Cargando…

Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and fungal sensitivity of prophylactic fluconazole use in very premature infants. Methods: We performed a retrospective historical comparative analysis of 196 very premature infants (113 in the prophylaxis group and 83 in the rescue group). The incidence...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Deshuang, Xie, Dongke, He, Na, Wang, Xiaoling, Dong, Wenbin, Lei, Xiaoping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8517516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660487
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.726769
_version_ 1784584036074651648
author Zhang, Deshuang
Xie, Dongke
He, Na
Wang, Xiaoling
Dong, Wenbin
Lei, Xiaoping
author_facet Zhang, Deshuang
Xie, Dongke
He, Na
Wang, Xiaoling
Dong, Wenbin
Lei, Xiaoping
author_sort Zhang, Deshuang
collection PubMed
description Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and fungal sensitivity of prophylactic fluconazole use in very premature infants. Methods: We performed a retrospective historical comparative analysis of 196 very premature infants (113 in the prophylaxis group and 83 in the rescue group). The incidence of nosocomial fungal infection (NCFI) and pathogenic fungi, their drug sensitivity, and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of fluconazole were compared between the two groups. We also analyzed differences in short-term adverse outcomes, such as drug-induced liver or renal function disruption, fungal-attributable death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), between the groups. The effects of the prophylactic fluconazole strategy on NCFI and short-term adverse outcomes were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: Candida albicans (46.7%) and Candida glabrata (43.3%) were the main culprit pathogens causing NCFI. The incidence of NCFI was significantly lower in the prophylaxis group than in the rescue group (15.9 vs. 45.8%, P < 0.001). However, fewer fungi were completely sensitive to fluconazole (40 vs. 85%, P < 0.05) and the MIC of fluconazole was higher [16.0 (3.5 ~ 16.0) vs. 3.0 (1.0 ~ 8.0) μg/ml, P < 0.001] in the prophylaxis group than in the rescue group. Compared with the rescue group, the prophylaxis group had a lower risk of NCFI (adjusted OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11, 0.55). Additionally, the prophylaxis group had significantly lower risks of combined outcomes (one or more complications, such as BPD, ROP needing interventions, PVL/IVH (grade > 2), NEC stage ≥2, and fungal-attributable death) (adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21, 0.92). There was no significant difference in serum alanine transferase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), creatinine (Cr), or direct bilirubin (DBIL) levels between the two groups. Conclusions: Fluconazole prophylaxis reduced NCFI and improved combined clinical outcomes in very premature infants, with no increased risks of serious short-term adverse side effects; however, the MIC of fluconazole showed significant increases. Therefore, further optimization of preventive strategies is necessary to maintain the sensitivity of fluconazole against fungal isolates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8517516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85175162021-10-16 Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants Zhang, Deshuang Xie, Dongke He, Na Wang, Xiaoling Dong, Wenbin Lei, Xiaoping Front Pediatr Pediatrics Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and fungal sensitivity of prophylactic fluconazole use in very premature infants. Methods: We performed a retrospective historical comparative analysis of 196 very premature infants (113 in the prophylaxis group and 83 in the rescue group). The incidence of nosocomial fungal infection (NCFI) and pathogenic fungi, their drug sensitivity, and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of fluconazole were compared between the two groups. We also analyzed differences in short-term adverse outcomes, such as drug-induced liver or renal function disruption, fungal-attributable death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), between the groups. The effects of the prophylactic fluconazole strategy on NCFI and short-term adverse outcomes were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Results: Candida albicans (46.7%) and Candida glabrata (43.3%) were the main culprit pathogens causing NCFI. The incidence of NCFI was significantly lower in the prophylaxis group than in the rescue group (15.9 vs. 45.8%, P < 0.001). However, fewer fungi were completely sensitive to fluconazole (40 vs. 85%, P < 0.05) and the MIC of fluconazole was higher [16.0 (3.5 ~ 16.0) vs. 3.0 (1.0 ~ 8.0) μg/ml, P < 0.001] in the prophylaxis group than in the rescue group. Compared with the rescue group, the prophylaxis group had a lower risk of NCFI (adjusted OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11, 0.55). Additionally, the prophylaxis group had significantly lower risks of combined outcomes (one or more complications, such as BPD, ROP needing interventions, PVL/IVH (grade > 2), NEC stage ≥2, and fungal-attributable death) (adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21, 0.92). There was no significant difference in serum alanine transferase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), creatinine (Cr), or direct bilirubin (DBIL) levels between the two groups. Conclusions: Fluconazole prophylaxis reduced NCFI and improved combined clinical outcomes in very premature infants, with no increased risks of serious short-term adverse side effects; however, the MIC of fluconazole showed significant increases. Therefore, further optimization of preventive strategies is necessary to maintain the sensitivity of fluconazole against fungal isolates. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8517516/ /pubmed/34660487 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.726769 Text en Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Xie, He, Wang, Dong and Lei. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Zhang, Deshuang
Xie, Dongke
He, Na
Wang, Xiaoling
Dong, Wenbin
Lei, Xiaoping
Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title_full Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title_fullStr Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title_full_unstemmed Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title_short Prophylactic Use of Fluconazole in Very Premature Infants
title_sort prophylactic use of fluconazole in very premature infants
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8517516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660487
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.726769
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangdeshuang prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants
AT xiedongke prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants
AT hena prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants
AT wangxiaoling prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants
AT dongwenbin prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants
AT leixiaoping prophylacticuseoffluconazoleinveryprematureinfants