Shao-Huan Lan1, Chien-Ming Chao2, Shen-Peng Chang3, Li-Chin Lu4, Chih-Cheng Lai5. 1. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medical Technology, Putian University, Putian, China. 2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Liouying, Taiwan. 3. Yijia Pharmacy, Tainan, Taiwan. 4. School of Management, Putian University, Putian, China. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Tainan Branch, Tainan, Taiwan.
Abstract
Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam against alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, and CKNI databases were searched for relevant articles up to November 25, 2020. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy rate, and the secondary outcomes were microbiologic eradication rate, mortality rate, and adverse event (AE) risk. Results: Twelve studies involving 1,674 patients were included. Overall, the clinical efficacy rate of cefoperazone-sulbactam and comparators was 87.7% and 81.7%, respectively, and cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher clinical efficacy rate than that the comparator (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.00; I2 = 36%). Additionally, cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a lower clinical failure rate (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.57; I2 = 0) and a higher clinical cure rate (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.17-2.03; I2 = 0) than the comparators. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher microbiologic eradication rate than the comparator (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.72-3.76; I2 = 0). Finally, there was no significant difference between cefoperazone-sulbactam and the comparators in terms of mortality rate (OR 090; 95% CI 0.38-2.16; I2 = 0) and AE risk (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.74-1.55; I2 = 0). Conclusions: The clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam were similar to those of alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Therefore, cefoperazone-sulbactam could be recommended as an effective and safe antibiotic for treating intra-abdominal infections.
Background: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam against alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, and CKNI databases were searched for relevant articles up to November 25, 2020. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy rate, and the secondary outcomes were microbiologic eradication rate, mortality rate, and adverse event (AE) risk. Results: Twelve studies involving 1,674 patients were included. Overall, the clinical efficacy rate of cefoperazone-sulbactam and comparators was 87.7% and 81.7%, respectively, and cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher clinical efficacy rate than that the comparator (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.00; I2 = 36%). Additionally, cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a lower clinical failure rate (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.57; I2 = 0) and a higher clinical cure rate (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.17-2.03; I2 = 0) than the comparators. Cefoperazone-sulbactam was associated with a higher microbiologic eradication rate than the comparator (OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.72-3.76; I2 = 0). Finally, there was no significant difference between cefoperazone-sulbactam and the comparators in terms of mortality rate (OR 090; 95% CI 0.38-2.16; I2 = 0) and AE risk (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.74-1.55; I2 = 0). Conclusions: The clinical efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-sulbactam were similar to those of alternative antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Therefore, cefoperazone-sulbactam could be recommended as an effective and safe antibiotic for treating intra-abdominal infections.