Clinical Analysis of Colistin Sulfate in the Treatment of Hematonosis Infected by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria / 中国实验血液学杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To investigate the efficacy and safety of colistin sulfate in the treatment of hematonosis patients infected by multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative bacteria (GNB), and discuss the possible factors that affect the efficacy of colistin sulfate.@*METHODS@#The clinical data of 85 hematologic patients infected with MDR GNB in the Soochow Hopes Hematonosis Hospital from April 2022 to November 2022 were collected and divided into clinically effective group with 71 cases and ineffective group with 14 cases according to the therapeutic efficacy of colistin sulfate. The age, gender, type of hematologic disease, status of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, infection sites, type of pathogen, timing of administration, daily dose and duration of colistin sulfate, and combination with other antibacterial agents of patients in two groups were compared. Logistic regression was used to analyze on the meaningful variables to study the influencing factors of colistin sulfate. The adverse reactions of colistin sulfate were also evaluated.@*RESULTS@#There were no significant differences in age, gender, type of hematologic disease, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation status, infection sites and pathogen type between the effective group and the ineffective group (P>0.05). Compared with the medication time more than 7 days, meropenem used within 7 days in the clinical effective group, and timely replacement with colistin sulfate could obtain better efficacy, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.018). The duration of tigacycline before colistin sulfate did not affect the efficacy, and there was no significant difference in efficacy between the effective and ineffective groups. The therapeutic effect of colistin sulfate at daily dose of 500 000 U q8h was better than that of 500 000 U q12h, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.035). The time of colistin sulfate use in the clinically effective group was longer than that in the ineffective group, which had a statistical difference (P=0.003). Compared with the clinical ineffective group, the efficacy of combination regimens with colistin sulfate was better than that of colistin sulfate monotherapy, and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.013). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on the indicators with statistical differences in the two groups of patients, which suggested that the use time of colistin sulfate (B: 2.358; OR: 10.573; CI: 1.567-71.361; P=0.015) and the combination of colistin sulfate (B: 1.720; OR: 5.586; CI: 1.210-25.787; P=0.028) were influential factors in the efficacy of colistin sulfate. During the treatment, the incidence of nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity and peripheral neurotoxicity were 5.9%, 1.2% and 1.2%, respectively.@*CONCLUSION@#The use of colistin sulfate improves the clinical efficacy of MDR GNB infections in hematological patients, and the timing of colistin sulfate administration and the combination of drugs are independent factors affecting its clinical efficacy, and the safety during treatment is high.

Effect of continuous renal replacement therapy on plasma concentration, clinical efficacy and safety of colistin sulfate / 中华危重病急救医学

Objective:To investigate the effects of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) on plasma concentration, clinical efficacy and safety of colistin sulfate.Methods:Clinical data of patients received with colistin sulfate were retrospectively analyzed from our group's previous clinical registration study, which was a prospective, multicenter observation study on the efficacy and pharmacokinetic characteristics of colistin sulfate in patients with severe infection in intensive care unit (ICU). According to whether patients received blood purification treatment, they were divided into CRRT group and non-CRRT group. Baseline data (gender, age, whether complicated with diabetes, chronic nervous system disease, etc), general data (infection of pathogens and sites, steady-state trough concentration, steady-state peak concentration, clinical efficacy, 28-day all-cause mortality, etc) and adverse event (renal injury, nervous system, skin pigmentation, etc) were collected from the two groups.Results:A total of 90 patients were enrolled, including 22 patients in the CRRT group and 68 patients in the non-CRRT group. ① There was no significant difference in gender, age, basic diseases, liver function, infection of pathogens and sites, colistin sulfate dose between the two groups. Compared with the non-CRRT group, the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) were higher in the CRRT group [APACHE Ⅱ: 21.77±8.26 vs. 18.01±6.34, P < 0.05; SOFA: 8.5 (7.8, 11.0) vs. 6.0 (4.0, 9.0), P < 0.01], serum creatinine level was higher [μmol/L: 162.0 (119.5, 210.5) vs. 72.0 (52.0, 117.0), P < 0.01]. ② Plasma concentration: there was no significant difference in steady-state trough concentration between CRRT group and non-CRRT group (mg/L: 0.58±0.30 vs. 0.64±0.25, P = 0.328), nor was there significant difference in steady-state peak concentration (mg/L: 1.02±0.37 vs. 1.18±0.45, P = 0.133). ③ Clinical efficacy: there was no significant difference in clinical response rate between CRRT group and non-CRRT group [68.2% (15/22) vs. 80.9% (55/68), P = 0.213]. ④ Safety: acute kidney injury occurred in 2 patients (2.9%) in the non-CRRT group. No obvious neurological symptoms and skin pigmentation were found in the two groups. Conclusions:CRRT had little effect on the elimination of colistin sulfate. Routine blood concentration monitoring (TDM) is warranted in patients received with CRRT.