Piperacillin-Sulbactam Versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam: A Multicentre, Randomised, Single-Blind, Controlled Clinical Trial
ZY Zong,XJ Lu,YB Liu,Y Yao,RJ Yu,XQ Fu,WX Huang,SF Cai,ZB Yu,XP Zeng,MG Duan,PY Xia,WM Zhu,XH Ji,HW Zhao,YC Chen,Y Fei,ZZ Ni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2005.02.018
IF: 15.441
2005-01-01
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Abstract:The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin–sulbactam (PIP–SBT) and piperacillin–tazobactam (PIP–TAZ) in the treatment of bacterial respiratory and urinary tract infections. A randomised, single-blind, controlled clinical trial was performed. Differences in clinical efficacy, bacteriology and safety between the two groups were subjected to statistical analysis, including intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 215 cases were enrolled, with 203 complete cases (99 PIP–SBT, 104 PIP–TAZ). A total of 209 cases (103 PIP–SBT, 106 PIP–TAZ) were included in the ITT analysis and a total of 212 cases (104 PIP–SBT, 108 PIP–TAZ) were included in the safety analysis. Overall efficacy rates of PIP–SBT and PIP–TAZ were 93.2% and 93.4%, respectively. Overall bacterial eradication rates of the two groups were 95% and 97.59%, respectively. Among the PIP–SBT group, eight patients (7.69%) had adverse events, including four probable drug-related events. Among the PIP–TAZ group, nine patients (8.33%) had adverse events, including one definitely drug-related and four probable drug-related events. All differences between the two groups were insignificant. PIP–SBT could be a suitable replacement for PIP–TAZ in the therapy of community-acquired respiratory and urinary tract infections caused by β-lactamase-producing bacterial isolates.