Appropriate Pip

The overall, administration of antibiotics was considered justified in 50% of patients, given the clinical context, but the initial PIP/TAZ selection as initial therapy was considered inappropriate for 55%. This is considered higher than the percentage of inappropriate PIP/TAZ use in benchmark studies presented at the introduction (10% to 17%). [7,8]
Based on the definition of appropriateness of therapy, 45 % of the patients included, PIP/TAZ was prescribed appropriately, whereas 55 % of the patients received PIP/TAZ inappropriately. Among inappropriate PIP/TAZ usage there was 50 % prescribed as perioperative prophylaxis. This considerably high percentage of inappropriate use of a broad spectrum antibiotic.
Further looking to inappropriate PIP/TAZ use as perioperative prophylaxis, most of the patients received it as
One patient developed on treatment resistance to PIP/TAZ; based on culture and sensitivity that grown E.cloacae. This have been shown to increase hospitalization and it is related morbidity and health care expenditures.
From this MUE, it appears that majority of physicians are aware about the appropriate PIP/TAZ dosing. However, in renally impaired patients, all patients received inappropriate dose required adjustment by clinical pharmacist.
As per IDSA guideline, the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy is for 4-7 days provided that an optimum source control achieved. Our MUE show a median of 7 days of PIP/TAZ use which is consistent with IDSA recommendations.
Although PIP/TAZ is a broad spectrum antibiotic, the percentage of patients in MUE who failed therapy was 21.67%.The presence of resistant bacteria constitutes (7.6% of failures). However, is lower than resistance pattern announced by the institutional antibiogram
In the term of safety, during the study period only four patients experienced adverse effects and two reported drug