In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Various Cefoperazone/Sulbactam Products

Efficacy and safety of generic cefoperazone/sulbactam versus branded cefoperazone/sulbactam in the treatment of bacterial infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aim to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of generic cefoperazone/sulbactam compared to the branded cefoperazone/sulbactam (Sulperazon) in treating bacterial infections through a meta-analysis. Searches were conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP databases, and Clinical Trials database, resulting in the inclusion of 11 studies comprising 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs). Meta-analysis of the RCTs indicated no statistical differences in clinical success rates, clinical cure rates, microbiological eradication rates, and incidence of adverse reactions between the generic cefoperazone/sulbactam and the branded version. Findings from the RCSs aligned with those from the RCTs, demonstrating that generic versions of cefoperazone/sulbactam are equivalent in efficacy and safety to their branded counterparts in treating bacterial infections.

Model-Informed Drug Development of New Cefoperazone Sodium and Sulbactam Sodium Combination (3:1): Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Analysis and Antibacterial Efficacy Against Enterobacteriaceae

Objective: Cefoperazone/sulbactam is a commonly used antibiotic combination against the extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs)-producing bacteria. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new cefoperazone/sulbactam combination (3:1) for Enterobacteriaceae infection via model-informed drug development (MIDD) approaches.

Methods: Sulperazon [cefoperazone/sulbactam (2:1)] was used as a control. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data was collected from a clinical phase I trial. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined using two-fold broth microdilution method. The percent time that the free drug concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (%fT_>MIC) was used as the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic indicator correlated with efficacy. Models were developed to characterize the PK profile of cefoperazone and sulbactam. Monte Carlo simulations were employed to determine the investigational regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) for the treatment of infections caused by Enterobacteriaceae based on the probability of target attainment (PTA) against the tested bacteria.

Results: Two 2-compartment models were developed to describe the PK profiles of cefoperazone and sulbactam. Simulation results following the single-dose showed that the regimens of cefoperazone/sulbactam combinations in the ratios of 3:1 and 2:1 achieved similar PTA against the tested bacteria. Simulation results from the multiple-dose showed that the dosing regimen of cefoperazone/sulbactam (4 g, TID, 3 g:1 g) showed slightly better antibacterial effect than cefoperazone/sulbactam (6 g, BID, 4 g:2 g) against the Escherichia coli (ESBL⁻) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL⁻). For the other tested bacteria, the above regimens achieved a similar PTA.

Conclusions: Cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) showed similar bactericidal activity to sulperazon [cefoperazone/sulbactam (2:1)] against the tested bacteria. For the ESBL-producing and cefoperazone-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae, Cefoperazone/sulbactam (3:1) did not exhibit advantage as anticipated. Our study indicated that further clinical trials should be carried out cautiously to avoid the potential risks of not achieving the expected target.

Optimal Dose of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam for Acute Bacterial Infection in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

The optimal dosage of cefoperazone-sulbactam for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate two treatment strategies of cefoperazone-sulbactam–2 g/2 g twice daily and adjusted dose according to renal function for patients with CKD. A total of 155 patients with CKD received cefoperazone-sulbactam either at a dose of 2 g/2 g twice daily (study group) or adjusted according to renal function (control group) for the treatment of acute bacterial infection. The primary outcome was the clinical response rate at day 14 and the secondary outcomes included treatment failure and all-cause death. The study group had a higher clinical response rate (80.0% vs. 65.0%) and a lower treatment failure rate (4.0% vs. 23.8%) as compared with the control group. Further multivariable analysis showed that compared with the control group, the study group had a higher clinical response rate (adjusted OR = 4.02; 95% CI, 1.49–10.81) and lower treatment failure rate (adjusted OR = 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01–0.28). In addition, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the study and the control group (adjusted OR = 1.95; 95% CI, 0.57–6.66). Finally, no significant difference was observed between the study and the control group in the risk of the adverse events (AEs)–diarrhea (p = 0.326), eosinophilia (p = 1.000), prolonged PT (p = 0.674), alteration in renal function (p = 0.938) and leukopenia (n = 0.938). In conclusion, cefoperazone-sulbactam at a dose of 2 g/2 g twice daily could achieve better clinical efficacy than the reduced dosage regimen. Additionally, this dosage did not increase the risk of AE compared to the reduced dose. Therefore, cefoperazone-sulbactam at a dose of 2 g/2 g twice daily is an effective and safe regimen for acute bacterial infection in patients with CKD.

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Effects in Septic Patients with Impaired Renal Function Who Received Different Dosages of Cefoperazone–Sulbactam

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and adverse effects in septic patients with impaired renal function who received different dosages of cefoperazone–sulbactam (CFP–SUL 1 g/1 g or 2 g/2 g every 12 h). The retrospective study was conducted using the Chang Gung Research Database to include adult patients who had renal insufficiency presented with septicemia caused by Gram-negative organisms and had received CFP–SUL for more than 1 week. A total of 265 patients (44 in the CFP–SUL 1 g/1 g group and 221 in the CFP–SUL 2 g/2 g group) were eligible to be included in this study. After 1:3 propensity score matching, 41 and 123 patients in the CFP–SUL 1 g/1 g and CFP–SUL 2 g/2 g groups, respectively, were included for analyses. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality rates and adverse effects, including prolonged prothrombin time. A logistic regression model showed that the Pitt bacteremia score was related to all-cause mortality rate and prolonged prothrombin time was associated with renal replacement therapy. The adverse effects of CFP–SUL did not increase in septic patients with impaired renal function receiving CFP–SUL 2 g/2 g Q12H. However, this study may be underpowered to reveal a difference in all-cause mortality.

In Vitro Activity of Various Sulbactam Compounds and Piperacillin/Tazobactam against Clinical Isolates of Different Gram-Negative Bacteria

To provide direction for clinical application and pharmaceutical exploitation, the in vitro activity of sulbactam compounds and PIP/TAZ 8 : 1 against clinical isolates of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB, n = 976) was evaluated according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2019. By minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), the resistance rate of all GNB to AMP/SBT 2 : 1 (56.9-100%) was significantly higher than other drugs, except the resistance rate of Acinetobacter baumannii (Aba, n = 204) to piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ 8 : 1, 78.4%) which was close to it (76.5%). Additionally, the resistance rate of Aba to other compounds except AMP/SBT 2 : 1 differed greatly, but that of Klebsiella pneumonia (Kpn, n = 205) varied rarely. In addition, Escherichia coli (Eco, n = 204) and Kpn demonstrated low and high resistance rates, respectively. Compared with cefoperazone/sulbactam (CPZ/SBT 2 : 1), PIP/TAZ 8 : 1 had advantage in anti-Eco (RR = 0.5and OR = 2.17) and anti-Kpn activity (RR = 0.88and OR = 1.27), while its activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pae: n = 194, RR = 0.91, and OR = 1.12), Aba (RR = 1.31 and OR = 0.41), and other Enterobacteriaceae (other Ebc: n = 169, RR = 1.40, and OR = 0.62) was not better than CPZ/SBT 2 : 1. Although it had advantage against Eco (RR = 0.60 and OR = 1.78), Pae (RR = 0.67 and OR = 1.63), and Aba (RR = 0.70 and OR = 2.05), the inhibition effect of piperacillin/sulbactam (PIP/SBT 2 : 1) against Kpn (RR = 0.94 and OR = 1.12) and other Ebc was just similar with CPZ/SBT 2 : 1 (RR = 0.93 and OR = 1.10). Furthermore, the anti-Eco (RR = 0.70 and OR = 1.50), anti-Kpn (RR = 0.89 and OR = 1.24), and anti-Pae (RR = 0.74 and OR = 1.46) activities of ceftazidime/sulbactam (CAZ/SBT 1 : 1) had a weak advantage, while its activity against Aba (RR = 0.94 and OR = 1.15) and other Ebc (RR = 0.79 and OR = 1.36) was just close to CPZ/SBT 2 : 1. Moreover, the inhibitory effect of PIP/SBT 1 : 1 against all tested clinical species was more active than CPZ/SBT 2 : 1, while that of CAZ/SBT 2 : 1 against all species of bacteria analyzed was weaker than the controls.

Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).

Methods

This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate.

Results

A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP.

Conclusion

For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazone-sulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam.

Deferasirox (ExJade): An FDA-Approved AIEgen Platform with Unique Photophysical Properties

Deferasirox, ExJade, is an FDA-approved iron chelator used for the treatment of iron overload. In this work, we report several fluorescent deferasirox derivatives that display unique photophysical properties, i.e., aggregation-induced emission (AIE), excited state intramolecular proton transfer, charge transfer, and through-bond and through-space conjugation characteristics in aqueous media. Functionalization of the phenol units on the deferasirox scaffold afforded the fluorescent responsive pro-chelator ExPhos, which enabled the detection of the disease-based biomarker alkaline phosphatase (ALP). The diagnostic potential of these deferasirox derivatives was supported by bacterial biofilm studies.