Journal of infection and public health · 2022
Clinical effectiveness of branded versus generic piperacillin-tazobactam for treating severe community-acquired pneumonia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Cheng-Yi, Chen Chia-Hung, Tu Chih-Yen, Chen Wei-Chih, Kuo Li-Kuo, Wang Yao-Tung, Fu Pin-Kuei, Ku Shih-Chi, Fang Wen-Feng, Chen Chin-Ming, Lai Chih-Cheng
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of branded versus generic piperacillin-tazobactam for treating severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with severe CAP who received piperacillin-tazobactam based on a nine-center registry database. Furthermore, we classified the patients in three hospitals, which used only branded piperacillin-tazobactam as the study group, and the patients in six other hospitals, which used both branded and generic products as the control group.
RESULTS: A total of 472 patients (n = 263 in the study group and n = 209 in the control group) with severe CAP were included. The study group using branded piperacillin-tazobactam had higher odds of clinical cure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.77, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.93-7.37) and lower odds of treatment failure (adjusted OR = 0.28, 95 % CI, 0.13-0.58) than the control group receiving either branded or generic piperacillin-tazobactam. In addition, the study group was associated with higher odds of clinical effectiveness (adjusted OR = 2.95, 95 % CI, 1.46-6.11), less odds of clinical ineffectiveness (adjusted OR = 0.39, 95 % CI, 0.18-0.81), and lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR = 0.39, 95 % CI, 0.21-0.73).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of the present study using indirect comparison, the clinical effectiveness of generic piperacillin-tazobactam for treating patients with severe CAP might not be as good as that of brand-name products.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with severe CAP who received piperacillin-tazobactam based on a nine-center registry database. Furthermore, we classified the patients in three hospitals, which used only branded piperacillin-tazobactam as the study group, and the patients in six other hospitals, which used both branded and generic products as the control group.
RESULTS: A total of 472 patients (n = 263 in the study group and n = 209 in the control group) with severe CAP were included. The study group using branded piperacillin-tazobactam had higher odds of clinical cure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.77, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.93-7.37) and lower odds of treatment failure (adjusted OR = 0.28, 95 % CI, 0.13-0.58) than the control group receiving either branded or generic piperacillin-tazobactam. In addition, the study group was associated with higher odds of clinical effectiveness (adjusted OR = 2.95, 95 % CI, 1.46-6.11), less odds of clinical ineffectiveness (adjusted OR = 0.39, 95 % CI, 0.18-0.81), and lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR = 0.39, 95 % CI, 0.21-0.73).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of the present study using indirect comparison, the clinical effectiveness of generic piperacillin-tazobactam for treating patients with severe CAP might not be as good as that of brand-name products.