Skip to main content
Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics logoLink to Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics
. 2022 Oct 15;24(10):1171–1177. [Article in Chinese] doi: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2204158

早产儿侵袭性真菌感染药物预防策略的研究进展

Recent research on pharmacological prevention strategies for invasive fungal infection in preterm infants

HUANG Fang-Jun 1,3, XIONG Tao 1,2, TANG Jun 1,2,✉,✉
Editor: 王 颖
PMCID: PMC9627992  PMID: 36305120

Abstract

There is a relatively high incidence rate of invasive fungal infection (IFI) in preterm infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and early diagnosis of IFI is difficult in clinical practice. The patients developing IFI tend to have severe conditions, a long course of treatment, high hospital costs, high mortality, and poor prognosis, and therefore, the prevention of IFI is of particular importance. At present, fluconazole is often used as the first-line drug for the prevention of IFI in preterm infants, but no consensus has been reached on the specific dose and course of treatment, and there are still controversies over the targeted population and prophylactic effect. This article reviews the recent research on the pharmacological prevention strategies for IFI in preterm infants in the NICU, so as to provide a reference for clinicians.

Keywords: Invasive fungal infection, Fluconazole, Prophylaxis, Preterm infant, Very low birth weight infant, Extremely low birth weight infant


侵袭性真菌感染(invasive fungal infection,IFI)是指各种真菌侵犯皮肤、黏膜和皮下组织,累及组织和器官,甚至引起播散性感染的一类疾病统称。新生儿重症监护病房(neonatal intensive care unit,NICU)中各种侵袭性操作如中心静脉置管、气管插管、长时间使用免疫抑制剂、广谱抗菌药物,以及其他相关因素(如皮肤屏障破坏、低出生体重、住院时间、胎膜早破等)都是导致早产儿IFI的主要危险因素[1-6]。早产儿IFI的临床表现多样,缺乏特异性,诊断困难。近年来,随着对NICU中早产儿IFI的高度重视及卫生细节措施的不断改进,IFI发生率呈下降趋势,念珠菌属仍是最常见的菌种[7-8]。美国1项长达10年的针对儿童医院真菌感染流行病学的研究发现,NICU中IFI的发生率为14%[5]。1项针对超低出生体重儿(extremely low birth weight infant,ELBWI)的队列研究(n=4 579)发现,73%确诊IFI的患儿死亡或发生神经发育障碍[9]。IFI对早产儿的生存及预后是一个极大的威胁。

氟康唑因其有效性和安全性成为NICU中预防IFI的首选用药[10]。一些学者主张当NICU中IFI发生率高于5%时,使用氟康唑预防[11]。另一些学者基于风险-效益考虑,建议将预防门槛提高到10%[11]。2016年美国感染病协会建议,临床医生应就实际情况实施IFI个体化预防,而非盲目遵循指南[12]。目前我国NICU中早产儿预防性抗真菌药物的使用亦尚无统一规范、共识或指南,临床常选用氟康唑预防IFI,但其剂量、疗程尚不统一,使用对象及效果亦存争议。本文以主题词和自由词相结合的方式系统检索2017年1月1日到2022年4月1日早产儿药物预防IFI的相关文献,检索数据库包括万方数据库、维普数据库、中国知网数据库、PubMed、Web of Science及Cochrane Library等。英文检索词包括“premature infants”“very low birth weight”“extremely low birth weight”“antifungal prophylaxis”“prevention”“fungal”“candida”等;中文检索词包括:“早产儿”“极低出生体重儿”“超低出生体重儿”“真菌感染”“预防”等。纳入标准:临床指南、专家共识、综述、系统评价/Meta分析、随机对照试验(randomized clinical trial,RCT)和观察性研究。研究对象为早产儿、极低出生体重儿(very low birth weight infant,VLBWI)、ELBWI。研究主题为药物预防早产儿IFI。排除标准:主题、研究人群不符,不能获取全文,非中/英文文献,文献资料评价结果为不合格的文献。去重后获得4 470篇文献,经2名小组成员独立筛选、交叉核对,如有分歧则通过讨论或与第三方协商解决,最终纳入24篇文献,对NICU中预防早产儿IFI的药物使用问题进行以下综述。

1. 氟康唑预防IFI

1.1. 氟康唑预防IFI的有效性研究

1项针对生后真菌定植的VLBWI的回顾性队列研究(n=628)[4]认为,氟康唑在预防IFI方面是独立的保护因素(OR=0.36,95%CI:0.143~0.819,P=0.03)。较多研究表明,对有危险因素的VLBWI,使用氟康唑预防可减少念珠菌属定植,降低IFI的发生率和病死率[13-17]。1项针对VLBWI用氟康唑预防IFI的回顾性队列研究(n=196)[18]显示,氟康唑预防不仅可降低IFI发生率(15.9% vs 45.8%,P<0.001),还可降低复合不良预后风险[发生一个或多个并发症,如支气管肺发育不良、需要干预的早产儿视网膜病变、脑室周围白质软化症/脑室内出血(>2级)、坏死性小肠结肠炎≥2期和真菌所致死亡(调整后OR=0.44,95%CI:0.21~0.92)]。

但一些研究显示氟康唑预防IFI对早产儿神经系统发育和常见并发症无明显影响。1项针对VLBWI及胎龄<32周早产儿(n=1 930)的Meta分析(14项RCT)[13]发现,氟康唑预防IFI对早产儿的神经系统发育及常见并发症[坏死性小肠结肠炎(RR=0.88,95%CI:0.60~1.30)、早产儿视网膜病变(RR=0.92,95%CI:0.65~1.30)、支气管肺发育不良(RR=0.88,95%CI:0.60~1.30)、脑室周围白质软化症/脑室内出血(>3级)(RR=0.92,95%CI:0.70~1.23)、动脉导管未闭(RR=0.93,95%CI:0.65~1.31)]均没有显著影响,但相关指标样本量可能不足。1项针对体重<750 g患儿(n=361)的多中心RCT(氟康唑6 mg/kg,静脉滴注/经胃管,每周2次,持续6周)[19]发现:氟康唑组和安慰剂组间的复合指标(死亡、可能或确定的念珠菌病感染数)差异无统计学意义(16% vs 21%,P=0.24),且在矫正胎龄18月到22月龄时,试验组与对照组相比,生后早期使用氟康唑预防对患儿神经系统影响的差异无统计学意义(31% vs 27%,P=0.60),故不推荐在体重<750 g的患儿中预防性使用氟康唑。

综上所述,一方面,氟康唑可能降低对药物敏感的念珠菌属的定植率、IFI发生率及早产儿病死率[13-18],但多为回顾性研究,证据等级不高。另一方面,基于现有研究,氟康唑的预防使用对早产儿生后早期神经系统发育无明显影响[19],是否会降低早产儿常见并发症仍存在争议,但尚未有研究认为其会增加早产儿常见并发症发生率。因此有待更多高质量多中心RCT进一步论证。

1.2. 氟康唑预防IFI的使用策略研究

根据NICU中IFI发生率,2012年欧洲临床微生物学和传染病学会提出依据风险评估划分预防策略[20],如(1)IFI发生率>5%,氟康唑(3~6 mg/kg,静脉滴注/口服,每周2次)用于所有出生体重<1 000 g的患儿;(2)IFI发生率<2%时采用个体化预防,如患儿出生体重<1 000 g、有中心静脉置管、使用第三代头孢菌素和碳青霉烯类药物等情况时预防使用氟康唑(3~6 mg/kg,静脉滴注/口服,每周2次),但该指南未提及氟康唑使用的起始时间或疗程。2016年美国念珠菌病管理指南建议,在IFI发生率高(>10%)的医院,对出生体重<1 000 g的患儿常规使用氟康唑预防(3~6 mg/kg,静脉滴注/口服,每周2次,持续6周)[11]。

关于氟康唑的用法用量研究,1项针对VLBWI(n=4 486)的Meta分析[21]认为,方案1(6 mg/kg,第1周每3天1次,第2~4周每天1次)可以预防真菌定植(RR=0.350,95%CI:0.223~0.551,P<0.01),方案2(3 mg/kg,第1~2周每3天1次,第3~4周隔天1次,第4~5周每天1次),病死率显著下降(RR=0.780,95%CI:0.629~0.966,P=0.023),该研究尚未对2种方案的优劣进行比较。1项针对VLBWI及胎龄<32周早产儿(n=1 930)的Meta分析(14项RCT)[13]认为:预防使用氟康唑3 mg/kg和6 mg/kg这2种剂量方案在降低IFI发生率(RR=0.39,95%CI:0.24~0.64)、病死率(RR=0.77,95%CI:0.61~0.97)方面差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),但文献未提及何种剂量方案更优。1项针对低出生体重儿(n=1 578)的Meta分析(11项RCT)[22]认为氟康唑3 mg/kg和6 mg/kg两种方案对降低IFI发生率和总体病死率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但基于不良反应和经济效益考虑,3 mg/kg可能是更好的选择。

在各个研究中,氟康唑的不同用法剂量对IFI均有一定预防作用[11,13,20-22],但在什么基线情况下使用及哪一种剂量和使用方式效果更好,目前仍存在争议。建议根据各医疗中心IFI发生率的基线情况采用个体化预防策略。

1.3. 氟康唑预防IFI的安全性研究

氟康唑的常见不良反应主要是肝毒性,包括氨基转移酶、胆红素和胆汁淤积的轻度和短暂升高,也有罕见和严重不良反应的报道,如中毒性表皮坏死松解症和史蒂文斯-约翰综合征(主要表现是重症多形红斑)。多数研究认为氟康唑预防安全、有效,短时间内无明显不良反应[13,23,16-17]。1项针对VLBWI及胎龄<32周早产儿(n=1 930)的Meta分析(14项RCT)[13]认为预防性使用氟康唑不会增加氨基转移酶、直接胆红素升高或细菌性败血症的风险(P>0.05)。1项针对VLBWI/ELBWI(出生体重500~1 250 g)的队列研究(n=526)[23]发现,胆汁淤积(P=0.71)、肾功能不全(P=0.81)等药物常见不良反应在氟康唑组与对照组间差异无统计学意义。

目前资料显示,氟康唑预防IFI是安全的,但广泛长期运用于早产儿这一特殊群体是否有其他安全隐患或风险,还有待更多的研究证实。

1.4. 氟康唑预防IFI的耐药性研究

研究显示,氟康唑的耐药性与用药的持续时间、用药频率及单次用药剂量有关[24]。1项针对VLBWI的回顾性队列研究(n=196)[18]发现,白念珠菌(46.7%)和光滑念珠菌(43.3%)是院内真菌感染的主要致病菌,研究中氟康唑组(6 mg/kg,静脉滴注,<1 500 g,4周;<1 000 g,6周)的真菌敏感度较安慰剂组低(40% vs 85%,P<0.05),最小抑菌浓度(minimal inhibitory concentration,MIC)较高,可能系耐氟康唑的光滑念珠菌的出现。1项针对出生体重<750 g患儿(n=361)的RCT研究(氟康唑6 mg/kg,静脉滴注/口服,每周2次,6周)[14]发现,MIC略有增高,该研究的局限性在于不随机的研究地点可能影响NICU真菌敏感模式,从而影响MIC数值。另一篇针对VLBWI和/或胎龄<32周患儿(n=1 930)的Meta分析(14项RCT)[13]认为,氟康唑不会在短期内导致真菌耐药性的发展,但这一结果可能是由于研究时间短(仅30个月)且给药频率低所致。1项时间跨度16年的针对VLBWI的回顾性队列研究(n=1 467)[16]未发现常规使用氟康唑预防IFI会引起NICU中念珠菌属对氟康唑耐药性的变迁。

综上,氟康唑预防IFI的耐药性相关研究尚存争议,现有资料多为回顾性研究,存在不同的局限性,证据等级不高。近来研究亦发现耐氟康唑念珠菌属增多[25-26]。1项回顾性病例对照研究[27](<1 500 g,n=104;≥1 500 g,n=40)发现,自2011年起出现了对氟康唑耐药的马拉色菌。另1项在NICU[胎龄(27.3±2.0)周,出生体重(959.2±229.8)g]进行的回顾性研究(n=20)[28]发现马拉色菌的定植可能与长期使用氟康唑有关。因此,预防IFI的最佳药物应根据该地区或病房流行的病株[29],并参考药敏试验结果选择。

2. 其他药物预防IFI

2.1. 制霉菌素

一些研究表明制霉菌素可有效预防真菌感染[30-34]。1项针对VLBWI(氟康唑组,3 mg/kg,每3 d 1次,n=93;制霉菌素组,浓度为1∶100 000,8 h 1次,n=94;对照组,n=91)的RCT发现[31]制霉菌素和氟康唑均可降低真菌定植(10.8% vs 11.7% vs 42.9%,P<0.001)和IFI发生率(3.2% vs 4.3% vs 16.5%,P<0.001)。制霉菌素因其安全、廉价、耐受性好且有效,可能成为氟康唑替代品[31,35]。

2.2. 两性霉素B

两性霉素B在不同人群中的推荐力度不同。《儿童侵袭性肺部真菌感染临床实践专家共识(2022版)》推荐血液肿瘤患儿用两性霉素B及其脂质体再次预防肺部IFI[36]。国外肿瘤科相关专家小组制定的临床实践指南认为,针对儿童肿瘤和造血干细胞移植受者这一群体,因两性霉素B的有效性不高于氟康唑,且不良反应更多,不推荐其常规用于预防IFI(证据等级低,强推荐)[37]。上述指南推荐人群是儿童和青少年,未明确指出适用于早产儿。1项针对VLBWI的RCT(两性霉素B 5 mg/kg,每日1次)研究(试验组n=20,对照组n=20)[38]发现两性霉素B具有良好的耐受性,但该研究由于数据问题无法评估其疗效。期待更多关于两性霉素B用于预防早产儿IFI的高质量研究。

2.3. 米卡芬净

耳念珠菌有着极高的致死率(30%~50%),1项针对耳念珠菌感染者[胎龄(32.4±4.9)周,出生体重(1 720±880)g]的回顾性病例对照研究(n=17)[39]发现其对伏立康唑、米卡芬净敏感,对两性霉素中等敏感,对氟康唑耐药。相较于常规氟康唑预防,使用米卡芬净预防后,耳念珠菌感染发生率明显降低(6.25% vs 0.80%,P=0.03)[39]。因此,在发生耳念珠菌感染的NICU中,米卡芬净可能是更有效的预防药物。1项针对ELBWI(出生体重<1 000 g且胎龄<26周)的RCT研究(n=39)[40]认为米卡芬净[3 mg/(kg·d),每日1次,静脉滴注,持续3周]在预防VLBW的IFI方面优于氟康唑[5 mg/(kg·d),每日1次,静脉滴注,持续3周](P<0.05)。

从安全性来看,1项队列研究(n=307,其中新生儿n=90)[8]认为,临床上多选择氟康唑作为预防用药,基于多人群研究,接受化疗的患儿也可以选择米卡芬净。1项多中心前瞻性队列研究(n=110,其中新生儿n=31)[41]发现,米卡芬净在预防血液肿瘤患儿IFI及治疗儿童新生儿IFI方面有效且耐受性良好。

综上,目前研究显示,米卡芬净可能代替氟康唑预防IFI,但目前相关研究不多,且病例数量较少,还需更多高质量、多中心RCT进一步证实其有效性和安全性。

2.4. 益生菌

益生菌种类繁多,目前益生菌预防IFI的高质量研究较少。1项针对VLBWI(胎龄≤32周)的RCT(布拉氏酵母菌组250 mg/d,n=91;制霉菌素组1万U 8 h 1次口服,n=90)[42]发现2组在IFI发生率(P=0.87)、真菌定植率(P=0.17)方面差异均无统计学意义,且布拉氏酵母菌对喂养不耐受有良好的疗效(P=0.001)。1项针对VLBWI的RCT研究(n=80)[43]发现口服干酪乳杆菌亚种(浓度6×109 CFU/mL,每日1次,持续6周)可显著降低VLBWI患儿中念珠菌属肠道定植发生率(P=0.01)。1项针对VLBWI的RCT研究(n=249)[44]发现,罗伊氏乳杆菌(1×108 CFU/mL,口服,每日1次,持续6周)和鼠李糖乳杆菌(6×109 CFU/mL,口服,每日1次,持续6周)可有效预防念珠菌胃肠道定植(P<0.01),且前者的胃肠道症状比后者少(P<0.05)。1项针对早产儿(胎龄<37周且出生体重<2 500 g)的RCT研究(n=112)[45]发现,补充益生菌(含嗜酸乳杆菌、长双歧杆菌)可显著降低粪便真菌定植(P=0.03)、念珠菌感染败血症(P=0.001)、缩短住院时间(P=0.002)及早期建立肠内营养(P=0.016)。1项针对早产儿的Meta分析研究(包括7项RCT,n=1 371)[46]发现益生菌补充可减少真菌定植,但对IFI的作用差异无统计学意义。

综上,现有证据显示,多种益生菌口服均可以降低早产儿胃肠道真菌定植[40-44],但其对IFI的预防效果尚有争议,有待更多高质量研究。

2.5. 牛乳铁蛋白

牛乳铁蛋白作为哺乳动物固有的免疫成分之一,其本质是一种乳糖蛋白。1项针对VLBWI(n=472)的RCT[47]发现,牛乳蛋白(100 mg/d,ELBWI持续6周;VLBWI持续4周或至出院)可以降低IFI发生率[(牛乳铁蛋白0.7% vs对照组7.7%,P=0.002);(牛乳铁蛋白+乳酸杆菌2.0% vs对照组7.7%,P=0.02)],对真菌定植率无明显影响[(牛乳铁蛋白17.6% vs对照组18.5%,P=0.89);(牛乳铁蛋白+乳酸杆菌16.6% vs对照组18.5%,P=0.77)]。关于牛乳铁蛋白用于预防早产儿IFI,目前证据较少,有待进一步研究。

3. 小结

综上,本文总结了近年来预防早产儿IFI的相关研究,氟康唑是使用最多的药物。但目前国内外各医疗机构对早产儿尤其是VLBWI这一特殊群体是否常规使用药物预防IFI,使用何种药物及具体的用药方案尚未统一,常规预防性使用抗真菌药物是否会导致耐药性增加等都是需要继续关注的话题。期待未来产生更多高质量的临床研究提供循证依据以辅助临床决策。

利益冲突声明

所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突。

参 考 文 献

  • 1. Brady MT. Health care-associated infections in the neonatal intensive care unit[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2005, 33(5): 268-275. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2004.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Zhang Z, Cao Y, Li Y, et al. Risk factors and biofilm formation analyses of hospital-acquired infection of Candida pelliculosa in a neonatal intensive care unit[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2021, 21(1): 620. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06295-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Lona-Reyes JC, Gómez-Ruiz LM, Cordero-Zamora A, et al. Incidence and factors associated with invasive candidiasis in a neonatal intensive care unit in Mexico[J]. An Pediatr (Engl Ed), 2021. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1016/j.anpedi.2021.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Manzoni P, Farina D, Leonessa M, et al. Risk factors for progression to invasive fungal infection in preterm neonates with fungal colonization[J]. Pediatrics, 2006, 118(6): 2359-2364. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-1311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Piqueras A, Ganapathi L, Carpenter JF, et al. Trends in pediatric candidemia: epidemiology, anti-fungal susceptibility, and patient characteristics in a children's hospital[J]. J Fungi (Basel), 2021, 7(2): 78. DOI: 10.3390/jof7020078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lona-Reyes JC, Gómez-Ruiz LM, Cordero-Zamora A, et al. Bloodstream infections with Candida glabrata in a neonatal intensive care unit that uses prophylaxis with fluconazole[J]. Rev Iberoam Micol, 2020, 37(3-4): 100-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.riam.2020.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Weimer KED, Smith PB, Puia-Dumitrescu M, et al. Invasive fungal infections in neonates: a review[J]. Pediatr Res, 2022, 91(2): 404-412. DOI: 10.1038/s41390-021-01842-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Benedict K, Roy M, Kabbani S, et al. Neonatal and pediatric candidemia: results from population-based active laboratory surveillance in four US locations, 2009-2015[J]. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc, 2018, 7(3): e78-e85. DOI: 10.1093/jpids/piy009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Benjamin DK, Stoll BJ, Fanaroff AA, et al. Neonatal candidiasis among extremely low birth weight infants: risk factors, mortality rates, and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months[J]. Pediatrics, 2006, 117(1): 84-92. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-2292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Engbers AGJ, Flint RB, Voeller S, et al. Optimisation of fluconazole therapy for the treatment of invasive candidiasis in preterm infants[J]. Arch Dis Child, 2022, 107(4): 400-406. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2021-322560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Ramos JT, Romero CA, Belda S, et al. Clinical practice update of antifungal prophylaxis in immunocompromised children[J]. Rev Esp Quimioter, 2019, 32(5): 410-425. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the management of candidiasis: 2016 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2016, 62(4): e1-e50. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wang XL, Ma Y, Wang SH, et al. A meta-analysis of fluconazole for the prevention of invasive fungal infection in preterm infants[J]. Am J Transl Res, 2021, 13(2): 434-447. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Autmizguine J, Smith PB, Prather K, et al. Effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on Candida fluconazole susceptibility in premature infants[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2018, 73(12): 3482-3487. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dky353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Silva-Rios J, Camargos P, Correa L, et al. Prophylactic regimens with fluconazole for candidiasis in neonates under 1, 500 g: a retrospective chart review of two cohorts[J]. J Neonatal Perinatal Med, 2019, 12(1): 29-36. DOI: 10.3233/NPM-17121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Luparia M, Landi F, Mesini A, et al. Fungal ecology in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit after 16 years of routine fluconazole prophylaxis: no emergence of native fluconazole-resistant strains[J]. Am J Perinatol, 2019, 36(S 02): S126-S133. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1691808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. 邓庆先, 林梅芳. 口服氟康唑预防极低出生体质量早产儿真菌感染的临床意义[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2020, 35(23): 4519-4522. DOI: 10.19829/j.zgfybj.issn.1001-4411.2020.23.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Zhang D, Xie D, He N, et al. Prophylactic use of fluconazole in very premature infants[J]. Front Pediatr, 2021, 9: 726769. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.726769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Benjamin DK, Hudak ML, Duara S, et al. Effect of fluconazole prophylaxis on candidiasis and mortality in premature infants: a randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2014, 311(17): 1742-1749. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.2624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Hope WW, Castagnola E, Groll AH, et al. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: prevention and management of invasive infections in neonates and children caused by Candida spp[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2012, 18 Suppl 7: 38-52. DOI: 10.1111/1469-0691.12040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Robati Anaraki M, Nouri-Vaskeh M, Abdoli Oskoei S. Fluconazole prophylaxis against invasive candidiasis in very low and extremely low birth weight preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clin Exp Pediatr, 2021, 64(4): 172-179. DOI: 10.3345/cep.2019.01431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Leonart LP, Tonin FS, Ferreira VL, et al. Fluconazole doses used for prophylaxis of invasive fungal infection in neonatal intensive care units: a network meta-analysis[J]. J Pediatr, 2017, 185: 129-135.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.02.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kaufman DA, Morris A, Gurka MJ, et al. Fluconazole prophylaxis in preterm infants: a multicenter case-controlled analysis of efficacy and safety[J]. Early Hum Dev, 2014, 90 Suppl 1: S87-S90. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3782(14)70026-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. White TC, Marr KA, Bowden RA. Clinical, cellular, and molecular factors that contribute to antifungal drug resistance[J]. Clin Microbiol Rev, 1998, 11(2): 382-402. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.11.2.382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Magobo RE, Naicker SD, Wadula J, et al. Detection of neonatal unit clusters of Candida parapsilosis fungaemia by microsatellite genotyping: results from laboratory-based sentinel surveillance, South Africa, 2009-2010[J]. Mycoses, 2017, 60(5): 320-327. DOI: 10.1111/myc.12596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Nazir A, Masoodi T. Spectrum of candidal species isolated from neonates admitted in an intensive care unit of teaching hospital of Kashmir, North India[J]. J Lab Physicians, 2018, 10(3): 255-259. DOI: 10.4103/JLP.JLP_1_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Chen IL, Chiu NC, Chi H, et al. Changing of bloodstream infections in a medical center neonatal intensive care unit[J]. J Microbiol Immunol Infect, 2017, 50(4): 514-520. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2015.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Chen IT, Chen CC, Huang HC, et al. Malassezia furfur emergence and candidemia trends in a neonatal intensive care unit during 10 years: the experience of fluconazole prophylaxis in a single hospital[J]. Adv Neonatal Care, 2020, 20(1): E3-E8. DOI: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Ramya GM, Balakrishnan U, Chandrasekaran A, et al. Candida auris, an emerging pathogen—challenge in the survival of microprimies[J]. Indian J Med Microbiol, 2021, 39(3): 367-369. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2021.03.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Rundjan L, Wahyuningsih R, Oeswadi CA, et al. Oral nystatin prophylaxis to prevent systemic fungal infection in very low birth weight preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial[J]. BMC Pediatr, 2020, 20(1): 170. DOI: 10.1186/s12887-020-02074-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Aydemir C, Oguz SS, Dizdar EA, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prophylactic fluconazole versus nystatin for the prevention of fungal colonisation and invasive fungal infection in very low birth weight infants[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2011, 96(3): F164-F168. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2009.178996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Ganesan K, Harigopal S, Neal T, et al. Prophylactic oral nystatin for preterm babies under 33 weeks' gestation decreases fungal colonisation and invasive fungaemia[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2009, 94(4): F275-F278. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2008.145359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Bodin MB, Godoy G, Philips JB. Topical nystatin for the prevention of catheter-associated candidiasis in ELBW infants[J]. Adv Neonatal Care, 2015, 15(3): 220-224. DOI: 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Howell A, Isaacs D, Halliday R, et al. Oral nystatin prophylaxis and neonatal fungal infections[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2009, 94(6): F429-F433. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2008.157123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Isaacs D. Fungal prophylaxis in very low birth weight neonates: nystatin, fluconazole or nothing?[J]. Curr Opin Infect Dis, 2008, 21(3): 246-250. DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3282f8adab. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. 中华医学会儿科学分会, 中华儿科杂志编辑委员会 . 儿童侵袭性肺部真菌感染临床实践专家共识(2022版)[J]. 中华儿科杂志, 2022, 60(4): 274-282. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112140-20220210-00112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Lehrnbecher T, Fisher BT, Phillips B, et al. Clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2020, 38(27): 3205-3216. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.00158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Arrieta AC, Shea K, Dhar V, et al. Once-weekly liposomal amphotericin B as Candida prophylaxis in very low birth weight premature infants: a prospective, randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled pilot study[J]. Clin Ther, 2010, 32(2): 265-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Chandramati J, Sadanandan L, Kumar A, et al. Neonatal Candida auris infection: management and prevention strategies—a single centre experience[J]. J Paediatr Child Health, 2020, 56(10): 1565-1569. DOI: 10.1111/jpc.15019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Maede Y, Ibara S, Nagasaki H, et al. Micafungin versus fluconazole for prophylaxis against fungal infections in premature infants[J]. Pediatr Int, 2013, 55(6): 727-730. DOI: 10.1111/ped.12157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Leverger G, Timsit JF, Milpied N, et al. Use of micafungin for the prevention and treatment of invasive fungal infections in everyday pediatric care in France: results of the MYRIADE study[J]. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2019, 38(7): 716-721. DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Demirel G, Celik IH, Erdeve O, et al. Prophylactic Saccharomyces boulardii versus nystatin for the prevention of fungal colonization and invasive fungal infection in premature infants[J]. Eur J Pediatr, 2013, 172(10): 1321-1326. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-013-2041-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Manzoni P, Mostert M, Leonessa ML, et al. Oral supplementation with Lactobacillus casei subspecies rhamnosus prevents enteric colonization by Candida species in preterm neonates: a randomized study[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2006, 42(12): 1735-1742. DOI: 10.1086/504324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Romeo MG, Romeo DM, Trovato L, et al. Role of probiotics in the prevention of the enteric colonization by Candida in preterm newborns: incidence of late-onset sepsis and neurological outcome[J]. J Perinatol, 2011, 31(1): 63-69. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2010.57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Roy A, Chaudhuri J, Sarkar D, et al. Role of enteric supplementation of probiotics on late-onset sepsis by Candida species in preterm low birth weight neonates: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial[J]. N Am J Med Sci, 2014, 6(1): 50-57. DOI: 10.4103/1947-2714.125870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Hu HJ, Zhang GQ, Zhang Q, et al. Probiotics prevent Candida colonization and invasive fungal sepsis in preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Pediatr Neonatol, 2017, 58(2): 103-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2016.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Manzoni P, Stolfi I, Messner H, et al. Bovine lactoferrin prevents invasive fungal infections in very low birth weight infants: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Pediatrics, 2012, 129(1): 116-123. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics are provided here courtesy of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University

RESOURCES