What is the preferred treatment option between Ceftazidime (Ceftazidime) and Cefepime (Cefepime) for a patient with a severe infection?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: January 25, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Cefepime vs Ceftazidime for Severe Infections

For most severe infections requiring empiric broad-spectrum gram-negative coverage, cefepime is the preferred agent over ceftazidime due to its superior gram-positive activity (particularly against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus), broader spectrum, reduced beta-lactamase induction potential, and more convenient twice-daily dosing.

Spectrum of Activity Considerations

Gram-Positive Coverage

  • Cefepime provides clinically significant activity against MSSA, while ceftazidime does not 1, 2, 3
  • When empiric MSSA coverage is needed (high mortality risk patients not receiving anti-MRSA therapy), guidelines specifically recommend cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, levofloxacin, imipenem, or meropenem—notably excluding ceftazidime from this list 1
  • Cefepime has in vitro activity against penicillin-sensitive, -intermediate, and -resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae similar to cefotaxime and ceftriaxone, whereas ceftazidime lacks reliable pneumococcal coverage 3

Gram-Negative Coverage

  • Both agents provide equivalent antipseudomonal activity 2, 3, 4
  • Cefepime demonstrates superior stability against AmpC beta-lactamases and is a poor inducer of these enzymes, making it more reliable for infections with Enterobacter, Citrobacter, and Serratia species 2, 3, 4
  • For third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCephRE), both agents are listed as options, but cefepime is generally not recommended due to concerns about treatment failure 1

Clinical Efficacy Data

Hospital-Acquired and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

  • Guidelines list both cefepime and ceftazidime as acceptable options for HAP/VAP empiric therapy 1
  • However, cefepime monotherapy is preferred when MSSA coverage is desired without adding vancomycin or linezolid 1
  • Clinical trials demonstrate equivalent efficacy between cefepime (2g q8-12h) and ceftazidime (2g q8h) for pneumonia, with satisfactory clinical response rates of 71-86% 3, 5, 6

Febrile Neutropenia

  • Cefepime and ceftazidime show therapeutic equivalence for empiric monotherapy in febrile neutropenic patients, with survival rates of 93% vs 97% and resolution without modification rates of 51% vs 55% respectively 7
  • Both agents are dosed at 2g IV q8h for this indication 7

Intra-Abdominal Infections

  • For health care-associated intra-abdominal infections, both cefepime and ceftazidime are listed as acceptable options when combined with metronidazole 1
  • Critical caveat: Neither cefepime nor ceftazidime provides enterococcal coverage 8
  • When anti-enterococcal therapy is needed (postoperative infections, prior cephalosporin exposure, immunocompromised patients, valvular heart disease), ampicillin must be added to either regimen 1, 8
  • Cefepime plus metronidazole achieved 81% cure rates for complicated intra-abdominal infections 7

Dosing Advantages

  • Cefepime is administered twice daily (1-2g q12h) for most indications, while ceftazidime requires three-times-daily dosing (1-2g q8h) 2, 3, 6
  • This dosing convenience improves nursing workflow and may enhance compliance without compromising efficacy 6
  • For severe infections or febrile neutropenia, both agents are dosed at 2g q8h 1, 7

Resistance and Stewardship Considerations

  • Cefepime's reduced induction of AmpC beta-lactamases theoretically decreases selection pressure for resistant mutants, particularly with Enterobacter species 2, 3, 4
  • For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), neither agent is recommended as monotherapy; newer beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations (ceftazidime-avibactam, meropenem-vaborbactam) are preferred 1
  • For 3GCephRE infections, guidelines suggest avoiding both cefepime and ceftazidime in favor of carbapenems or, for non-severe infections, targeted older agents based on susceptibility 1

Safety Profile

  • Both agents demonstrate comparable tolerability with primarily gastrointestinal adverse events 2, 5, 6
  • Adverse event rates requiring discontinuation: 1.4% for cefepime ≤2g/day and 2.9% for >2g/day 2
  • Clinical trials show minimal differences in adverse effects between the two agents, with none requiring dose reduction or discontinuation 5, 6

Clinical Algorithm for Selection

Choose Cefepime when:

  • Empiric therapy requires both gram-negative and MSSA coverage 1
  • Treating HAP/VAP in patients at high mortality risk without separate anti-MRSA therapy 1
  • Suspected Enterobacter, Citrobacter, or Serratia infections where AmpC induction is a concern 9, 2, 3
  • Twice-daily dosing is preferred for logistical reasons 6

Choose Ceftazidime when:

  • Cefepime is unavailable or contraindicated
  • Treating documented Pseudomonas infections with confirmed susceptibility to both agents
  • Used in combination regimens where gram-positive coverage is provided by another agent 1

Avoid both agents when:

  • Documented or high-risk 3GCephRE or CRE infections (use carbapenems or newer beta-lactam combinations) 1
  • Enterococcal coverage is required without adding ampicillin 1, 8
  • Treating Serratia marcescens endocarditis (requires extended-spectrum cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside for 6 weeks) 9

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Research

Cefepime: a review of its use in the management of hospitalized patients with pneumonia.

American journal of respiratory medicine : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2003

Research

Safety and efficacy of cefepime versus ceftazidime in the treatment of severe infections.

Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi, 2002

Research

Cefepime versus ceftazidime for the treatment of serious bacterial infections.

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 1999

Guideline

Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infections

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Treatment of Serratia marcescens Infections

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.