Cephalosporin Utilization Pattern and Prescribing Trends in Gram-Negative Bacteria: Evidence for Facilitating Antimicrobial Stewardship
Abstract
Background: India faces a high burden of infectious diseases globally, with Gram-negative bacteria posing a major threat. Cephalosporins are commonly used to treat these infections, but focused data on their utilization for Gram-negative infections is scarce, hindering targeted treatment and antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Our study aims to address this by providing comprehensive data on cephalosporin use for Gram-negative infections, promoting rational drug use, and enhancing antimicrobial stewardship practices.
Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in Chennai from July to October 2024, to evaluate cephalosporin use in Gram-negative infections. The study enrolled 126 patients aged 20-70 prescribed cephalosporins, either empirically or on definitive therapy based on culture results. Data on demographics, diagnoses, culture reports, and treatment were recorded, categorized as empirical or definitive, and analyzed using chi-square tests (p < 0.05).
Results: The analysis showed a significant preference for third-generation cephalosporins in empiric and definitive therapy, confirmed by substantial deviations from expected distributions (p < 0.05), with cefoperazone with sulbactam being the most frequently prescribed in empirical treatment.
Conclusion: The study reveals the predominant use of third-generation cephalosporins in treating Gram-negative infections, emphasizing the need for antimicrobial stewardship, stricter guidelines and treatment protocols to include definitive therapies, and promoting rational drug use by adhering to antibiotic policies to combat resistance.
Keywords: Cephalosporin, Gram-negative infection, Drug Utilization, Prescribing pattern, antimicrobial stewardship.
Keywords:
Cephalosporin, Gram-negative infection, Drug Utilization, Prescribing pattern, antimicrobial stewardshipDOI
https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v15i2.6987References
1. Ganguly NK. Situation Analysis: Antibiotic Use and Resistance in India [Internet]. Global Antibiotic Resistance Partnership-India (GARP-India) and National Working Group (NWG). 2011 Mar. [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://onehealthtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/india-report-web_8.pdf .
2. Laxminarayan R, Chaudhury RR. Antibiotic Resistance in India: Drivers and Opportunities for Action. PLoS Med. 2016 Mar 2;13(3):e1001974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001974 PMid:26934098 PMCid:PMC4775002
3. Bui T, Patel P, Preuss CV. Cephalosporins. [Updated 2024 Feb 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing
2024 Jan. [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551517/
4. Ak O, Batirel A, Ozer S, Çolakoğlu S. Nosocomial infections and risk factors in the intensive care unit of a teaching and research hospital: a prospective cohort study. Med Sci Monit. 2011 May;17(5):PH29-34. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.881750 PMid:21525819 PMCid:PMC3539590
5. Hormozi SF, Vasei N, Aminianfar M, Darvishi M, Saeedi AA. Antibiotic resistance in patients suffering from nosocomial infections in Besat Hospital. Eur J Transl Myol. 2018 Jul 16;28(3):7594. https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2018.7594 PMid:30344978 PMCid:PMC6176389
6. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report 2022 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2022. [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240062702
7. Ajulo S, Awosile B. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS 2022): Investigating the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial consumption data across the participating countries. PLoS One. 2024 Feb 5;19(2):e0297921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297921 PMid:38315668 PMCid:PMC10843100
8. Annual Report 2021: Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Surveillance Network [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://main.icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/upload_documents/AMR_Annual_Report_2021.pdf
9. Plump W. Study Shows Significant Increase in Antibiotic Use Across the World [Internet]. Princeton Environmental Institute. 2014 Jul 10. [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2014/07/10/study-shows-significant-increase-antibiotic-use-across-world
10. Protic D, Pejovic A, Djukanovic N, Toskovic B, Zdravkovic M, Todorovic Z. Analysis of the third- and fourth-generation cephalosporin use for the treatment of infections caused by gram-negative bacteria in hospital settings. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2016 Dec;70(12):1033-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12911 PMid:28032422
11. Dominic KS, Nandakumar UP, Chand S. A retrospective study on drug usage pattern of cephalosporins in a general medicine department. Plant Archives. 2020;20(2):2383-7.
12. Juno AA, Baig MT, Khan RA. A prospective study on cephalosporin utilization by pattern in pediatric patients. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences. 2022;49(2). https://doi.org/10.55463/issn.1674-2974.49.2.3
13. CDC. Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/healthcare/implementation/core-elements.html .
14. Shetty YC, Manjesh PS, Churiwala W, Jain SM, Singh VK. Drug use evaluation of cephalosporins in a tertiary care hospital. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2022 Jan 1;13(1):38-42. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_29_20 PMid:35198427 PMCid:PMC8815671
15. Gururaja MP. Cephalosporin utilization evaluation in a University Teaching Hospital: a prospective study. Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics. 2013 Mar 15;3(2). https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v3i2.399
16. Joel JJ, Bhat VS, ER AR. Study on drug utilization pattern of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2019;12(3):1189-92. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00197.5
17. Xin X, Jian L, Xia X, Jia B, Huang W, Li C, et.al. multicentre clinical study on the injection of ceftriaxone/sulbactam compared with cefoperazone/sulbactam in the treatment of respiratory and urinary tract infections. Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials. 2013 Dec;12:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-0711-12-38 PMid:24321187 PMCid:PMC4029302
18. Williams JD. β-Lactamase inhibition and in vitro activity of sulbactam and sulbactam/cefoperazone. Clinical infectious diseases. 1997 Mar 1;24(3):494-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/24.3.494 PMid:9114205
19. Richards DM, Brogden RN. Ceftazidime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use. Drugs. 1985 Feb;29(2):105-61. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-198529020-00002 PMid:3884319
20. Congeni BL. Comparison of ceftriaxone and traditional therapy of bacterial meningitis. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 1984 Jan;25(1):40-4. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.25.1.40 PMid:6322681 PMCid:PMC185431
Published
Abstract Display: 87 
PDF Downloads: 57 PDF Downloads: 3 How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 R. Bhavadharani , K. Bhavadharini , S. Daniel Sundar Singh , K. Dhivya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
.