BACKGROUND: The efficacies and adverse effects of different antibiotics for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) have been studied by standard meta-analytic methods using pairwise direct comparisons of antimicrobial treatments: the effects of one treatment are compared to those of either another treatment or placebo. However, for clinical decisions, we need to know the effectiveness of each possible treatment in comparison with all relevant alternatives, not with just one. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacies and adverse effects of all relevant antibiotics for UTI treatment simultaneously by performing a network meta-analysis using direct and indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: Using logistic regression analysis, we performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 1999 that compared different oral antibiotic or placebo regimens for UTI treatment in general practice or outpatient settings. We looked at five binary outcomes: early clinical, early bacteriological, late clinical and late bacteriological outcomes, as well as adverse effects. Consequently, a ranking of the antibiotic regimens could be composed. RESULTS: Using a network structure, we could compare and rank nine treatments from 10 studies. Overall, ciprofloxacin and gatifloxacin appeared the most effective treatments, and amoxicillin-clavulanate appeared the least effective treatment. In terms of adverse effects, there were no significant differences.Discussion.Network meta-analysis shows some clear efficacy differences between different antibiotic treatments for UTI in women. It provides a useful tool for clinical decision making in everyday practice. Moreover, the method can be used for meta-analyses of RCTs across primary care and beyond.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Importance
Urinary tract infection is among the most common reasons for an outpatient visit and antibiotic use in adult populations. The increasing prevalence of antibacterial resistance among community uropathogens affects the diagnosis and management of this clinical syndrome.Objectives
To define the optimal approach for treating acute cystitis in young healthy women and in women with diabetes and men and to define the optimal approach for diagnosing acute cystitis in the outpatient setting.Evidence Review
Evidence for optimal treatment regimens was obtained by searching PubMed and the Cochrane database for English-language studies published up to July 21, 2014.Findings
Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (6463 patients), 6 systematic reviews, and 11 observational studies (252 934 patients) were included in our review. Acute uncomplicated cystitis in women can be diagnosed without an office visit or urine culture. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (160/800 mg twice daily for 3 days), nitrofurantoin monohydrate/macrocrystals (100 mg twice daily for 5-7 days), and fosfomycin trometamol (3 g in a single dose) are all appropriate first-line therapies for uncomplicated cystitis. Fluoroquinolones are effective for clinical outcomes but should be reserved for more invasive infections. β-Lactam agents (amoxicillin-clavulanate and cefpodoxime-proxetil) are not as effective as empirical first-line therapies. Immediate antimicrobial therapy is recommended rather than delayed treatment or symptom management with ibuprofen alone. Limited observational studies support 7 to 14 days of therapy for acute urinary tract infection in men. Based on 1 observational study and our expert opinion, women with diabetes without voiding abnormalities presenting with acute cystitis should be treated similarly to women without diabetes.Conclusions and Relevance
Immediate antimicrobial therapy with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nitrofurantoin, or fosfomycin is indicated for acute cystitis in adult women. Increasing resistance rates among uropathogens have complicated treatment of acute cystitis. Individualized assessment of risk factors for resistance and regimen tolerability is needed to choose the optimum empirical regimen.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 10/2014; 312(16):1677-84. DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.12842 · 35.29 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: There are very limited data on the postmarketing outcome comparison of different guideline antibiotic regimens for patients with urinary tract infections (UTIs).We carried out a population-based comparative effectiveness study from year 2000 through 2009, using the administrative data of 2 million patients from the National Health Informatics Project of Taiwan. Treatment failure was defined as either hospitalization or emergency department visits for UTI. Odd ratios were computed using conditional logistic regression models matched on propensity score.We identified 73,675 individuals with UTI, of whom 54,796 (74.4%) received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), 4184 (5.7%) received ciprofloxacin, 3142 (4.3%) received levofloxacin, 5984 (8.1%) received ofloxacin, and 5569 (7.6%) received norfloxacin. Compared with TMP-SMX, the composite treatment failure was significantly lowered for norfloxacin in propensity score (PS) matching analyses (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99). Both norfloxacin (PS-matched OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98) and ofloxacin (PS-matched OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99) had significantly lowered composite treatment failure rate when compared with ciprofloxacin. Subgroup analysis suggested that both norfloxacin and ofloxacin were more effective in female patients without complications (W/O indwelling catheters, W/O bedridden status and W/O spinal cord injury), when compared with either TMP-SMX or ciprofloxacin.Among outpatients receiving oral fluoroquinolone therapy for UTIs, there was evidence of superiority of norfloxacin or ofloxacin over ciprofloxacin or TMP-SMX in terms of treatment failure. Given the observational nature of this study and regional difference in antibiotic resistance patterns, more studies are required to validate our results.
Medicine 12/2014; 93(28):e304. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000000304 · 5.72 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.