Evidence Hub

Urinary tract infections: a retrospective cohort study of (mis)matching antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcome among Finnish adults

Anu Patjas, T. Sakari Jokiranta, Anu Kantele

JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance, 2024

187 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objectives With the global spread of antimicrobial resistance, treating urinary tract infections (UTIs) is becoming more challenging. Clinical data on UTI outcomes are scarce in cases with antimicrobial treatment mismatching the uropathogens’ in vitro susceptibility profiles. We explored the association of (mis)matching antimicrobial treatment and clinical outcomes among patients with either ESBL-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-PE) or non-ESBL-PE identified in urine samples. Patients and methods In 2015–2019, we recruited 18–65-year-old patients with laboratory-confirmed, community-acquired ESBL-PE (n = 130) or non-ESBL-PE (n = 187) UTI. Our study involved collecting data on in vitro susceptibility profiles, antimicrobial therapy (microbiological match/mismatch) and clinical outcomes, and a follow-up of relapses/reinfections. Results Non-beta-lactam co-resistance was found more frequent among ESBL-PE than non-ESBL-PE isolates. The initial antimicrobial matched the in vitro susceptibility for 91.6% (164/179) of those with non-ESBL-PE and 46.9% (38/81) with ESBL-PE UTI (P < 0.001). The clinical cure rates in the non-ESBL-PE and ESBL-PE UTI groups were 82.6% (142/172) and 62.2% (74/119) (P < 0.001) for all, 87.3% (131/150) and 83.3% (30/36) for those treated with matching antimicrobials, and 33.3% (5/15) and 41.9% (18/43) for those given mismatching antimicrobials, respectively. Mismatching antimicrobial therapy was not associated with relapse/reinfection over the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 187 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free