Clinical effectiveness of cefoperazone-sulbactam vs. piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of pneumonia in elderly patients

Both cefoperazone-sulbactam (CFP-SUL) and piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) are β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor antibiotics and have a similar antimicrobial spectrum. However, comparative clinical efficacy and safety of CFP-SUL and PIP-TAZ for the treatment of pneumonia remain largely unknown, especially in elderly patients. Based on a multi-centre registry database, patients aged ≥65 years, diagnosed with severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and given empirical therapy with CFP-SUL or PIP-TAZ were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients achieving clinical cure. Multi-variate logistic regression was conducted to compare odds ratios (OR) for the outcome between patients who received CFP-SUL and patients who received PIP-TAZ. In total, 941 elderly patients (624 with SCAP, and 317 with either HAP or VAP) were included in this study. Overall in-hospital mortality for the entire cohort was 19%. Clinical cure was achieved in 81% and 83% of patients with SCAP and HAP/VAP, respectively. Multi-variate logistic regression analysis showed similar odds for clinical cure for patients receiving CFP-SUL or PIP-TAZ among those with SCAP [adjusted OR 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.70] or HAP/VAP (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.30–1.76). Regarding safety, both CFP-SUL and PIP-TAZ were generally well tolerated with few reported adverse events. Among elderly patients with SCAP or HAP/VAP, empirical therapy with CFP-SUL is a viable alternative to PIP-TAZ, while considering antibiotic heterogeneity in the antimicrobial stewardship context.