Premium
Efficacy and Cost of Ampicillin‐Sulbactam and Ticarcillin‐Clavulanate in the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients with Bacterial Infections
Author(s) -
McKin Peggy S.,
Neuhauser Melinda M.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
pharmacotherapy: the journal of human pharmacology and drug therapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.227
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1875-9114
pISSN - 0277-0008
DOI - 10.1592/phco.19.9.724.31537
Subject(s) - medicine , ampicillin , sulbactam , ticarcillin , antibiotics , respiratory tract infections , clavulanic acid , urinary system , gastroenterology , surgery , respiratory system , microbiology and biotechnology , amoxicillin , antibiotic resistance , imipenem , biology
Study Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and cost of treatment with two β‐lactam/β‐lactamase‐inhibitor combinations. Design. Retrospective, open‐label multicenter study. Setting. Fifty‐four hospitals across the United States. Patients. Eight hundred ninety patients with skin and soft tissue, intraabdominal, gynecologic, respiratory, urinary tract, or other infections that required parenteral antibiotic therapy. Intervention. Patients were administered either ampicillin‐sulbactam 1.5 or 3.0 g every 6 hours or ticarcillin‐clavulanate 3.1 g every 6 hours. Measurements and Main Results. The agents did not differ significantly in efficacy for most infections; although, ampicillin‐sulbactam was bacteriologically superior to ticarcillin‐clavulanate in the treatment of intraabdominal infections (p=;0.0011). Costs of ampicillin‐sulbactam, particularly the 1.5‐g dose, were lower than those of ticarcillin‐clavulanate for skin and soft tissue (p<0.001), intraabdominal (p=;0.005), and respiratory tract (p<0.001) infections. Conclusion. Ampicillin‐sulbactam provides effective coverage for patients with the above infections and is as effective as the broader‐spectrum agent.