E-ISSN 2231-3206 | ISSN 2320-4672
 

Original Research 


Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis

Sohil P Makwana, Manish N Solanki, Ram K Dikshit.

Abstract
Background: Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) are one of the leading causes of the Gram-negative bacteremia which commonly seen in patients who have a functionally, metabolically, or anatomically abnormal urinary tract. In patients with cUTI, proper treatment can reduce the unnecessary rick and cost of disease progression.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and safety Cefoperazone + Sulbactam (CPS) versus Cefotaxime + Sulbactam (CTS) combinations in cUTI.

Materials and Methods: At entry, a total of 74 patients admitted in the hospital due to cUTI were enrolled. Among 74 patients, 43 patients were given CPS while 31 patients were given CTS combinations. Five clinical symptoms (e.g., dysuria, frequency, suprapubic pain, back, and/or flank pain) were registered and scored as mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3). The follow-up of the indoor patients was done daily until the patient is discharged. Thereafter, one follow-up visit was done within 4–9 days of after discharge, termed as a test of cure (TOC). Furthermore, one late follow-up visit (LFU) after 6–8 weeks was done, known as LFU. Clinical assessments and microbiological analysis were done at the time of TOC and LFU. The mean baseline clinical score for CPS and CTS was 10.28 ± 2.33 and 10.57 ± 2.02, respectively. Results: At TOC visit, in CPS and CTS groups, clinical scores were 1.36 ± 3.48 and 1.25 ± 3.47 in CPS and CTS, respectively, suggesting significant improvement from baseline (P < 0.005). Rate of clinical improvement at TOC visit was 87.50% and 92.00% while microbiological cure rate was 93.75% and 84.00% with CPS and CTS groups, respectively, while, at LFU visit, clinical scores in both groups were 1.65 ± 4.10 and 1.30 ± 3.56 suggesting significant improvement from baseline (P < 0.005). Clinical cure rate at LFU visit was 87.85% and 88.00% while microbiological cure rate at LFU visit was 77.00% and 76.00% with CPS and CTS groups, respectively.

Conclusion: These results suggest that both regimens have no significant difference in the treatment of cUTI. The study concluded that both the combination, CTS and CTS are equally efficacious in the treatment of cUTI. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both treatment groups.

Key words: Urinary tract infections; Cefoperazone; Sulbactam; Cefotaxime; Complicated urinary tract infections


 
ARTICLE TOOLS
Abstract
PDF Fulltext
How to cite this articleHow to cite this article
Citation Tools
Related Records
 Articles by Sohil P Makwana
Articles by Manish N Solanki
Articles by Ram K Dikshit
on Google
on Google Scholar


How to Cite this Article
Pubmed Style

Makwana SP, Solanki MN, Dikshit RK. Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2019; 9(2): 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018


Web Style

Makwana SP, Solanki MN, Dikshit RK. Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. https://www.njppp.com/?mno=21456 [Access: June 01, 2022]. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018


AMA (American Medical Association) Style

Makwana SP, Solanki MN, Dikshit RK. Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2019; 9(2): 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



Vancouver/ICMJE Style

Makwana SP, Solanki MN, Dikshit RK. Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. (2019), [cited June 01, 2022]; 9(2): 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



Harvard Style

Makwana, S. P., Solanki, . M. N. & Dikshit, . R. K. (2019) Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol, 9 (2), 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



Turabian Style

Makwana, Sohil P, Manish N Solanki, and Ram K Dikshit. 2019. Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 9 (2), 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



Chicago Style

Makwana, Sohil P, Manish N Solanki, and Ram K Dikshit. "Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis." National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology 9 (2019), 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style

Makwana, Sohil P, Manish N Solanki, and Ram K Dikshit. "Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis." National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology 9.2 (2019), 187-195. Print. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018



APA (American Psychological Association) Style

Makwana, S. P., Solanki, . M. N. & Dikshit, . R. K. (2019) Cefoperazone + sulbactam versus cefotaxime + sulbactam combination therapy for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: Safety and efficacy analysis. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 9 (2), 187-195. doi:10.5455/njppp.2019.9.1236526122018