The cost of treating systemic fungal infections

The increasing incidence of systemic fungal infections and rising medical costs have highlighted the need for an economic appraisal of antifungal agents to determine the most cost-effective therapeutic option. Cost savings derived from the prophylactic or empirical use of antifungal agents have been difficult to estimate because of the lack of information on the costs of systemic fungal infections. Fluconazole is effective in prophylaxis and represents a direct cost saving compared with polyenes. However, itraconazole oral solution, an effective and widely used antifungal prophylactic agent, has not been analysed for cost effectiveness. In empirical therapy, the development of new formulations of existing agents has prompted a number of cost comparisons. In particular, the cost of treatment with conventional amphotericin-B has been compared with the costs of the new lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B or the new intravenous (IV) formulation of itraconazole. The acquisition costs of lipid-associated amphotericin-B and IV itraconazole are higher than the cost of conventional amphotericin-B; however, these costs appear to be offset by reductions with both these agents in the cost for increased length of hospital stay and treating adverse events seen with conventional amphotericin-B. In neutropenic patients and bone marrow transplant recipients, IV itraconazole may be the most cost-effective option for empirical therapy.     

Current management of fungal infections

The management of superficial fungal infections differs significantly from the management of systemic fungal infections. Most superficial infections are treated with topical antifungal agents, the choice of agent being determined by the site and extent of the infection and by the causative organism, which is usually readily identifiable. One exception is onychomycosis, which usually requires treatment with systemically available antifungals; the accumulation of terbinafine and itraconazole in keratinous tissues makes them ideal agents for the treatment of onychomycosis. Oral candidiasis in immunocompromised patients also requires systemic treatment; oral fluconazole and itraconazole oral solution are highly effective in this setting. Systemic fungal infections are difficult to diagnose and are usually managed with prophylaxis or empirical therapy. Fluconazole and itraconazole are widely used in chemoprophylaxis because of their favourable oral bioavailability and safety profiles. In empirical therapy, lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B and intravenous itraconazole are safer than, and at least as effective as, conventional amphotericin-B (the former gold standard). The high acquisition costs of the lipid-associated formulations of amphotericin-B have limited their use.     

Cost effectiveness of itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections

BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections in neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies are associated with a high mortality rate and, therefore, require early treatment. As the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections is difficult, effective antifungal prophylaxis is desirable. So far, fluconazole has been the most commonly used. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of itraconazole compared with both fluconazole and no prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in haematological patients, mean age 51 years, in Germany and The Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: We designed a probabilistic decision model to fully incorporate the uncertainty associated with the risk estimates of acquiring an invasive fungal infection. These risk estimates were extracted from two meta-analyses, evaluating the effectiveness of fluconazole and itraconazole and no prophylaxis. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare sector; only medical costs were taken into account. All costs were reported in euro, year 2004 values.Cost effectiveness was expressed as net costs per invasive fungal infection averted. No discounting was performed, as the model followed patients during their neutropenic period, which was assumed to be less than 1 year. RESULTS: According to our probabilistic decision model, the monetary benefits of averted healthcare exceed the costs of itraconazole prophylaxis under baseline assumptions (95% CI: from cost-saving to euro 5000 per invasive fungal infection averted). Compared with fluconazole, itraconazole is estimated to be both more effective and more economically favourable, with a probability of almost 98%. CONCLUSIONS: In specific groups of neutropenic patients treated for haematological malignancies, itraconazole prophylaxis could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure, without harming effectiveness, in settings where fluconazole is common practice in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections.     

伊曲康唑在侵袭性真菌感染中的预防作用

由于免疫抑制剂的使用、血液系统恶性肿瘤病人异基因造血干细胞移植等高危人群的不断增多,侵袭性真菌感染的患病率和病死率均呈显著上升趋势。近年来伊曲康唑口服液和注射液相继在欧美及我国批准使用,对于高危病人伊曲康唑的预防性应用能显著降低侵袭性真菌感染的发生率。因此,本文拟从循证医学的角度,对伊曲康唑口服液和注射液在各种危重病病人侵袭性真菌感染中的预防作用作一综述。     

Prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infections associated with haematological malignancies

Patients with haematological malignancies form one of the most susceptible host groups for microbial infection, especially during neutropenia. The incidence of invasive fungal infections has increased in recent years, highlighting the need for better diagnosis and more effective antifungal therapies. Amphotericin B is the drug of choice for many fungal infections, although toxicity and the need for intravenous infusion restrict its use. When possible, oral administration of antifungal agents is preferable but intravenous administration is often needed and current oral agents have their limitations: fluconazole because of a narrow spectrum of activity; itraconazole capsules because of erratic absorption. In this review, prophylactic and treatment options for systemic fungal infections are discussed. The specific needs of patients with different types of leukaemia and the benefits of new amphotericin B and itraconazole formulations are examined.     

Ganciclovir: an update of its use in the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in transplant recipients

Ganciclovir is a nucleoside guanosine analogue which incorporates ganciclovir triphosphate (the active moiety) into DNA during elongation, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Comparative studies of pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir therapies in bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients have shown similar rates of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, disease and patient mortality. Long term prophylaxis with either oral, or sequential intravenous/oral, ganciclovir has shown efficacy in renal allograft recipients, including high risk patients or those receiving antilymphocyte antibody therapy. A preliminary study indicates that ganciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir in paediatric patients. Both oral and intravenous prophylactic ganciclovir regimens have shown efficacy compared with no antiviral treatment in lung transplant recipients; initial reports have shown similar efficacy between pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir. Oral ganciclovir monotherapy is as efficacious as sequential intravenous/oral ganciclovir therapy in liver transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment was equally as effective as long term ganciclovir prophylaxis in high risk patients. Ganciclovir prophylaxis for 4 weeks appears ineffective in heart allograft recipients treated with antithymocyte globulin. Long term sequential intravenous/ oral ganciclovir therapy has shown greater efficacy in preventing CMV disease than sequential ganciclovir/aciclovir therapy. in these patients. Initial reports indicate that pre-emptive therapy may be beneficial in this patient group. although this remains to be determined. Ganciclovir in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability with adverse effects usually of a haematological or neurological nature. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia are the primary dose-limiting toxicities associated with ganciclovir therapy. Overall, neutropenia occurs less frequently with administration of oral ganciclovir than with intravenous ganciclovir. Monitoring of renal function is recommended as serum creatinine levels may rise during ganciclovir therapy. In addition, ganciclovir prophylaxis appears more cost effective than the majority of other currently available therapies for CMV with oral ganciclovir more cost effective than intravenous ganciclovir. In conclusion, it is unlikely that a single strategy will be able to be applied to all transplant patients for the prevention of CMV disease. An optimal strategy will probably be arisk-adapted approach. Prophylactic treatment with ganciclovir appears the best strategy to implement in high risk patients: oral ganciclovir formulations may be best employed where lower toxicity is required. Pre-emptive treatment with ganciclovir appears most efficacious in patients identified as lower risk or, in the case of BMT recipients, where lower toxicity may be desirable. Ganciclovir remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention and treatment of CMV disease in transplant recipients.     

Itraconazole: pharmacology, clinical experience and future development

Itraconazole is an orally active, broad-spectrum, triazole antifungal agent which has a higher affinity for fungal cytochrome P-450 than ketoconazole but a low affinity for mammalian cytochrome P-450. Itraconazole has a broader spectrum of activity than other azole antifungals and shows interesting pharmacokinetic features in terms of its tissue distribution. These properties have resulted in reduced treatment times for a number of diseases such as vaginal candidiasis, as well as effective oral treatment of several deep mycoses, including aspergillosis and candidiasis. Currently itraconazole is registered in 42 countries for the treatment of systemic fungal infections. Further development is concentrating on antifungal prophylaxis as well as on an oral solution and an intravenous formulation.     

Caspofungin as primary antifungal prophylaxis in stem cell transplant recipients

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of caspofungin as primary prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in stem cell transplant recipients who are poor candidates for triazole or lipid amphotericin B prophylaxis due to renal or hepatic dysfunction, and to determine whether any patient characteristics are independently associated with an increased risk of breakthrough invasive fungal infection during caspofungin prophylaxis. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Tertiary care comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-three adult stem cell transplant recipients who received caspofungin 35-50 mg/day for up to 100 days after transplantation as primary antifungal prophylaxis between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2005. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were collected on host and transplant characteristics such as transplant type, neutropenia, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and corticosteroid use, as well as evidence of breakthrough invasive fungal infections. Of the 123 patients, 117 (95.1%) were allogeneic recipients, and the median time to engraftment was 12 days (range 6-26 days). Fifty (40.7%) of the patients developed GVHD of grade 2 or greater and received corticosteroids for more than 21 days. Median duration of caspofungin prophylaxis was 73 days (range 10-100 days). Nine patients (7.3%) developed breakthrough invasive fungal infections (two cases of mixed Aspergillus species and one each of Aspergillus terreus, Rhizopus, Exserohilum, an unspecified mold, Cryptococcus, Candida glabrata, and Candida tropicalis). Median time to invasive fungal infection development was 65 days (range 12-88 days). Only one case occurred during the neutropenic period before engraftment. Multivariate analysis showed that Pseudomonas coinfection (p=0.04) and infliximab therapy (p=0.02) were associated with breakthrough invasive fungal infections in patients receiving caspofungin. By day 100, there were five (4.1%) deaths, two of which were directly attributable to invasive fungal infections. No caspofungin-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Caspofungin seems to be an effective and well-tolerated option for primary antifungal prophylaxis in the highly immunosuppressed stem cell transplant patient population.     

Posaconazole : a review of its use in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections

Posaconazole is a second-generation triazole antifungal agent with a broad spectrum of activity that includes Aspergillus spp., Candida spp. and the Zygomycetes. In the US, posaconazole oral suspension administered three times daily is indicated for prophylaxis against invasive Aspergillus and Candida infections in patients aged > or =13 years who are at high risk of developing these infections because of immunosuppression, such as haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), or those with haematological malignancies with prolonged neutropenia as a result of chemotherapy. EU-approved prophylactic indications for posaconazole are similar to those in the US.Posaconazole provided effective prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections and was generally well tolerated in two large, well designed trials in HSCT recipients with GVHD, or patients receiving induction-remission chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) that was expected to result in prolonged neutropenia. It offers coverage of clinically relevant pathogens and is potentially associated with fewer drug-drug interactions than other licensed triazole antifungal agents. Its usefulness in some patients may be limited by the lack of an intravenous formulation, although one is currently being developed. As with other antifungal agents, concerns remain regarding the potential emergence of resistance to broad-spectrum antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole. Despite this, posaconazole is a valuable emerging option for use as prophylaxis against invasive fungal infections in immunocompromized patients who are at high risk of developing these infections.     

Fluconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Fluconazole is compared with other agents for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Fluconazole is an attractive alternative for antifungal prophylaxis because of its activity against many Candida species, long half-life, good patient tolerability, and minimal associated toxicity. The results of clinical trials suggest that fluconazole is superior to placebo and oral polyenes in preventing superficial fungal infection in neutropenic patients; however, its efficacy against systemic infection is not as strongly supported. Fluconazole use may increase emergence of resistant yeasts, particularly Candida krusei and Torulopsis glabrata. The cost of fluconazole 50 mg/day is similar to the costs of other antifungals used for prophylaxis; however, fluconazole 400 mg/day (the most frequently studied dose in neutropenic patients) is considerably more expensive. Comparative clinical trials between fluconazole and other antifungals are needed to determine which is superior for prophylaxis. Fluconazole is effective for prophylaxis against superficial fungal infection and may be an attractive alternative therapeutic regimen in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. In other neutropenic patients, such as those with leukemia, the superiority of fluconazole has not been substantiated; therefore, it is not recommended over other agents, such as clotrimazole and ketoconazole, at this time.     

伊曲康唑与氟康唑在重症监护室早期经验性治疗真菌感染的疗效比较

目的比较伊曲康唑和氟康唑在重症监护室早期经验性治疗中的有效性和安全性。方法采取随机、对照、开放的临床试验，入选的40例患者具有真菌感染的高危因素，均出现不明原因发热，广谱抗生素治疗3～7 d无效。将入选患者随机分配为伊曲康唑治疗组和氟康唑治疗组各20例。伊曲康唑治疗组给予伊曲康唑注射液200 mg，q12 h，先治疗2 d，随后给予200 mg，qd，共5 d，再改用伊曲康唑口服液口服，每次200 mg，bid，治疗14 d；氟康唑治疗组给予氟康唑注射液400 mg静脉滴注，qd，共治疗21 d。观察患者体温变化、真菌感染情况、药物相关的不良反应和疗效。结果伊曲康唑组总有效率65.0%，不良反应率30.0%；氟康唑组总有效率50.0%，不良反应率5.0%，但两组总有效率和不良反应发生率均差异无显著性（均P＞0.05）。治疗过程中，氟康唑组出现2例深部真菌感染。结论伊曲康唑和氟康唑均可作为现阶段重症监护室早期经验性治疗的一线药物，但伊曲康唑疗效更佳。     

Clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring of itraconazole is warranted in only a subset of patients

Itraconazole is a synthetic triazole antifungal agent that is commonly used in the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infection. A role for itraconazole drug monitoring has been suggested previously; however, the advent of new formulations and increased clinical evidence may aid in further defining this role. Consequently, we have used a previously published decision-making algorithm to determine whether clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring of itraconazole is warranted. First, itraconazole has proven efficacy for the prophylaxis and treatment of fungal infection in immunocompromised individuals such as neutropenic cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and solid organ transplant patients. Several assays have been developed to quantify itraconazole and its main metabolite in patient plasma. Measurement of these plasma drug levels in many clinical studies has resulted in no clear definition of a relationship between concentration and efficacy. However, limited evidence suggests a correlation between itraconazole levels greater than 250 or 500 ng/mL and increased efficacy. Clinical monitoring of efficacy is difficult because of the challenges in diagnosis of fungal infections and nonspecific clinical symptoms associated with fungal infections. Pharmacokinetic studies of itraconazole indicate that significant inter- and intrapatient variability exists in both healthy and immunocompromised patient populations, although subpopulations such as neutropenic cancer and HIV patients appear to require more drug than their healthy counterparts to attain similar drug levels. A therapeutic range has not been defined for itraconazole, but because of its relatively minimal side effects, a narrow range is unlikely. Drug interactions can occur with itraconazole because it is both an inhibitor and substrate of the cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme and P-glycoprotein transporter systems. Protein binding alterations could also lead to differences in drug effect. Last, the duration of treatment of prophylaxis is significantly long to propose a potential benefit from drug monitoring. From weighing the available evidence, it appears that itraconazole drug level monitoring would provide more information on efficacy than clinical judgment alone in a subset of patients. Immunosuppressed patients requiring preventative therapy who have suspected poor absorption, are on concomitant enzyme inducers, or are suspected to be noncompliant would have the greatest benefit from itraconazole drug monitoring.     

Posaconazole: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease in immunocompromised hosts

Posaconazole (Noxafil?) is an oral, second-generation, extended-spectrum triazole whose approved indications include prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD) in immunocompromised patients. In pivotal head-to-head trials, posaconazole was significantly more effective in preventing IFD than standard azole therapy (i.e. oral fluconazole or itraconazole) in chemotherapy-induced neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and was noninferior to treatment with fluconazole in patients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) who were receiving intensive immunosuppressive therapy following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In both indications, prophylactic posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of IFD-related mortality. The overall tolerability profile of posaconazole was generally similar to that of the other prophylactic treatments. The large body of modelled cost-effectiveness analyses from a healthcare payer perspective on the use of prophylactic posaconazole suggest that it is a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard azole therapy in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS, and fluconazole in patients with GVHD. Based on clinical trial data in these patient groups, antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole was predicted to be a dominant or cost-effective option relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles, with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained, life-year (LY) gained and/or other outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses in numerous countries. In those analyses in which posaconazole did not dominate the comparator, posaconazole was considered cost effective, as the incremental cost per QALY or LY gained with posaconazole was lower than assumed willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses consistently demonstrated that these results were robust to plausible changes in key model assumptions. In conclusion, prophylactic treatment with posaconazole is clinically effective in preventing IFD in neutropenic patients with AML/MDS and patients with GVHD. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of posaconazole as a dominant or cost-effective prophylactic antifungal treatment relative to prophylaxis with standard oral azoles in these patient populations at high risk of developing IFD.     

Pharmacology of itraconazole

Itraconazole is a triazole antifungal agent that has a broad spectrum of activity and is well tolerated. Itraconazole is highly efficacious, particularly because its main metabolite, hydroxy-itraconazole, also has considerable antifungal activity. The original capsule formulation of itraconazole may lead to variability in absorption and the plasma concentration. For the treatment of superficial fungal infections, this is not problematical because itraconazole accumulates at the infection site, making consistently high plasma concentrations unnecessary -- a characteristic that has been exploited in the development of a pulse regimen. Because consistent plasma concentrations are critical for the more serious systemic fungal infections, variable absorption of itraconazole from the capsules limits their application. Moreover, underlying disease processes and medical interventions can reduce absorption from the capsules in some patients with systemic fungal infections. To widen the beneficial application of itraconazole to include such patients, an oral solution and an intravenous formulation were developed. These formulations combine lipophilic itraconazole with hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin, a ring of substituted glucose molecules, which improves the solubility of itraconazole. The enhanced absorption and bioavailability of itraconazole from these new formulations make them ideal for the treatment of systemic fungal infections in a wide range of patient populations. The additional flexibility offered by the different routes of administration also means that itraconazole can be used in patients at high risk, such as children or those requiring intensive care, for whom the capsule formulation may be impractical.     

Valganciclovir: a review of its use in the management of CMV infection and disease in immunocompromised patients

Valganciclovir (Valcyte) is an orally administered prodrug of the standard anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) drug ganciclovir. Valganciclovir is as effective as intravenous ganciclovir for the treatment of AIDS-related CMV retinitis, and oral ganciclovir for the prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in high-risk solid organ transplant recipients. The drug is generally well tolerated and has a similar tolerability profile to that of oral or intravenous ganciclovir, but is devoid of adverse events related to intravenous or indwelling catheter access associated with the use of intravenous ganciclovir, cidofovir and foscarnet. The simple and convenient once-daily valganciclovir regimen offers potential for improved patient compliance. It provides greater systemic ganciclovir exposure than oral ganciclovir, thus reducing the risk of viral resistance when used for prophylaxis in high-risk solid organ transplant recipients. Furthermore, the use of valganciclovir instead of intravenous ganciclovir may provide significant cost savings, based on data comparing oral versus intravenous regimens for the treatment of AIDS-related CMV retinitis. Overall, valganciclovir appears to have some advantages over ganciclovir. Therefore, when used as prophylaxis against CMV infection and disease in high-risk solid organ transplant recipients or as induction and maintenance therapy of CMV retinitis in patients with AIDS, oral valganciclovir is an attractive alternative to other available anti-CMV drugs.     

Triazole antifungal agents in invasive fungal infections: a comparative review

Invasive fungal disease continues to be a problem associated with significant morbidity and high mortality in immunocompromised and, to a lesser extent, immunocompetent individuals. Triazole antifungals have emerged as front-line drugs for the treatment and prophylaxis of many systemic mycoses. Fluconazole plays an excellent role in prophylaxis, empirical therapy, and the treatment of both superficial and invasive yeast fungal infections. Voriconazole is strongly recommended for pulmonary invasive aspergillosis. Posaconazole shows a very wide spectrum of activity and its primary clinical indications are as salvage therapy for patients with invasive aspergillosis and prophylaxis for patients with neutropenia and haematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients. Itraconazole also has a role in the treatment of fungal skin and nail infections as well as dematiaceous fungi and endemic mycoses. Fluconazole and voriconazole are well absorbed and exhibit high oral bioavailability, whereas the oral bioavailability of itraconazole and posaconazole is lower and more variable. Posaconazole absorption depends on administration with a high-fat meal or nutritional supplements. Itraconazole and voriconazole undergo extensive hepatic metabolism involving the cytochrome P450 system. The therapeutic window for triazoles is narrow, and inattention to their pharmacokinetic properties can lead to drug levels too low for efficacy or too high for good tolerability or safety. This makes these agents prime candidates for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Target drug concentrations for voriconazole and itraconazole should be >1?μg/mL and for posaconazole >1.5?μg/mL for treatment. Blood should be drawn once the patient reaches steady state, which occurs after 5 and 7 days of triazole therapy. Routine TDM of fluconazole is not required given its highly favourable pharmacokinetic profile and wide therapeutic index. The aim of this review is to provide a brief update on the pharmacology, activity, clinical efficacy, safety and cost of triazole agents (itraconazole, fluconazole, voriconazole and posaconazole) and highlight the clinical implications of similarities and differences.     

Micafungin

Micafungin, an echinocandin antifungal agent with a novel mechanism of action, inhibits beta-(1,3)-D-glucan synthase interfering with fungal cell wall synthesis. It shows excellent antifungal activity against a broad range of Candida spp., including azole-resistant strains, and Aspergillus spp. in in vitro and animal studies. In HIV-positive patients, intravenous micafungin 50-150 mg/day dose-dependently eradicated endoscopically confirmed oesophageal candidiasis, with micafungin 100 and 150 mg/day being more effective than micafungin 50 mg/day and as effective as fluconazole 200 mg/day in a double-blind trial. In nonblind trials, micafungin (monotherapy or combination therapy) was effective against invasive aspergillosis, candidiasis and candidaemia in paediatric and adult patients with newly diagnosed or refractory infections. Micafungin 50 mg/day provided significantly better antifungal prophylaxis than fluconazole 400 mg/day in 882 haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients in a randomised, double-blind trial. Respective overall success rates were 80% and 73.5%. Micafungin is generally well tolerated. Adverse events were not dose- or infusion-related with micafungin 12.5-900 mg/day; no histamine-like reactions occurred. Micafungin was as well tolerated as fluconazole, with numerically fewer micafungin recipients discontinuing treatment (4.2% vs 7.2%).     

氟康唑在恶性血液病化疗后粒细胞减少期预防真菌感染的应用

目的：评价氟康唑预防血液病患者化疗后粒细胞减少期并发真菌感染的疗效.方法：采用随机对照试验方法,把60例化疗后中性粒细胞减少的血液病患者分为真菌感染预防用药组和对照组.其中预防用药组患者预防性的服用氟康唑,而对照组患者未接受任何预防性抗真菌药物治疗.观察并比较2组患者真菌感染的发生率和严重程度.结果：用药组30例服用氟康唑口服液患者中.发生真菌感染的仅2例.真菌感染率为6.7%.而对照组30例中.并发真菌感染7例,包括3例深部真菌感染.真菌感染率为23.3%.明显高于预防用药组（P〈0.01）.结论：在血液病患者中性粒细胞减少期及早给予氟康唑进行预防,能有效降低真菌感染的发生率.     

伊曲康唑治疗血液病合并真菌感染30例

目的观察伊曲康唑治疗血液病合并真菌感染的疗效与安全性。方法选择医院2005年1月至2007年12月血液病合并侵袭性真菌感染患者30例,应用伊曲康唑序贯治疗。第1-2天200mg／次、2次／d静脉注射,第3-14天200mg／次、1次／d静脉注射,有效者第15天起改用伊曲康唑口服液200mg／次、2次／d,总疗程14～90d。结果痊愈8例,显效11例,进步4例,无效7例,总有效率为63．33％（19／30）;不良反应发生率16．67％（5／30）,主要表现为胃肠道反应、肝功能损害、皮疹、水肿,均为一过性。结论伊曲康唑治疗血液病合并真菌感染安全有效。     

伏立康唑预防血液病患者侵袭性真菌感染的疗效与安全性

目的评价伏立康唑预防血液病患者化疗或造血干细胞移植(HSCT)后侵袭性真菌感染的有效性及安全性。方法检索Cochrane图书馆、Medline、Em-base、Pubmed、CBM、CNKI、维普、万方等文献数据库,用RevMan 5.1进行meta分析。结果纳入研究4项,共1372例患者,伏立康唑组的真菌感染发生率、曲霉感染率分别低于氟康唑组、对照组;而总死亡率、念珠菌感染率与对照组无显著性差异;伏立康唑的胃肠道不良反应发生率低于伊曲康唑,视觉障碍和肝功异常发生率高于伊曲康唑。结论伏立康唑预防血液病患者化疗或HSCT后侵袭性真菌感染的总体疗效优于氟康唑,与伊曲康唑相当,在预防侵袭性曲霉感染中优于氟康唑和伊曲康唑,但应警惕其引起视觉障碍和肝功异常。