Abstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and economy of cefoperazone-sulbactam, imipenem-cilastatin, and piperacillin-tazobactam in treatment of gram-negative bacteria infections.METHODS By means of non-random observational study, the data of antibiotics therapy were collected from 322 patients with gram-negative bacteria infections who were hospitalized from Jan 1, 2012 to May 11, 2016 and were treated with cefoperazone-sulbactam, imipenem-cilastatin, and piperacillin-tazobactam.The pharmacoeconomics were evaluated with the use of cost-effectiveness analysis method.RESULTS The data were obtained from a large sample, non-random, and active surveillance study, the between-group covariate imbalance phenomenon existed in the original data, and the between-group covariate imbalance phenomenon was remarkably improved after they were matched by using propensity scoring method.After the matching, the economic analysis of costs of target antibiotics was carried out after the matching.As compared with cefoperazone-sulbactam and imipenem-cilastatin, cefoperazone-sulbactam that obtained every 1% clinical efficacy, microbial efficacy, comprehensive effect, and 30-day survival rate only needed 39.15 yuan, 51.02 yuan, 52.61 yuan, and 40.09 yuan, respectively;while the imipenem-cilastatin needed 75.54 yuan, 81.28 yuan, 83.39 yuan, and 72.15 yuan respectively.As compared with cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam, cefoperazone-sulbactam that obtained every 1% clinical efficacy, microbial efficacy, comprehensive effect, and 30-day survival rate only needed 36.94 yuan, 46.80 yuan, 48.40 yuan, and 33.42 yuan, respectively;while piperacillin-tazobactam needed 99.99 yuan, 117.64 yuan, 121.21 yuan, and 95.23 yuan, respectively.The four cost-effectiveness analyses showed that cefoperazone-sulbactam had obvious economic advantages.Under the circumstances of the same efficacy, the cost of cefoperazone-sulbactam was 1/3~1/2 of the cost of piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem-cilastatin.The sensitivity analysis based on the 95% confidence limit of efficacy showed that the conclusion remained true.CONCLUSION Cefoperazone-sulbactam has more cost-effectiveness advantages on treatment of the gram-negative bacteria (including multidrug-resistant organisms) infections.

Phase Ⅳ Trials of Cefepime in Treat-Ment of Various Moderate or Severe Bacterial Infections

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on Teicoplanin Versus Vancomycin

Clinical Study for Cefepine in the Treatment of Moderate and Severe Bacterial Infections

Analysis of efficacy and safety of panipenem/betamipron in treatment of 30 patients with severe bacterial infection

Multicenter randomized controlled clinical study of cefdinir and cefteram

A randomized controlled study on cefpirome versus ceftazidime in the treatment of bacterial infections

An open label clinical trial on cefpiramide in the treatment of acute bacterial infection

Clinical Application and Evaluation of Cefepime

Randomized Controlled Multicentric Clinical Trial of Domestic and Imported Cefepime in the Treatment of Acute Urinary Infections

A Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Efficacy and Safety of Piperacillin/tazobactam for the Treatment of Patients with Hospital Acquired Pneumonia: Treatment of Hospital Acquired Pneumonia Forum in Huadong Area.

Domestic Cefepime in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Respiratory Infection

Clinical Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Cefdinir in the Treatment of Skin and Soft Tissue Bacterial Infections

A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Ceftolozane/Tazobactam to Standard of Care in the Management of Neutropenia and Fever in Patients with Hematological Malignancies.

A Randomized Controlled Study of Cefoperazone-Tazobactam Versus Cefoperazone-Sulbactam in the Treatment of Bacterial Infections

Pharmacoeconomics on Treatment of Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections with Cefoperazone-Sulbactam, Imipenem-Cilastatin, and Piperacillin-Tazobactam

Patient outcomes by baseline pathogen resistance phenotype and genotype in CERTAIN-1, a Phase 3 study of cefepime-taniborbactam versus meropenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infection

Treatment of Moderate and Severe Infection with Ticarcillin/clavulanic Acid Versus Ceftazidime in 41 Patients

Cefoperazone/sulbactam in Treatment of Biliary Tract Infections: A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial

A clinical trial on ceftriaxone 1g daily in treatme nt of lower respiratory tract infection

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Piperacillin/Tazobactam Versus Imipenem/Cilastatin in the Treatment of Bacterial Infections

Evaluation of Cefepime in Treatment of Pulmonary Infections