RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of Cefazolin sodium for injection， Cefuroxime sodium for injection， and Ceftazidime for injection from nationally organized centralized drug procurement （hereinafter referred to as “centralized procurement”） and non-centralized procurement in patients with bacterial infection. METHODS The case data of hospitalized patients who had used 3 kinds of Cephalosporins for injection from centralized procurement or non-centralized procurement in the treatment of bacterial infections were retrospectively collected from 19 medical institutions in Kunming from January 2020 to September 2022. After balancing the baseline differences between the groups with the propensity score matching method， the effectiveness and safety differences of 3 kinds of Cephalosporins for injection from centralized procurement or non- centralized procurement were compared respectively. RESULTS After balancing the baseline differences among the groups， 394 cases in each group of Cefazolin sodium for injection from centralized procurement or non-centralized procurement， 472 cases in each group of Cefuroxime sodium for injection from centralized procurement or non-centralized procurement， 504 cases in group of Ceftazidime for injection from centralized procurement and 590 cases in group of non-centralized procurement were included in the analysis. In terms of effectiveness， there were no significant differences in clinical response rate， 72 h response rate， bacterial clearance rate， and the recovery rate of body temperature， white blood cell count， neutrophil count， neutrophil percentage， C-reactive protein， procalcitonin recovery between the centralized procurement group and non-centralized procurement group of Cefazolin sodium for injection and Cefuroxime sodium for injection （P＞0.05）. The proportion of patients in centralized procurement group of Ceftazidime for injection with C-reactive protein restored to normal reference range was significantly higher than that in non-centralized procurement group （46.9% vs. 27.9%， P＜0.05）， but there were no statistically significant differences in other effectiveness indicators among groups （P＞0.05）. In terms of safety， there was no statistical difference in the incidence of adverse drug reactions between centralized procurement group and non-centralized procurement group of 3 kinds of Cephalosporins for injection （P＞0.05）； the incidence of platelet count reduction in centralized procurement group of Cefazolin sodium for injection was significantly higher than non-centralized procurement group （20.7% vs. 7.1%， P＜0.05）， the incidence of eosinophilia elevation in centralized procurement group of Ceftazidime for injection was significantly higher than non-centralized procurement group （5.3% vs. 1.9%， P＜0.05）. In addition， there was no statistically significant difference in the abnormal rates of other laboratory indicators among the three types of injection Cephalosporins （P＞ 0.05）. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of 3 kinds of Cephalosporin for injection from centralized procurement is not inferior to non- centralized procurement varieties， and the safety is equivalent to that of non-centralized procurement varieties.