Piperacillin脙脙脙脙脙脙sulbactam versus piperacillin脙脙脙脙脙脙tazobactam: a multicentre, randomised, single-blind, controlled clinical trial
- 作者：Zhiyong ; Zong ; Xiaoju ; L脙脙 ; Yanbin ; Liu ; Yao ; Yang ; Rujia ; Yu ; Xueqin ; Fu ; Wenxiang ; Huang ; Sufang ; Cai ; et. al.
- 关键词：Piperacillin ; Sulbactam ; Tazobactam ; RCT ; Bacterial infection
- 刊名：International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
- 出版年：2005
- 期刊代码：126_09248579
- 类别：med
- 出版时间：July, 2005
- 卷：26
- 期：1
- 页码：22-27
- 文件大小：72.7 K
摘要
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.