不同药物治疗恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌感染的临床疗效分析

摘要

ObjectiveTo investigate the different drugs in the treatment of malignant hematological diseases with invasive fungal infection in clinical therapeutic effect.Method180 patients with hematologic malignancy who underwent invasive fungal infections and given voriconazole, liposomal amphotericin B or micafungin therapy in our hospital from February 2011 to December 2012 were involved in this research. According to therapeutic drugs, they were divided into three groups to compare the efficacy and safety of voriconazole, liposomal amphotericin B and micafugin.ResultThe clinical management of patients with total effective rate was 60.56%, the effective rate of voriconazole treatment group was 64.18%, higher than liposomal amphotericin B group (57.38%) and Mikafin net (59.62%), the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); the occurrence of voriconazole group and Mikaifn net patients adverse reactions rate less than liposomal amphotericin B group (P<0.05), voriconazole group and Mikaifn net patients adverse reactions had no signiifcant difference in prevalence (P>0.05).ConclusionVoniconazole, liposomal amphotericin B and micafungin treatment of invasive fungal infections with hematologic malignancies effect is idcal, but viriconazole and micafungin secunty are higher, worthy of clinical promotion and use.%目的：探讨不同药物治疗恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌感染的临床疗效。方法选取2011年2月至2013年12月本院收治的180例恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌感染的患者作为研究对象，根据治疗药物不同将患者分为伏立康唑组、两性霉素B脂质体组和米卡芬净组，比较三组的疗效及不良反应发生情况。结果伏立康唑组治疗有效率为64.18%，高于两性霉素B脂质体组（57.38%）及米卡芬净组（59.62%），差异具有显著性（P＜0.05）；伏立康唑组和米卡芬净组患者不良反应发生率（23.88%和23.08%）低于两性霉素B脂质体组（73.77%）（P＜0.05），伏立康唑组和米卡芬净组患者不良反应发生率比较差异无显著性（P＞0.05）。结论伏立康唑、两性霉素B脂质体及米卡芬净对恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌感染的治疗效果理想，但伏立康唑和米卡芬净安全性更高，值得临床推广应用。