Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of cefoperazone/sulbactam for the treatment of pediatric sepsis by Monte Carlo simulation.

Pediatric sepsis syndrome is one of the most common reasons for pediatric intensive care unit hospitalization (PICU). Cefoperazone/sulbactam is a time-dependent beta-lactamase inhibitor combination which has been widely used in the treatment of sepsis. But the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data of cefoperazone/sulbactam are unknown in children with sepsis. The present work aimed to determine whether the usual dosing regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam (1 hour infusion, 50 mg kg-1, every 12 hours) were suitable for these patients in PICU. A total of fourteen patients were enrolled and the PK parameters were estimated by non-compartmental analysis using WinNonlin software. The t1/2 and AUC0-12 of cefoperazone and sulbactam were 3.60 and 1.77 h, and 900.97 and 67.68 h µg mL-1, respectively. The Vd and CL of cefoperazone and sulbactam were 1.65 L and 5.16 L, and 17.41 mL min-1 and 122.62 mL min-1, respectively. The probability of target attainments (PTAs) of cefoperazone at different minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) based on the percentage time that concentrations exceed the minimum inhibitory concentration (% T > MIC) value were performed by Monte Carlo simulation and PTA was >90% at MICs ≤16 µg mL-1. The PK/PD profile of dosing regimens tested will assist in selecting the appropriate cefoperazone/sulbactam regimens for these patients. At a target of 80% T > MIC, the usual dosing regimens can provide good coverage for pathogens with MICs of ≤32 µg mL-1. The ratio between cefoperazone and sulbactam at 1 : 1 may be more suitable in pediatric sepsis. Individual dose and therapeutic drug monitoring in clinical practice will help achieve the best therapeutic effect while minimizing toxicity.

Management Patterns in Pediatric Complicated Sinusitis.

OBJECTIVES: Sinusitis is a common pediatric illness that can be complicated by periorbital or intracranial extension. Patients can be managed with antimicrobials alone or in conjunction with surgical intervention. This article examines management patterns and outcomes in pediatric patients presenting with complicated sinusitis. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary care pediatric hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An evaluation of 168 pediatric patients with complicated sinusitis with periorbital complications presenting at a single institution from 2008 to 2018 was performed. Demographics, disease characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The most common complication was orbital cellulitis, seen in 49% of children. Surgical intervention occurred in 49% of patients, with 36% receiving medical therapy followed by surgery (MTS). Chandler I patients underwent surgical intervention 30% of the time, Chandler II patients 29%, and Chandler III patients 83%. Nineteen percent of initially nonoperative patients started on ampicillin-sulbactam required MTS vs 57% of those started on other antibiotic regimens (P = .01). Twelve percent of initially nonoperative Chandler I to II patients started on ampicillin-sulbactam needed MTS vs 40% started on other antibiotic regimens. Hospital charges for operative patients were $45,056 vs $14,311 for nonoperative patients (P < .01). Hospital charges for patients with surgery followed by medical therapy (SMT) were $45,563 vs $44,393 for MTS (P = .92). CONCLUSION: Nonoperative early stage patients started on ampicillin-sulbactam had a lower risk of MTS. MTS did not cost significantly more than SMT, and there were no significant outcome differences seen.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 20 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 20, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referente ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 16 artigos e 7 protocolos.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 13 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 13, 2020

Essa é uma produção do Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia (Decit) da Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde (SCTIE) do Ministério da Saúde (Decit/SCTIE/MS), que tem como missão promover a ciência e tecnologia e o uso de evidências científicas para a tomada de decisão do SUS, tendo como principal atribuição o incentivo ao desenvolvimento de pesquisas em saúde no Brasil, de modo a direcionar os investimentos realizados em pesquisa pelo Governo Federal às necessidades de saúde pública. Informar sobre as principais evidências científicas descritas na literatura internacional sobre tratamento farmacológico para a COVID-19. Além de resumir cada estudo identificado, o informe apresenta também uma avaliação da qualidade metodológica e a quantidade de artigos publicados, de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, entre outros). Foram encontrados 15 artigos e 10 protocolos.

Population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo simulations of sulbactam to optimize dosage regimens in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Acinetobacter baumannii.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter baumannii remains one of the leading causes of the high mortality rate in critically ill patients. Sulbactam has been considered as an alternative concomitant medication with other effective antimicrobial agents for the treatment of these MDR microorganisms. The aims of this study were (i) to characterize the population pharmacokinetics (PK) and (ii) to assess the efficacy of various dosage regimens of sulbactam in terms of probability of target attainment (PTA). METHODS: The PK studies were carried out following administration of 2 g of sulbactam every 12 h on the 7th dose of drug administration in 16 patients with VAP, and a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to determine the PTA of achieving 40% and 60% the exposure time during which the total plasma drug concentration remained above the MIC (T>MIC). RESULTS: The volume of distribution and total clearance of sulbactam were 22.17 ±â€¯1.60 L and 6.76 ±â€¯2.37 L/h, respectively. For pathogens with a MIC of 8 µg/mL, the high PTAs of achieving (≥90%) 60% T>MIC in patients with serum albumin 1.7-2.4 g/dL and CLCR 90-120 mL/min following administration of sulbactam as a 4-h infusion of 1 g every 6 h, 2 g every 12 h, and 2 g every 8 h were 98.65%, 78.07% and 98.23%, respectively. For pathogens with a MIC of 16 µg/mL, the high PTAs of achieving (≥90%) 60% T>MIC in patients with serum albumin 1.7-2.4 g/dL and CLCR 90-120 mL/min following administration of sulbactam as a 4-h infusion of 2 g every 6 h, and 3 g every 8 h were 98.83% and 95.59%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that high dosage combination regimens are required for the treatment of life-threatening infections in critically ill patients with VAP.

PHARMACOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT MODES OF ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS IN CHOLECYSTECTOMY.

Pharmacoeconomic assessment of efficacy of different modes of antibiotic prophylaxis was made in 27 patients with diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis using method of «cost-efficacy¼. Patients have taken ampicillin/sulbactam intravenously in the dose of 1,5 g or cephazolin intravenously in the dose 2,0 g. Medicine should be taken in 30 min. before the operation. The most expensive was antibiotic prophylaxis by cephazolin. The coefficient of «cost-efficacy¼ was 774,2 rubles on 1 unit of efficacy in case of cephazolin and it was 506,1 rubles on 1 unit of efficacy in other group with antibiotic prophylaxis by ampicillin/sulbactam. The authors noted the economical and clinical advantage of antibiotic prophylaxis by ampicillin /sulbactam.

Clinical response at Day 3 of therapy and economic outcomes in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI).

OBJECTIVE: The FDA recently issued guidance for the types of infections that should be included in trials to support an indication for antibacterial treatment. The latest FDA guidance recommends assessing response to drug therapy at 48 to 72 hours as the primary endpoint in clinical trials. This study evaluated clinical and economic outcomes among acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) patients hospitalized at a 3000-bed healthcare system in New Jersey. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis, adult ABSSSI patients hospitalized between July 2010 and December 2011 were stratified based on infection type: cellulitis/erysipelas and major cutaneous abscess, wound infection, and all ABSSSI. Initial antibiotic therapy was assessed by individual agent, regimen, and MRSA coverage. Day 3 response to initial antibiotic therapy was evaluated based on temperature and lesion cessation outcomes; clinical response rates were assessed by initial therapy and pathogen for each cohort. The impact of response on length of stay (LOS), cost of care, and antibiotic treatment duration were also evaluated. RESULTS: Commonly used antibiotics included vancomycin, cefazolin, piperacillin-tazobactam, and ampicillin-sulbactam; over 40% of patients received empiric therapy with activity against MRSA. Clinical non-response to initial antimicrobial therapy at Day 3 was 39.9%, 30.3%, and 60.7%, for all ABSSSI, cellulitis/abscess, and wound infection patients, respectively. The cost of care among non-responders was over 1.5 times that of responders (p < 0.0001). Non-response to initial therapy was associated with a 3.7 day increase in duration of antibiotic treatment (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrate that a significant percentage of ABSSSI patients, particularly those with wound infection, were not achieving clinical response at Day 3 of therapy. Failure to respond to drug therapy is associated with substantial increases in LOS, antibiotic treatment duration, and cost of care. LIMITATIONS: This had the inherent limitations associated with a retrospective chart review; because data was initially collected for clinical rather than research purposes, certain information may have been absent, incomplete, or missed by data abstractors.

Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic administration for breast cancer surgery in overweight or obese patients: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) and the cost-effectiveness of this prophylaxis for breast cancer surgery in overweight or obese women. BACKGROUND DATA: SSI is higher than expected after breast surgery. Obesity was found to be one of the risk factors. METHODS: The trial was designed as a phase IV randomized, controlled, parallel-group efficacy trial. It was conducted at a tertiary university hospital. Overweight or obese women with clinically early-stage breast cancer who had been assigned to undergo surgery were eligible. Patients were randomly allocated to either a prophylaxis or a control group by using a computer-generated list. The prophylaxis group received 1 g ampicillin-sulbactam intravenously at anesthesia. The control group received no intervention. Patients and observers were blinded to the assignments. The primary outcome was the comparison of SSI incidences of the 2 groups. Patients were monitored for 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients were included in final analysis, out of which 187 were allocated for prophylaxis and 182 were randomly assigned to the control group. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Prophylaxis significantly reduced the SSI rate (4.8%) in the prophylaxis group when compared with that in the control group [13.7%; relative risk (RR) 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17-0.73]. No adverse reaction was observed. The mean SSI-related cost (20.26 USD) was found to be significantly higher in the control group when compared with that (8.48 USD) in the prophylaxis group. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly decreased SSI incidence after elective surgery and was shown to be cost-effective in obese breast cancer patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00356148.

[Assessment of efficacies of imipenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam and cefepime in rats with experimental thigh abscess model with multidrug resistant and susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii strains]. / Sefoperazon-sulbaktam, imipenem ve sefepimin antibiyoterapi etkinliklerinin çogul dirençli ve duyarli acinetobacter baumannii ile olusturulan deneysel ikili apse modelinde karsilastirilmasi.

Imipenem, cefaperazon-sulbactam and cefepime are the antibiotics of choice for the treatment of soft tissue infections due to Acinetobacter baumannii. In this study, it was aimed to determine the invivo and invitro efficacy of, these antibiotics against drug susceptible and multidrug resistant A.baumannii in an experimental abscess model. Abscess models were established in Wistar-Albino type female rats. Susceptibility tests were performed by E-test. Rats were divided randomly into four groups with eight rats in one group. Standard absorbent paper discs containing 6 log10 CFU microorganisms were used to form an abscess model. The first group was regarded as the control group and the other three groups were the study group each treated with one of the test antibiotics. Cardiac blood samples for serum antibiotic efficacy test, were obtained on the fourth day of treatment and 30 minutes after the last dose. The number of live bacteria at the area of infection was determined by colony count method. All of the three antibiotics reached sufficient concentration in sera of rats and there were no statistically important difference between the efficacies of these antibiotics (p= 0.778). In all of the antibiotic-treated groups, the weight of the abscess material were less, macroscopic views were smaller and the colony counts per gram of abscess tissue were less than the control group (p< 0.001). All antibiotics were effective against susceptible and resistant strains in vitro. No resistance was detected against imipenem, cefaperazon-sulbactam and cefepime in the course of therapy. Cefaperazone-sulbactam and cefepime were as effective as imipenem against susceptible and multi-drug resistant A.baumannii both in vivo and in vitro. Since irrational use of extended spectrum cephalosporins are frequently associated with the emergence of carbapenem resistant strains, the use of relatively narrow spectrum antibiotics should better be considered in the empirical treatment of A.baumannii infections.

Global spread of drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: molecular epidemiology and management of antimicrobial resistance.

Acinetobacter baumannii is an opportunistic Gram-negative pathogen with increasing relevance in a variety of hospital-acquired infections especially among intensive care unit patients. Resistance to antimicrobial agents is the main reason for A. baumannii spread. A. baumannii outbreaks described worldwide are caused by a limited number of genotypic clusters of multidrug-resistant strains that successfully spread among hospitals of different cities and countries. In this article, we will focus on the mechanisms responsible for resistance to antimicrobials and disinfectants in A. baumannii and the epidemiology of drug-resistant A. baumannii in healthcare facilities. We will also discuss the therapeutic and infection control strategies for management of drug-resistant A. baumannii epidemics.

Management and prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and infections: a health economic review.

Diabetic foot ulcers and infections are common and incur substantial economic burden for society, patients and families. We performed a comprehensive review, on a number of databases, of health economic evaluations of a variety of different prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies in the area of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. We included English-language, peer-reviewed, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies that evaluated a treatment modality against placebo or comparator (i.e. drug, standard of care), regardless of year. Differences were settled through consensus. The search resulted in 1885 potential citations, of which 20 studies were retained for analysis (3 cost minimization, 13 cost effectiveness and 4 cost utility). Quality scores of studies ranged from 70.8% (fair) to 87.5% (good); mean = 78.4% +/- 5.33%.In diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. MRI cost less than 3-phase bone scanning + Indium (In)-111/Gallium (Ga)-67; however, when compared with prolonged antibacterials, MRI cost $US120 (year 1993 value) more without additional quality-adjusted life-expectancy. Prevention strategies improved life expectancy and QALYs and reduced foot ulcer rates and amputations.Ampicillin/sulbactam and imipenem/cilastatin were both 80% successful in treating diabetic foot infections but the latter cost $US2924 more (year 1994 value). Linezolid cure rates were higher (97.7%) than vancomycin (86.0%) and cost $US873 less (year 2004 value). Ertapenem costs were significantly lower than piperacillin/tazobactam ($US356 vs $US503, respectively; year 2005 values). Becaplermin plus good wound care may be cost effective in specific populations. Bioengineered living-skin equivalents increased ulcer-free months and ulcers healed, but costs varied between countries. Promogran produced more ulcer-free months than wound care alone (3.75 vs 3.41 months, respectively). Treatment with cadexomer iodine resulted in higher rates of healed ulcer (29% vs 11%) and lower weekly treatment costs (Swedish krona [SEK]903 vs SEK1421; year 1993 values) than standard care. Filgrastim decreased hospital stays, time to resolution and costs (36% lower) compared with usual care. Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen produced an incremental cost per QALY at year 1 of $US27 310 and $US2255 at year 12 (year 2001 values).Overall, preventive strategies were shown to be cost effective and potentially cost saving. Various antibacterial regimens are cost effective but empiric choices should be based on local resistance patterns. MRI was cost effective compared with three-phase bone scanning + In-111/Ga-67 but not against prolonged antibacterial therapy. Other innovations (becaplermin, bioengineered living-skin equivalents, filgrastim, cadexomer iodine ointment, hyperbaric oxygen, Promogran may be cost effective in this population but more studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Cost-effectiveness study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam to a three-drug combination for treating intraabdominal infections in an Indian health-care setting.

OBJECTIVE: This article presents the methodology and results of the pharmacoeconomic analysis of the Magnex Against Standard COmbination Therapy study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam (Magnex) versus ceftazidime+ amikacin+metronidazole, in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: This prospective, open label, phase IV study was conducted at 17 study sites in India and randomized subjects to receive either cefoperazone-sulbactam or the combination. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was included as a secondary objective and conducted in the clinical efficacy-evaluable (CEE) and the successfully treated patients. All comparisons between treatment groups were conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Wilcoxon Two-Sample tests. All costs were reported as Indian Rupee (INR) and actual unit costs collected in 2006 were used for the analyses [1 USD approximately 40 INR; 1 Euro approximately 56 INR]. RESULTS: In the CEE and the successfully treated subset of patients, the average cost of treatment was numerically lower in the cefoperazone-sulbactam arm (not statistically significant). The analyses found that the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for cefoperazone-sulbactam was INR 17,640.53 and that for the comparator group was INR 22,075.16. Additionally, the incremental CER results showed that the cost of treatment was INR 21,505.59 lower per additional successfully treated patient in the cefoperazone-sulbactam group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study was the first of its kind to be conducted in the "price sensitive" Indian health-care setting. Though study was not powered for the difference in average cost of treatments, there was a trend favoring cefoperazone sulbactam. The findings from this study should encourage further conduct of similar analyses and increase the knowledge regarding pharmacoeconomics in India.

A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the evidence on the performance of diagnostic tests used to identify infection in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and of interventions to treat infected DFUs. To use estimates derived from the systematic reviews to create a decision analytic model in order to identify the most effective method of diagnosing and treating infection and to identify areas of research that would lead to large reductions in clinical uncertainty. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering period from inception of the database to November 2002. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed against validated criteria and described in a narrative review. The structure of a decision analytic model was derived for two groups of patients in whom diagnostic tests were likely to be used. RESULTS: Three studies that investigated the performance of diagnostic tests for infection on populations including people with DFUs found that there was no evidence that single items on a clinical examination checklist were reliable in identifying infection in DFUs, that wound swabs perform poorly against wound biopsies, and that semi-quantitative analysis of wound swabs may be a useful alternative to quantitative analysis. However, few people with DFUs were included, so it was not possible to tell whether diagnostic performance differs for DFUs relative to wounds of other aetiologies. Twenty-three studies investigated the effectiveness (n = 23) or cost-effectiveness (n = 2) of antimicrobial agents for DFUs. Eight studied intravenous antibiotics, five oral antibiotics, four different topical agents such as dressings, four subcutaneous granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), one evaluated oral and topical Ayurvedic preparations and one compared topical sugar versus antibiotics versus standard care. The majority of trials were underpowered and were too dissimilar to be pooled. There was no strong evidence for recommending any particular antimicrobial agent for the prevention of amputation, resolution of infection or ulcer healing. Topical pexiganan cream may be as effective as oral antibiotic treatment with ofloxacin for the resolution of local infection. Ampicillin and sulbactam were less costly than imipenem and cilastatin, a growth factor (G-CSF) was less costly than standard care and cadexomer iodine dressings may be less costly than daily dressings. A decision analytic model was derived for two groups of people, those for whom diagnostic testing would inform treatment--people with ulcers which do not appear infected but whose ulcer is not progressing despite optimal concurrent treatment--and those in whom a first course of antibiotics (prescribed empirically) have failed. There was insufficient information from the systematic reviews or interviews with experts to populate the model with transition probabilities for the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of infection in DFUs. Similarly, there was insufficient information on the probabilities of healing, amputation or death in the intervention studies for the two populations of interest. Therefore, we were unable to run the model to inform the most effective diagnostic and treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is too weak to be able to draw reliable implications for practice. This means that, in terms of diagnosis, infection in DFUs cannot be reliably identified using clinical assessment. This has implications for determining which patients need formal diagnostic testing for infection, on whether empirical treatment with antibiotics (before the results of diagnostic tests are available) leads to better outcomes, and on identifying the optimal methods of diagnostic testing. With respect to treatment, it is not known whether treatment with systemic or local antibiotics leads to better outcomes or whether any particular agent is more effective. Limited evidence suggests that both G-CSF and cadexomer iodine dressings may be less expensive than 'standard' care, that ampicillin/sulbactam may be less costly than imipenem/cilastatin, and that an unlicensed cream (pexiganan) may be as effective as oral ofloxacin. Further research is needed to ascertain the characteristics of infection in people with DFUs that influence healing and amputation outcomes, to determine whether detecting infection prior to treatment offers any benefit over empirical therapy, and to establish the most effective and cost-effective methods for detecting infection, as well as the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial interventions for DFU infection.

Pharmaceutical cost comparison analysis of antimicrobial use for surgical prophylaxis on gastrectomy patients in a tertiary care hospital.

The present study investigated the clinical effects and therapeutic cost of cefazolin (CEZ) and ampicillin/sulbactam (SBT/ABPC) compared to analyze cost-effectiveness for surgical prophylaxis in gastric cancer patients. 157 inpatients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer were investigated. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to sex, age, incidence of complication, stage of cancer, operative time and blood loss, length of hospitalization, the appearance of systematic inflammatory responses syndrome and the prophylactic effect of infection. Meanwhile, decision analysis indicated that the anticipated therapeutic cost per patient in CEZ group was less than that of SBT/ABPC group (USD 142.72 and USD 187.17, respectively). In this case, CEZ use was more cost-effective, insofar as only drug cost was considered.

[Survey of the utilization and adverse effects of antibacterial drugs in patients admitted for respiratory diseases].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utilization of antibacterial drugs and their adverse effects in patients admitted for respiratory disease based on medical record review. METHODS: The medical records of 141 inpatients admitted in 2002 for respiratory diseases were reviewed. The drug utilization index (DUI) and daily cost of antibacterial drugs were calculated, with also assessment of the adverse effects in relation to the drug use. RESULTS: The DUI ranged from 0.9 to 1.1 in 66.7% of the patients, and the daily cost of the antibacterial drugs was 317.8+/-194.3 RMB, with a total of 14 cases with adverse drug effects recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of antibacterial drugs was basically adequate in Nanfang Hospital though with occasional abuse of cefoperazone and sulbactam, inappropriate combination and high cost of the antibacterial drugs. More careful application of these drugs in old patients is stressed.

[Comparison of the effects of prophylactic antibiotic therapy and cost-effectiveness between cefazolin (CEZ) and Sulbactam/Ampicillin (SBT/ABPC) in gastric cancer surgery employing clinical pathway].

The present study was designed to investigate the effects of prophylactic antibiotic therapy and the cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin (CEZ) and Sulbactam/Ampicillin (SBT/ABPC) in gastric cancer surgery employing clinical pathway. 157 patients (62 in the CEZ group and 95 in the SBT/ABPC group), who underwent surgery for gastric cancer at the First Department of Surgery of our hospital, were investigated. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to sex, age, incidence of complication, stage of cancer, surgical method, operative time and blood loss, length of hospitalization, the appearance of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), changes body temperature, white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), or clinical outcome of postoperative care by a nurse during post-operation for 7 days. The prophylactic effect of infection was also no different between the CEZ (69.4%) and SBT/ABPC (69.5%) groups. In contrast, decision analysis strongly indicated that the anticipate cost of antibiotics was higher in the latter group (yen 20402) than in the CEZ group (yen 15556), suggesting that the prophylactic effect of CEZ may be more cost-effective. Thus, evaluations of pharmacotherapy from the aspect of cost may be one of the important responsibility of hospital pharmacists in the future.

[Comparison of efficacy between ceftriaxone and cefoperazone plus sulbactam in peri-operative treatment of acute suppurative cholangitis].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ceftriaxone and that of cefoperazone plus sulbactam (sulperazon) in controlling infection, in scavenging bacteria from bile, and in their costs when treating acute suppurative cholangitis with choledochostomy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the ceftriaxone group (R-group, n=95) and sulperazon group (S-group, n=95). Before choledochostomy, both groups received one intravenous dose of the corresponding antibiotics: and 2 g ceftriaxnoe for the R-group, 2 g sulperazon, containing 1 g cefoperazone and 1 g sulbactam, for the S-group. After the operation, the patients in the R-group received ceftriaxone 2 g i.v. q.d.; the patients in the S-group received sulperazon 2 g i.v. b.i.d.. In addition, all patients in both groups received metronidazole 0.5 g daily before and after the operation. The efficacy was evaluated by efficiency in controlling infection and the persisting days of symptoms due to infection, fever and leukocytosis; the persisting days was compared using the life table method to calculate the "cumulative probability of persistence of symptoms (CPPS)". The two groups were also compared in regards to their biliary bacterial clearance rates and the costs directly attributable to the antibiotics. RESULTS: The efficiency in controlling infection was 98.9% (94/95) in both groups. However, the CPPS of the R-group decreased more rapidly than that of the S-group, Log-Rankchi2=6.7901, P=0.0092. Biliary bacterial clearance rate on post-operative day 3 was 72.0% (36/50) for the R-group, 41.3% (19/46) for the S-group, P=0.0037. Cost directly attributable to the antibiotics were (1788.29 +/- 518.46) yuan (RMB) for the R-group, and (3768.74 +/- 820.55) yuan for the S-group, F=395.51, P=0.0000. CONCLUSION: Both ceftriaxone and sulperazon are effective in treating acute suppurative cholangitis when used before and after choledochostomy. Ceftriaxone is superior in expediting symptom relief and bacterial clearance from bile, and is more cost-effective.

[Sulperazone in the treatment of severe infections in patients with cancer]. / Sul'perazone v lechenii tiazhelykh infektsii u onkologicheskikh bol'nykh.

For the evaluation of rational sulperazone position in oncological hospital and elaboration of its implementation criteria investigation was performed. The trial included 193 patients (88 patients with injuries, 66 with hospital pneumonia, 39 with urinary track infection). From different clinical material of the patients were isolated 136 straines of Gram-negative bacteria. Suseptibile to sulperazone were 67 per cent of P. aeruginosa, 78-86 per cent of P. vulgaris, Klebsiella and E. coli isolates, 66 [symbol: see text] 60 per cent of Enterobacter and Serratia isolates subsequently. Comparative results of treatment with sulperazone as monotherapy and for combination with aminoglycosides (gentamycin or amicacin) in the case of P. aeruginosa infection demonstrated high sulperazone efficacy not lower than imipenem/cilsatatin and cefepime efficacy in the case of hospital infections treatment at critical care units. Low price of the sulperazone treatment when compared to imipenem/cilastatine is emphasized. Another advantage of sulperazone when compared to cefepime is anaerobic infection treatment--cefepime is administered in combination with metronidazole while sulperazone is used in monotherapy.

[Comparative clinical and epidemiological evaluation of beta-lactam antibiotics in the treatment of intraabdominal infections]. / Sravnitel'naia kliniko-ékonomicheskaia otsenka betalaktamnykh antibiotikov pri lechenii intraabdominal'nykh infektsii.

We performed a retrospective, comparative study to evaluate efficacy, safety and economic outcomes of empiric cefoperazone/sulbactam monotherapy compared with the meropenem, imipenem/cilastatine and combination of cefepime plus metroindazol in patients with intra-abdominal infection. A total of 468 patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis, pancreatitis were included in the study (the severity of infection according to scale APACHE II was less than 15). Patients were randomized to be treated with either 500 mg meropemen i.v. every 8 hours or 500 mg imipenem/cilastatine i.v. every 8 hours or 2 g cefepime i.v. every 12 hours plus 500 mg metronidazol twice daily or cefoperazone/sulbactam 2 g daily administered every 12 hours. Overall positive clinical responses (cure or improvement) were achieved at the end of treatment for 87.5 patients in meropenem group, 86.6% in the imipenem/cilastatin group, 85.3% in the cefepime group and 86.8% in cefoperazone/sulbactam group. Total cost of the treatment per 100 patients with intra-abdominal infections for cefoperazone/sulbactam was 1957031 roubles, for combinations of cefepime with metronidazol--2497815 roubles. For carbapenem group cost achieved for meropenem--3085291 rub., for imipenem/cilastatin--2653388 roubles. Rate "cost-effectiveness" in total: 784.47$ for cefepime, and 834.39$ for imipenem/cilastatine, 970.21$ for meropenem and 615.4$ for cefoperazone/sulbactam. The most expensive treatment was considered to be with meropenem and imipenem/cilastatine, main share is determined by initial cost of preparations. Less expensive was treatment by cefoperazone/sulbactam with cefepime and by metronidazol.