ABSTRACT
Galactomannan (GM) assay is commonly used as an early diagnostic tool for invasive fungal infection (IFI) in high-risk hematology patients. False positivity is frequently observed in GM with the use of piperacillin/tazobactam. The usage of generic drugs over the original brand has a significant cost advantage. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of GM test among patients receiving original and generic piperacillin/tazobactam formulations. The study included 85 adult patients; 62.4% were male with hematological malignancy currently receiving piperacillin/tazobactam. The study group was divided into two groups: patients receiving original and generic piperacillin/tazobactam. Serum GM index was positive in one of 35 patients receiving original piperacillin/tazobactam, whereas it was positive in 46 out of 50 patients receiving generic piperacillin/tazobactam (P < .001). However, the patients receiving generic piperacillin/tazobactam underwent computed tomography (CT) scans more frequently than those receiving original piperacillin/tazobactam (P = .047). In addition, in vitro analysis of GM was performed in two generics and one original piperacillin/tazobactam vials. One generic piperacillin/tazobactam vial included high GM level. False positivity of serum GM with generic formulations of piperacillin/tazobactam is still an ongoing issue in hematology patients. A high rate of serum GM index false positivity may unexpectedly lead to a higher rate of CT scan. Selected piperacillin/tazobactam vials in each batch should be checked for GM to identify a false positivity of GM before purchase.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antigens, Fungal/blood , Febrile Neutropenia/complications , Febrile Neutropenia/drug therapy , Mannans/blood , Penicillanic Acid/analogs & derivatives , Anti-Bacterial Agents/standards , False Positive Reactions , Febrile Neutropenia/microbiology , Female , Galactose/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/diagnosis , Male , Microbiological Techniques/standards , Middle Aged , Penicillanic Acid/standards , Penicillanic Acid/therapeutic use , Piperacillin/standards , Piperacillin/therapeutic use , Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug CombinationABSTRACT
The critical attribute was analyzed in clavulanate potassium tablet of amoxicillin according to the principle QbD. By investigation of the drug impurity profile, the cycle-closed dimer and penicilloic acid of amoxicillin were considered to be the critical impurities, and the sources and the degradation pathways of these two impurities were discussed. The research confirmed that crystal form was the critical attribute of drug substance. The drying process in the tablet granulation was regarded as the critical process parameter. The tablet formulation was also another factor in the impurity generation. This study provides a new idea for the evaluation of drug quality.
Subject(s)
Amoxicillin/standards , Clavulanic Acid/standards , Drug Contamination , Penicillanic Acid/analogs & derivatives , Penicillanic Acid/standards , TabletsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in critical care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of meropenem 1 g/8 h with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g/8 h for treating pneumonia in UK critical care. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam to treat severe pneumonia. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to address uncertainty in the model results. RESULTS: Cost of treating a patient with severe pneumonia was estimated as £19,026 with meropenem and £19,978 with piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively. QALYs gained were 4.768 with meropenem and 4.654 with piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be consistently less costly and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam. CONCLUSION: The additional efficacy of meropenem translates into more patients surviving critical care and leaving this high-cost service more quickly than if they had been treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. As meropenem is more effective and less expensive than piperacillin/tazobactam at treating patients with severe pneumonia, it is the dominant treatment option.
