关键词: 米卡芬净, 真菌感染, 随机对照试验, Meta分析

Abstract: AIM: To study the efficacy and safety of micafungin by Meta-analysis, providing a reference guide for the clinical use of antifungal agents.METHODS: The database was retrieved from Web of Science, EMBASE, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China Journal Full Text Database, and references of the included studies up to March 2011. Data were evaluated by RevMan 5.0 from the Cochrane Collaboration.RESULTS: Seven RCTS were included. The results of effectiveness evaluation showed that, the antibacterial effect of micafungin was superior to fluconazole (P=0.008) but had no statistically significant differences with lipid amphotericin B (P=0.38). There were no statistically significant differences between micafungin and control group in different types of Candida infection (P>0.05). The results of safety evaluation showed that there were no statistically significant differences between micafungin and fluconazole (P=0.40) or lipid amphotericin B (P=0.06) group in the incidence of adverse events. However, the incidence of infusion-related reactions in micafungin group were less than lipid amphotericin B group (P=0.001).CONCLUSION: Micafungin is a good alternative medication to lipid amphotericin B and fluconazole. There may be some publication bias in this study, so the results needs to be further confirmed by domestic research.

Key words: Micafungin, Fungal infections, Randomized controlled trials, Meta analysis