头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦与头孢哌酮-舒巴坦治疗急性细菌性感染随机对照研究

目的：评价国产头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦治疗急性细菌性呼吸道感染、泌尿道感染以及其他系统感染的有效性与安全性。方法：采用区组随机、平行对照、开放研究设计，头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦和头孢哌酮一舒巴坦均为每次给药2．0g，静脉滴注30～60min，每日2次或3次，疗程7～14d。结果：本试验共入选病例57例，因各种原因淘汰4例，进入疗效分析的病例数为53例，其中头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦组27例，头孢哌酮-舒巴坦组26例，治疗结束头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦与头孢哌酮-舒巴坦临床有效率分别为96．3％与92．3％，各种致病菌清除率分别为95．8％与90．9％，两组不良反应发生率分别为7．1％与7．4％，上述结果经统计学处理，差异均无显著性。结论：头孢哌酮-三唑巴坦与头孢哌酮-舒巴坦在治疗临床常见的敏感细菌引起的细菌性感染均有效、安全。

A randomized controlled study of cefoperazone-tazobactam versus cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of bacterial infections

Objective: To compare the clinical and bacterial efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-tazobactam versus cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of acute bacterial infections. Methods:A randomized parallel controlled clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-tazobactam with cefoperazone-sulbactam. Both cefoperazone-tazobactam and cefoperazone-sulbactam were given 2 g intravenously within 30 to 60 minutes twice or three times daily for 7 to 14 days. Results:57 patients were enrolled in the study, 4 patients were withdrawn from the trial because of various reasons. 27 cases in cefoperazone-tazobactam group and 26 cases in cefoperazone-sulbactam group were assessable for clinical efficacy. The overall clinical efficacy rates of cefoperazone-tazobactam group and cefoperazone-sulbactam group were 96.3% and 92.3%, the bacterial eradication rates were 95.8% and 90.9% respectively. The adverse reaction rates were 7.1% in cefoperazone-tazobactam group and 7.4% in cefoperazone-sulbactam group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions:Cefoperazone-tazobactam is as effective and safe as cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of bacterial infections caused by susceptible organisms.