吸入左氧氟沙星与粘菌素联合美罗培南治疗多重耐药革兰氏阴性菌所致呼吸机相关性肺炎的疗效比较:一项随机开放标签临床试验

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice Pub Date : 2025-06-13 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_12_25
Masoumeh Sohrabi, Shahram Ala, Afshin Gholipour-Baradari, Fatemeh Heydari, Alireza Nikzad Jamnani, Mahmoud Mousazadeh, Hamidreza Namvar
{"title":"吸入左氧氟沙星与粘菌素联合美罗培南治疗多重耐药革兰氏阴性菌所致呼吸机相关性肺炎的疗效比较:一项随机开放标签临床试验","authors":"Masoumeh Sohrabi, Shahram Ala, Afshin Gholipour-Baradari, Fatemeh Heydari, Alireza Nikzad Jamnani, Mahmoud Mousazadeh, Hamidreza Namvar","doi":"10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_12_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) is a major intensive care unit challenge, particularly in Iran, due to limited antibiotic options. This study compared the efficacy of adding levofloxacin and colistin inhalation form to the baseline regimen of colistin and meropenem in treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with VAP were randomly assigned to the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 24), receiving 2 million international unit (MIU) every 8 h, and the levofloxacin group (<i>n</i> = 22), receiving 250 mg every 12 h, alongside intravenous colistin (4.5 MIU every 12 h) and meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Clinical improvement using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) on days 1, 5, and 7, the clinical response on day 7, and inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein) on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>CPIS scores significantly decreased in both groups: Colistin (-3.67 ± 2.14, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and levofloxacin (-4.41 ± 1.71, <i>P</i> < 0.001), with no intergroup difference (<i>P</i> = 0.200). The clinical response analysis indicated that levofloxacin was associated with fewer treatment failures and more partial responses, whereas colistin demonstrated higher rates of complete response; however, these differences were not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Acute kidney injury occurred only in the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 8; 33.3%). Bronchospasm and cough occurred in one levofloxacin patient (4.54%), showing a significant difference in adverse effects (<i>P</i> = 0.004). Mortality rates were higher in the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 17; 70.8%) compared to the levofloxacin group (<i>n</i> = 10; 45.5%), though this difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Levofloxacin inhalation may be considered an effective alternative to colistin inhalation for treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB. It offers similar efficacy and lower nephrotoxicity.</p>","PeriodicalId":17158,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice","volume":"14 1","pages":"9-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12237181/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Efficacy of Adding Inhaled Levofloxacin and Colistin to a Basic Regimen of Colistin and Meropenem in the Treatment of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Caused by Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacteria: A Randomized Open-label Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Masoumeh Sohrabi, Shahram Ala, Afshin Gholipour-Baradari, Fatemeh Heydari, Alireza Nikzad Jamnani, Mahmoud Mousazadeh, Hamidreza Namvar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_12_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) is a major intensive care unit challenge, particularly in Iran, due to limited antibiotic options. This study compared the efficacy of adding levofloxacin and colistin inhalation form to the baseline regimen of colistin and meropenem in treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with VAP were randomly assigned to the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 24), receiving 2 million international unit (MIU) every 8 h, and the levofloxacin group (<i>n</i> = 22), receiving 250 mg every 12 h, alongside intravenous colistin (4.5 MIU every 12 h) and meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Clinical improvement using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) on days 1, 5, and 7, the clinical response on day 7, and inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein) on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>CPIS scores significantly decreased in both groups: Colistin (-3.67 ± 2.14, <i>P</i> < 0.001) and levofloxacin (-4.41 ± 1.71, <i>P</i> < 0.001), with no intergroup difference (<i>P</i> = 0.200). The clinical response analysis indicated that levofloxacin was associated with fewer treatment failures and more partial responses, whereas colistin demonstrated higher rates of complete response; however, these differences were not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Acute kidney injury occurred only in the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 8; 33.3%). Bronchospasm and cough occurred in one levofloxacin patient (4.54%), showing a significant difference in adverse effects (<i>P</i> = 0.004). Mortality rates were higher in the colistin group (<i>n</i> = 17; 70.8%) compared to the levofloxacin group (<i>n</i> = 10; 45.5%), though this difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Levofloxacin inhalation may be considered an effective alternative to colistin inhalation for treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB. It offers similar efficacy and lower nephrotoxicity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"9-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12237181/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_12_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_12_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:由耐多药革兰氏阴性菌(MDR-GNB)引起的呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)是重症监护病房面临的主要挑战,特别是在伊朗,由于抗生素选择有限。本研究比较了左氧氟沙星和粘菌素吸入形式在粘菌素和美罗南基线方案基础上治疗MDR-GNB所致VAP的疗效。方法:将VAP患者随机分为粘菌素组(n = 24)和左氧氟沙星组(n = 22),分别给予200万国际单位(MIU) / 8 h和250 mg / 12 h,同时静脉注射粘菌素(4.5 MIU / 12 h)和美罗培南(1 g / 8 h)。使用临床肺部感染评分(CPIS)评估第1、5、7天的临床改善,第7天的临床反应,第1、3、5、7天的炎症标志物(红细胞沉降率和c反应蛋白)。结果:两组患者CPIS评分均显著降低:粘菌素组(-3.67±2.14,P < 0.001)、左氧氟沙星组(-4.41±1.71,P < 0.001),组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.200)。临床反应分析表明,左氧氟沙星与较少的治疗失败和更多的部分反应相关,而粘菌素显示出更高的完全缓解率;但差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。仅粘菌素组发生急性肾损伤(n = 8;33.3%)。1例左氧氟沙星患者发生支气管痉挛和咳嗽(4.54%),不良反应差异有统计学意义(P = 0.004)。粘菌素组死亡率较高(n = 17;70.8%)与左氧氟沙星组相比(n = 10;45.5%),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.08)。结论:左氧氟沙星吸入可作为多粘菌素吸入的有效替代治疗耐多药gnb所致VAP。它具有相似的疗效和较低的肾毒性。
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 the Efficacy of Adding Inhaled Levofloxacin and Colistin to a Basic Regimen of Colistin and Meropenem in the Treatment of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia Caused by Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacteria: A Randomized Open-label Clinical Trial.

Objective: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) is a major intensive care unit challenge, particularly in Iran, due to limited antibiotic options. This study compared the efficacy of adding levofloxacin and colistin inhalation form to the baseline regimen of colistin and meropenem in treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB.

Methods: Patients with VAP were randomly assigned to the colistin group (n = 24), receiving 2 million international unit (MIU) every 8 h, and the levofloxacin group (n = 22), receiving 250 mg every 12 h, alongside intravenous colistin (4.5 MIU every 12 h) and meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Clinical improvement using the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) on days 1, 5, and 7, the clinical response on day 7, and inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein) on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 were evaluated.

Findings: CPIS scores significantly decreased in both groups: Colistin (-3.67 ± 2.14, P < 0.001) and levofloxacin (-4.41 ± 1.71, P < 0.001), with no intergroup difference (P = 0.200). The clinical response analysis indicated that levofloxacin was associated with fewer treatment failures and more partial responses, whereas colistin demonstrated higher rates of complete response; however, these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Acute kidney injury occurred only in the colistin group (n = 8; 33.3%). Bronchospasm and cough occurred in one levofloxacin patient (4.54%), showing a significant difference in adverse effects (P = 0.004). Mortality rates were higher in the colistin group (n = 17; 70.8%) compared to the levofloxacin group (n = 10; 45.5%), though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08).

Conclusion: Levofloxacin inhalation may be considered an effective alternative to colistin inhalation for treating VAP caused by MDR-GNB. It offers similar efficacy and lower nephrotoxicity.

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
Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice
Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The main focus of the journal will be on evidence-based drug-related medical researches (with clinical pharmacists’ intervention or documentation), particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean region. However, a wide range of closely related issues will be also covered. These will include clinical studies in the field of pharmaceutical care, reporting adverse drug reactions and human medical toxicology, pharmaco-epidemiology and toxico-epidemiology (poisoning epidemiology), social aspects of pharmacy practice, pharmacy education and economic evaluations of treatment protocols (e.g. cost-effectiveness studies). Local reports of medication utilization studies at hospital or pharmacy levels will only be considered for peer-review process only if they have a new and useful message for the international pharmacy practice professionals and readers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信