��2��������2��������2����̩��3*
1. ����ҩ�ƴ�ѧ�ִ����ҩѧ�о����ģ� ���� 110016��
2. ������ͨ��ѧ��һ����ҽԺ������ 710061��
3. ����ʳƷҩƷ�ල�����ܾ֣����� 100810
DONG Wei-hua1,2,ZOU Ya-min2, DONG Ya-lin2,HUANG Tai-kang3*
1. Research Center of Modern Social Pharmacy, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang 110016, China;
2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi��an Jiaotong University, Xi��an 710061, China;
3. State Food and Drug Administration, Beijing 100810, China

Download: PDF (2046KB)   HTML (1KB)   Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)      Supporting Info
ժҪ Ŀ�� ϵͳ�����׿��Ҿ��������Ԥ�������������Ⱦ����Ч�밲ȫ�ԡ����� ���������PubMed��EMbase��Cochraneͼ��ݡ��й�����ҽѧ�������ݿ�(CBM)���й��ڿ�ȫ�����ݿ�(CNKI)��ά�����ĿƼ��ڿ�ȫ�����ݿ�(VIP)�������ֻ��ڿ�ȫ�Ŀ⣬�����׿��Ҿ��Աȷ���������Ԥ�������������Ⱦ��������������ǰհ�Զ����о����Է��������׼���ٴ��о������������ۺ�������ȡ�󣬲��� Rev Man 5.1�������Meta��������� ������5���о����ϼ�1 759�����ߡ�Meta�������Ϊ:��Ԥ����Ϯ�������Ⱦ:�׿��Ҿ��ȷ���������Ƴɹ��ʸߣ�������ͳ��ѧ���壬�׿��Ҿ���ͻ�Ƹ�Ⱦ�ʡ����������Ⱦ�ʽϷ�����ͣ�������ͳ��ѧ���塢���������������Ⱦ:�׿��Ҿ��������ľ��������ʡ��յ��ٴ���Ч�ʡ�����������Ч�ʡ�������֮�������ͳ��ѧ����(P>0.05)��������ҩ����ز����¼�:150 mg�׿��Ҿ������鷢���ʸ��ڷ������飬������ͳ��ѧ����;�ܲ�����Ӧ������:���ߵ�Ƥ����ġ���ϸ�����١�ѪС����١����ȼ���Һ��λ��Ӧ��6�ֲ�����Ӧ�ķ����ʲ������ͳ��ѧ����(P>0.05)������ �׿��Ҿ�Ԥ����Ѫ��ϸ����ֲ������Ϯ�������Ⱦ����Ч���ڷ����򣬶����������������Ⱦ��Ч�����������Բ��죬150 mg��������׿��Ҿ���ȫ�Ե��ڷ������顣
Service
�ѱ����Ƽ�������
�����ҵ����
�������ù�����
Email Alert
RSS
�����������
������
������
������
��̩��*
�ؼ����� �׿��Ҿ�   ������   Meta����   �����Ⱦ     
Abstract�� OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang database, and collected the randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies of micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections. Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently with a designed extraction form. The RevMan 5.1 software was used to carry out statistical analysis. RESULTS Five studies involving 1 759 patients were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed the following facts: �� For antifungal prophylaxis: the treatment success rate of micafungin was significantly higher than fluconazole . The breakthrough infections and frequency of possible fungal infections of micafungin were significantly lower than fluconazole��. ��For treatment of candida infections: there was no significant difference between the two groups of endoscopic cure rates, clinical response at the end of treatment, overall therapeutic response, and incidence of relapse(P>0.05).��The overall incidence of drug-related adverse events of 150 mg micafungin was significantly higher than that of fluconazole . ��There was no significant difference between the two groups about the incidence of adverse reaction, such as rash, nausea, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, fever, and injection site reaction(P>0.05). CONCLUSION Micafungin offers an appropriate alternative to fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis rather than the treatment of invasive candida infection. Using micafungin with a dose of 150 mg is not safer than fluconazole.
Keywords�� micafungin,   fluconazole,   meta-analysis,   fungal infection     
�ո�����: 2014-09-03;
ͨѶ���� ��̩��,��,����,��ʿ����ʦ �о�����:���ҩѧ Tel/Fax:(029)85323243      Email: dwh751001@sina.com
���߼��: ��������Ů��������ҩʦ�о�����:ҩ�¹���
���ñ���:   
������, , �������� .�׿��Ҿ�/����������Ԥ�������������Ⱦ����Ч�밲ȫ�Ե�Meta����[J]  �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,V49(16): 1470-1475
DONG Wei-Hua-, , ZOU Ya-Min- etc .Efficacy and Safety of Micafungin Versus Fluconazole for Prophylaxis and Treatment of Fungal Infections: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J]  Chinese Pharmaceutical Journal, 2014,V49(16): 1470-1475
��
[1] OU Y H, TANG Y B. Retrospective analysis of antibiotics drug-use in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies . Chin Pharm J(�й�ҩѧ��־), 2011, 46(6):469-471.[2] IKEDA F. Antifungal activity and clinical efficacy of micafungin(funguard) . Nippon lshinkin Gakkai Zasshi, 2005, 46(4):217-222.[3] DISMUKES W E. Introduction to antifungal drugs . Clin Infect Dis, 2000, 30(4): 653-657.[4] DENNING D W. Echinocandins: A new class of antifungal . J Antimicrob Chemother, 2002, 49(6): 889-891.[5] JADAD A R, MOORE R A, CARROLL D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary . Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1): 1-12.[6] VAN BURIK J A, RATANATHARATHORN V, STEPAN D E, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections during neutropenia in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis, 2004,39(10):1407-1416.[7] HIRAMATSU Y, MAEDA Y, FUJII N, et al. Use of micafungin versus fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in neutropenic patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation . Int J Hematol, 2008, 88(5):588-595.[8] HASHINO S, MORITA L, TAKAHATA M, et al. Administration of micafungin as prophylactic antifungal therapy in patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation . Int J Hematol, 2008, 87(1):91-97.[9] DE WET N, LLANOS-CUENTAS A, SULEIMAN J, et al. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-response study of micafungin compared with fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in HIV-positive patients . Clin Infect Dis, 2004, 39(6):842-849. DE WET N T, BESTER A J, VILJOEN J J, et al. A randomized, double blind, comparative trial of micafungin (FK463) vs. fluconazole for the treatment of oesophageal candidiasis . Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2005,21(7): 899-907. MORGAN J, WANNEMUEHLER K A, MARR K A, et al. Incidence of invasive aspergillosis following hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplantation: Interim results of a prospective multicenter surveillance program . Med Mycol, 2005, 43(suppl 1): 49-58. HUANG X J. Discussion on empiric therapy of invasive fungal infection . Chin J Practical Int Med(�й�ʵ���ڿ���־), 2009, 29(1):33-35. AZUMA J, NAKAHARA K, KAGAYAMA A, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of micafungin in elderly subjects . Jpn J Chemother, 2002, 50(8): 148-154. MAERTENS J, GLASMACHER A, HERBRECHT R, et al. Multi-center, noncomparative study of caspofungin in combination with other antifungals as salvage therapy in adults with invasive aspergillosis .Cancer, 2006, 107(12): 2888-2897. SHI A G. A new class of antifungal agents- echinocandins. Chin Pharm J(�й�ҩѧ��־), 2006, 4(1): 154-156.
[1] ��Դ, , ������, , �߳�, ����֮, , ������, , ��Ծ��*.�����������ͪע��Һ���ƾ������֢��Ч�ԺͰ�ȫ�Ե�Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,49(6): 517-522
[2] �ں�, , ������*, ����Ⱥ(.��������������ϸ������Ч����ȫ�Ե�Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,49(5): 427-430
[3] ������, ���Կ, ��˼ӱ, �̽�ϼ, ������, ��ѩ, ������, ������*.��Ϯ�������Ⱦ���߷�������Ⱥ��ҩ��ѧ�о�����ҩ�����Ż�[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,49(3): 227-133
[4] ��׿Խ, ������, ������*, ������.GLP-1���弤������DPP-4���Ƽ�θ����������Ӧ��ϵͳ���ۺ�Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,49(11): 935-940
[5] �ź�Ӣ, ������, ������.��������������������������Ӱ���Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2014,49(1): 80-84
[6] ����*�����������е�Ϊ*��������������*��¬�,*.��ɼ��������ҩ��ѧ����Ե����ͷ���[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(7): 546-552
[7] ��С��, ¬����, �°���, ��Ӣ��.�������͵����ȶ����о�[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(4): 301-304
[8] ����,���ս�,��˼��,����.�����ϼ���������β-���к�ƶѪ��Ч��Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(21): 1875-1880
[9] ������,��ƽ,������,�罡��.�������������������Χ��ʹ������Ч���밲ȫ�Ե�Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(21): 1881-1885
[10] ������������������ѧ��.͸������Ԥ�������踹ǻճ������Ч�Լ���ȫ�����ͷ���[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(17): 1489-1492
[11] �ź���,����*.��ѹҩ����·�����Ӱ�������Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2013,48(11): 930-933
[12] �ƿ���;��֮������;κ��;���Ӱ�.��������Լ��������˻��������Ӱ��[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2012,22(9): 731-734
[13] �����𣬺��������ź��࣬�Ի�.���Ʊ��������˾���Ⱦҩ���Meta����[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2012,47(23): 1956-1960
[14] ����ԣ���ӥ�壬��ˬ������.������ɢ���ƾ����׵�ѭ֤ҩѧ�����о�[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2012,47(22): 1860-1863
[15] ��С�죬�ӯ���°�������Ӣ�ţ�����������ӱ.������ԭ��ҩ�й����ʵ��о�[J]. �й�ҩѧ��־, 2012,47(16): 1333-1336
Copyright 2010 by �й�ҩѧ��־