• Jesús Cotrina-Luque, Maria Victoria Gil-Navarro, Héctor Acosta-García, Eva Rocío Alfaro-Lara, Rafael Luque-Márquez, Margarita Beltrán-García, and Francisco Javier Bautista-Paloma.
• Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Feb 1; 38 (1): 70-9.

BackgroundThere is lack of information on the efficacy and safety of piperacillin–tazobactam administered by continuous infusion.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether continuous infusion of piperacillin–tazobactam is superior in terms of efficacy to a 30 % higher dose administered by intermittent infusion to treat suspected or confirmed infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Setting Multicenter clinical trial with 11 third level Spanish hospitals.MethodRandomized, double-blind parallel-group clinical trial, controlled by conventional administration of the drug. Patients randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive piperacillin–tazobactam as continuous infusion (CI) or intermittent (II).Main Outcome MeasurePrimary efficacy endpoint was percentage of patients having a satisfactory clinical response at completion of treatment, defined as clinical cure or clinical improvement. Adverse events were reported. Results 78 patients were included, 40 in the CI group and 38 in the II group. Mean (standard deviation) duration of treatment was 7 (±4.44) days. 58 patients (74.4 %) experienced cure or improvement at the end of the treatment. There were no statistical differences in cure rates between the two treatment arms and no adverse events were reported.ConclusionContinuous infusion of piperacillin–tazobactam is an alternative administration drug method at least similar in efficacy and safety to conventional intermittent infusion. Multivariate analysis is needed to determine whether continuous administration might be more beneficial than intermittent in certain patient subgroups.

41 keywords...

hide…