两性霉素B 3日加量疗法在急性白血病合并侵袭性真菌病患儿中的临床应用

中国真菌学杂志　 2021, Vol. 16 　Issue (3): 170-175.

两性霉素B 3日加量疗法在急性白血病合并侵袭性真菌病患儿中的临床应用

刘莹婷^1,2, 曹励之², 王丹², 杨明华²

1. 湖南省第二人民医院, 长沙 410008;
2. 中南大学湘雅医院儿科, 长沙 410008

收稿日期:2019-03-18 出版日期:2021-06-28 发布日期:2021-06-28
通讯作者: 杨明华,E-mail:yangminghua@csu.edu.cn E-mail:yangminghua@csu.edu.cn
作者简介:刘莹婷,女(汉族),硕士研究生,住院医师.E-mail:18711071650@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（81100359；81570154）

A 3 days dose-escalation method for the administration of amphotericin B for childhood acute leukemia with invasive fungal disease

LIU Yingting^1,2, CAO Lizhi², WANG Dan², YANG Minghua²

1. The Second People's Hospital of Hunan Province, Changsha 410008, China;
2. Department of Pediatrics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, China

Received:2019-03-18 Online:2021-06-28 Published:2021-06-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨两性霉素B 3日加量疗法治疗化疗后白血病患儿侵袭性真菌病的疗效及患儿对其的耐受性。方法回顾分析2009年3月—2018年12月于我院收治的使用两性霉素B治疗的发生侵袭性真菌病的急性白血病患儿108例，根据给药方式的不同将其分为A、B两组（A组50例，B组58例）；A组5日加至足量；B组3日加至足量；分析两性霉素B相关不良反应及剂量累计相关累积毒性，用药4周后评价疗效。结果 A组中确诊及临床诊断患儿治疗有效率为54.5%、B组为80.5%，差异具有统计学意义（P=0.021）；两组不良反应差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论两性霉素B 3日加量疗法治疗侵入性真菌病更具优势，有效率明显提高，且两种给药方式不良反应无统计学差异，对于儿童白血病的侵袭性真菌感染，临床工作中可以采用两性霉素B 3日加量疗法，以期迅速达到血药浓度峰值，尽快控制症状，提高疗效。

关键词: 两性霉素B, 快速加量, 侵袭性真菌病, 急性白血病, 儿童

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 3-day rapid dose escalation treatment of amphotericin B(AmB) in childhood acute leukemia(AL) patients with invasive fungal disease(IFD). Methods Data on 108 AL patients with IFD during March 2009 to December 2018 were collected. Those assigned to standard group (n=50) received standard treatment for 5 days. New Group (n=58) received rapid dose-escalation for 3 days, The rate of adverse events and overall success rate in 4 weeks after initiation of AmB therapy were documented and retrospectively analyzed. Results We found the overall success rate was differed significantly between patients with proven and probable fungal infections in two group and the incidence of adverse events was similar between all patients (54.5% vs. 80.5%,P=0.021). Conclusions The 3-day schedule for drug administration of AMB presented a more effective, with less toxicity than the standard approach to treatmentfor childhood acute leukemia patients with IFD. There is nosignificant difference in the rate of AES between the 3-day escalation strategy and the 6-day escalation strategy. So we concluded that three-day dose escalation was better than standard treatment.

Key words: amphotericin B, rapid dose escalation, invasive fungal disease, acute leukemia, pediatric

中图分类号:

R519

刘莹婷, 曹励之, 王丹, 杨明华. 两性霉素B 3日加量疗法在急性白血病合并侵袭性真菌病患儿中的临床应用[J]. 中国真菌学杂志, 2021, 16(3): 170-175.

LIU Yingting, CAO Lizhi, WANG Dan, YANG Minghua. A 3 days dose-escalation method for the administration of amphotericin B for childhood acute leukemia with invasive fungal disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Mycology, 2021, 16(3): 170-175.

参考文献

[1] Hirata Y, Yokote T, Kobayashi K, et al. Antifungal prophylaxis with micafungin in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies[J]. Leuk Lymphoma, 2010,(51): 853-859.
[2] Girmenia C, Cimino G, Di Cristofano F, et al. Effects of hydration with salt repletion on renal toxicity of conventional amphotericin B empirical therapy: a prospective study in patients with hematological malignancies[J]. Support Care Cancer, 2005, 13(21): 987-992.
[3] 中国侵袭性真菌感染工作组.血液病/恶性肿瘤患者侵袭性真菌病的诊断标准与治疗原则(第五次修订版)[J].中华内科杂志, 2017, 56(6): 453-458.
[4] Tang Y, Xu X, Song H, et al. Long-term outcome of childhoodacute lymphoblastic leukemia treated in China[J]. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2008, 51: 380-386.
[5] 范丹,薛惠良,陈静,等.儿童急性淋巴细胞性白血病ALL-2005方案治疗失败病例分析[J]. 临床儿科杂志, 2012, 30(5): 418-420.
[6] Mostert S, Sitaresmi MN, Gundy CM, et al. Parental experiences of childhood leukemia treatment in indonesia[J]. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 2008, 30(10): 738-743.
[7] Boucher HW, Groll AH, Chiou CC, et al. Newer systemic antifungal agents: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy[J]. Drugs, 2004, 64(18): 1997-2020.
[8] Liu W, Tan J, Sun J, et al. Invasive candidiasis in intensivecare units in China: in vitro antifungal susceptibility in the China-SCAN study[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2014, 69(1): 162-167.
[9] Hamill RJ. Amphotericin B formulations: a comparative reviewof efficacy and toxicity[J]. Drugs, 2013, 73(9): 919-934
[10] Mora Duarte, J Betts,R Rotstein, et al. Comparison of caspofungin and amphotericin B for invasive candidiasis[J].N Engl J Med, 2002, 347(25): 2020-2029.
[11] Jadhav, MP,Shinde, VM,Chandrakala S, et al. A randomized comparative trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of liposomal amphotericin B (Fungisome) versus conventional amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in India[J]. Indian J Cancer, 2012, 49(1), 107-113.
[12] Herbrecht R, Denning DW, Patterson TF, et al. Voriconazole versus amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2002, 347(2): 408-415.
[13] Cuna WR, Velasquez R, Riva J, et al. Enhancement of a TH1 immune response in amphotericin B-treated mucocutaneous leishmaniasis[J]. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2007, 2007(5): 96410.
[14] Pirofski LA, Casadeval lA. The damage-response framework of microbial pathogenesis and infectious diseases[J]. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2008, 635(5): 135-146.
[15] chindler JJ, Warren RP, Allen SD, et al. Immunological effects of amphotericin B and liposomal amphotericin B on splenocytes from immune-normal and immune-compromised mice[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 1993, 37(12): 2716-2721.
[16] Bodhe PV, Kotwani RN, Kirodian BG, et al. Openlabel, randomised, comparative phase Ⅲ safety and efficacy study with conventional amphotericin B and liposomal amphotericin B in patients with systemic fungal infection[J]. J Assoc Physicians India, 2002, 50(6): 662-670.
[17] Mesa-Arango AC, Rueda C, Roman E, et al. Cellwall changes in amphotericin B-resistant strains from Candida tropicalis and relationship with the immune Responses elicited by the host[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2016, 60(6): 2326-2335.
[18] 魏旭东,杨海平,米瑞华,等.伏立康唑与两性霉素B治疗急性淋巴细胞白血病合并侵入性真菌感染的对照研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2013, 23(14): 3494-3496.
[19] Cohen SH, Gerding DN, Johnson S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the society for healthcare epidemiology of America(SHEA) and the infectious diseases society of America (IDSA)[J]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2010, 31(5): 431-455.