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.

Clinical evaluation of cefepime in treatment of lower respir atory tract bacterial infections

A multicenter study on the in vitro antibacterial activity of cefoselis against common clinical bacteria

Clinical Evaluation of Effect and Safety of Cefepime on 383 Patients with Moderate or Severe Infection

A multicenter,randomized,and double-blind controlled clinical trial of cefepime in treatment of acute bacterial infections

Efficacy of cefepime on the treatment of senile with lower respiratory infections

Clinical Application and Evaluation of Cefepime

Clinical efficacy of cefpiramide for lower respiratory tract infection

A randomized controlled clinical study on cefprozil and cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of low respiratory tract bacterial infections

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

Domestic Cefepime in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Respiratory Infection

A multicenter randomized control clinical trial of cefepime hydrochloride injection in the treatment of acute bacterial infections

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

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

Clinical Study of Cefprozil in Treatment of Respiratory Tract Infections

Multicenter randomized controlled clinical study of cefdinir and cefteram

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

Clinical efficacy of cefixime in the treatment of children with respiratory tract infection

Efficacy of Cefoperazone/sulbactam 2∶1 Vs Cefoperazone/sulb Actam 1∶1 in Treatment of Lower Respiratory Tract Infections

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

Evaluation of Cefepime in Treatment of Pulmonary Infections

Antibacterial Activity of Cefepime on the Clinically Common Pathogenic Bacteria:Survey of 576 Strains