[比较埃拉霉素和多粘菌素对耐多药细菌引起的复杂腹腔内感染的疗效和安全性]。

Q3 Medicine
Z H Lu, Y L Chen, W Su, D Zhu, B B Feng, S Y Zhong, L Zhuang, F Guo
{"title":"[比较埃拉霉素和多粘菌素对耐多药细菌引起的复杂腹腔内感染的疗效和安全性]。","authors":"Z H Lu, Y L Chen, W Su, D Zhu, B B Feng, S Y Zhong, L Zhuang, F Guo","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240517-01132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and polymyxin drugs in the treatment of multidrug-resistant complicated intra-abdominal infections(cIAI). <b>Methods:</b> The cIAI patients diagnosed or highly suspected of multidrug resistant bacterial infection who received eravacycline treatment at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital and Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital from June to August 2023 were prospectively included as the elacycline group. The cIAI patients with cIAI caused by multidrug resistant bacteria who received treatment with polymyxin (B or E) from January 2021 to August 2023 were retrospectively collected. The acute physiology and chronic health scores and age were matched with those of the elacrinid group, and they were included in the polymyxin group. The study mainly analyzed the clinical efficacy, microbial clearance rate, comprehensive efficacy, and safety of the two groups at the end of treatment and discharge. <b>Results:</b> A total of 72 patients with cIAI were included in the study, including 53 males and 19 females, aged (56.0±15.4) years. Among them, there were 28 cases in the eravacycline group and 44 cases in the polymyxin group. There was no statistically significant differences in the baseline, the proportion of patients who used combined drugs, the strains, the infection sites and infection conditions of patients between the two groups(all <i>P</i>>0.05).The clinical efficacy rate at the end of treatment [89.3% (25/28) vs 56.8%(25/44), <i>P</i>=0.004] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%,(28/44), <i>P</i>=0.024], microbial clearance rate at the end of treatment [(88.9% (24/27) vs 47.6%(20/42), <i>P</i>=0.001] and discharge [(91.3%(21/23) vs 59.5%(25/42), <i>P</i>=0.007], and overall recovery rate at the end of treatment [(89.3%(25/28) vs 52.3%(23/44), <i>P</i>=0.001] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%(28/44), <i>P</i>=0.024] in the erythromycin group were higher than those in the polymyxin drug group. In terms of safety, only 2 cases of mild vasculitis were observed in the eravacycline group. <b>Conclusions:</b> Combined regimens based on eravacycline showed better clinical effect in the treatment of cIAI caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. The clinical effective rate, microbial clearance rate and comprehensive efficacy were significantly higher than those of polymyxin drugs at the end of treatment and discharge with good safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":24023,"journal":{"name":"Zhonghua yi xue za zhi","volume":"104 38","pages":"3586-3592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Comparison of efficacy and safety between elacycline and polymyxin for complicated intra-abdominal infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria].\",\"authors\":\"Z H Lu, Y L Chen, W Su, D Zhu, B B Feng, S Y Zhong, L Zhuang, F Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240517-01132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and polymyxin drugs in the treatment of multidrug-resistant complicated intra-abdominal infections(cIAI). <b>Methods:</b> The cIAI patients diagnosed or highly suspected of multidrug resistant bacterial infection who received eravacycline treatment at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital and Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital from June to August 2023 were prospectively included as the elacycline group. The cIAI patients with cIAI caused by multidrug resistant bacteria who received treatment with polymyxin (B or E) from January 2021 to August 2023 were retrospectively collected. The acute physiology and chronic health scores and age were matched with those of the elacrinid group, and they were included in the polymyxin group. The study mainly analyzed the clinical efficacy, microbial clearance rate, comprehensive efficacy, and safety of the two groups at the end of treatment and discharge. <b>Results:</b> A total of 72 patients with cIAI were included in the study, including 53 males and 19 females, aged (56.0±15.4) years. Among them, there were 28 cases in the eravacycline group and 44 cases in the polymyxin group. There was no statistically significant differences in the baseline, the proportion of patients who used combined drugs, the strains, the infection sites and infection conditions of patients between the two groups(all <i>P</i>>0.05).The clinical efficacy rate at the end of treatment [89.3% (25/28) vs 56.8%(25/44), <i>P</i>=0.004] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%,(28/44), <i>P</i>=0.024], microbial clearance rate at the end of treatment [(88.9% (24/27) vs 47.6%(20/42), <i>P</i>=0.001] and discharge [(91.3%(21/23) vs 59.5%(25/42), <i>P</i>=0.007], and overall recovery rate at the end of treatment [(89.3%(25/28) vs 52.3%(23/44), <i>P</i>=0.001] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%(28/44), <i>P</i>=0.024] in the erythromycin group were higher than those in the polymyxin drug group. In terms of safety, only 2 cases of mild vasculitis were observed in the eravacycline group. <b>Conclusions:</b> Combined regimens based on eravacycline showed better clinical effect in the treatment of cIAI caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. The clinical effective rate, microbial clearance rate and comprehensive efficacy were significantly higher than those of polymyxin drugs at the end of treatment and discharge with good safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":24023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zhonghua yi xue za zhi\",\"volume\":\"104 38\",\"pages\":\"3586-3592\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zhonghua yi xue za zhi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240517-01132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhonghua yi xue za zhi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240517-01132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较依拉维辛和多粘菌素药物治疗耐多药复杂性腹腔内感染(cIAI)的疗效和安全性。方法:前瞻性纳入2023年6月至8月在邵逸夫医院和树兰(杭州)医院确诊或高度怀疑为多重耐药菌感染的cIAI患者,作为埃拉霉素组。回顾性收集2021年1月至2023年8月期间接受多粘菌素(B或E)治疗的由多重耐药菌引起的cIAI患者。急性生理和慢性健康评分及年龄与艾拉菌素组相匹配,将其纳入多粘菌素组。研究主要分析两组患者在治疗结束和出院时的临床疗效、微生物清除率、综合疗效和安全性。结果研究共纳入 72 例 cIAI 患者,其中男性 53 例,女性 19 例,年龄(56.0±15.4)岁。其中,依拉维辛组 28 例,多粘菌素组 44 例。两组患者在基线、联合用药比例、菌株、感染部位、感染情况等方面差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05),治疗结束时临床有效率[89.3%(25/28) vs 56.8%(25/44),P=0.004]、出院时临床有效率[(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%,(28/44),P=0.024],治疗结束时的微生物清除率[(88.9%(24/27) vs 47.6%(20/42),P=0.001]和出院率[(91.3%(21/23) vs 59.5%(25/42),P=0.007],以及治疗结束时的总体康复率[(89.3%(25/28)vs52.3%(23/44),P=0.001]和出院率[(88.5%(23/26)vs63.6%(28/44),P=0.024]红霉素组均高于多粘菌素药物组。在安全性方面,红霉素组仅观察到 2 例轻度血管炎。结论是在治疗由多重耐药菌引起的 cIAI 时,以伊拉维素为基础的联合治疗方案显示出更好的临床效果。治疗结束出院时的临床有效率、微生物清除率和综合疗效均明显高于多粘菌素类药物,且安全性良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Comparison of efficacy and safety between elacycline and polymyxin for complicated intra-abdominal infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria].

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and polymyxin drugs in the treatment of multidrug-resistant complicated intra-abdominal infections(cIAI). Methods: The cIAI patients diagnosed or highly suspected of multidrug resistant bacterial infection who received eravacycline treatment at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital and Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital from June to August 2023 were prospectively included as the elacycline group. The cIAI patients with cIAI caused by multidrug resistant bacteria who received treatment with polymyxin (B or E) from January 2021 to August 2023 were retrospectively collected. The acute physiology and chronic health scores and age were matched with those of the elacrinid group, and they were included in the polymyxin group. The study mainly analyzed the clinical efficacy, microbial clearance rate, comprehensive efficacy, and safety of the two groups at the end of treatment and discharge. Results: A total of 72 patients with cIAI were included in the study, including 53 males and 19 females, aged (56.0±15.4) years. Among them, there were 28 cases in the eravacycline group and 44 cases in the polymyxin group. There was no statistically significant differences in the baseline, the proportion of patients who used combined drugs, the strains, the infection sites and infection conditions of patients between the two groups(all P>0.05).The clinical efficacy rate at the end of treatment [89.3% (25/28) vs 56.8%(25/44), P=0.004] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%,(28/44), P=0.024], microbial clearance rate at the end of treatment [(88.9% (24/27) vs 47.6%(20/42), P=0.001] and discharge [(91.3%(21/23) vs 59.5%(25/42), P=0.007], and overall recovery rate at the end of treatment [(89.3%(25/28) vs 52.3%(23/44), P=0.001] and discharge [(88.5%(23/26) vs 63.6%(28/44), P=0.024] in the erythromycin group were higher than those in the polymyxin drug group. In terms of safety, only 2 cases of mild vasculitis were observed in the eravacycline group. Conclusions: Combined regimens based on eravacycline showed better clinical effect in the treatment of cIAI caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. The clinical effective rate, microbial clearance rate and comprehensive efficacy were significantly higher than those of polymyxin drugs at the end of treatment and discharge with good safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Zhonghua yi xue za zhi
Zhonghua yi xue za zhi Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
400
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信