卡泊芬净与伏立康唑治疗侵袭性真菌感染的疗效观察
目的:探讨卡泊芬净和伏立康唑治疗侵袭性真菌感染临床疗效。方法:选取侵袭性真菌感染患者100例,按随机数字表法分为观察组与对照组各50例。观察组患者给予注射用卡泊芬净(70 mg负荷剂量、50 mg维持剂量)静脉滴注,对照组患者给予注射用伏立康唑(400 mg负荷剂量、200 mg维持剂量)静脉滴注,比较2组患者的临床疗效。结果:观察组患者的痊愈率为44.00%(22/50)、总有效率为86.00%(43/50),高于对照组的32.00%(16/50)、74.00%(37/50),差异均有统计学意义(P〈0.05);观察组患者平均住院时间、平均住院费明显低于对照组,细菌清除率明显高于对照组,差异...
Saved in:
Published in | 中国医院用药评价与分析 Vol. 16; no. 8; pp. 1030 - 1032 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | Chinese |
Published |
惠州市第一妇幼保健院药剂科,广东惠州,516000%惠州市中心人民医院药学部,广东惠州,516001
2016
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1672-2124 |
DOI | 10.14009/j.issn.1672-2124.2016.08.008 |
Cover
Summary: | 目的:探讨卡泊芬净和伏立康唑治疗侵袭性真菌感染临床疗效。方法:选取侵袭性真菌感染患者100例,按随机数字表法分为观察组与对照组各50例。观察组患者给予注射用卡泊芬净(70 mg负荷剂量、50 mg维持剂量)静脉滴注,对照组患者给予注射用伏立康唑(400 mg负荷剂量、200 mg维持剂量)静脉滴注,比较2组患者的临床疗效。结果:观察组患者的痊愈率为44.00%(22/50)、总有效率为86.00%(43/50),高于对照组的32.00%(16/50)、74.00%(37/50),差异均有统计学意义(P〈0.05);观察组患者平均住院时间、平均住院费明显低于对照组,细菌清除率明显高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P〈0.05);治疗第4日,观察组患者的白细胞计数、C反应蛋白、降钙素原下降幅度明显高于治疗前,且明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P〈0.05);2组患者肝、肾功能均无明显变化。结论:卡泊芬净治疗重症患者侵袭性真菌感染疗效肯定,不良反应轻,可用于重症患者抗真菌治疗。 |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Caspofungin;Voriconazole;Invasive fungal infections LIU Yanhao1, LIAO Shixiong2 ( 1. Dept. of Pharmacy, the First Material and Child Hygiene Hospital, Guangdong Huizhou 516000, China; 2. Dept. of Pharmacy, Huizhou Central People's Hospital, Guangdong Huizhou 516001, China) OBJECTIVE:To probe into the clinical efficacy of caspofungin and voriconazole in treatment of patients with severe invasive fungal infections.METHODS:100 cases of invasive fungal infections were selected to be divided into observation group and control group via random number table, with 50 cases in each.The observation group were treated with caspofungin (70 mg loading dose, 50 mg maintenance dose) intravenous infusion, while the control group were given voriconazole (400 mg loading dose, 200 mg maintenance dose) intravenous infusion;the clinical efficacy were compared between two groups.RESULTS: The recovery rate of observation group was 44.00%( 22/50 ) , the total effective rate was 86.00%(43/50), higher than those of control group 32.00%( |
ISSN: | 1672-2124 |
DOI: | 10.14009/j.issn.1672-2124.2016.08.008 |