Evidence Hub

Clinical effectiveness of beta-lactams versus fluoroquinolones as empirical therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus hospitalized for urinary tract infections: A retrospective cohort study

Yu-Hsin Tang, Po-Liang Lu, Ho-Yin Huang, Ying-Chi Lin

PLoS ONE, 2022

298 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are at risk of severe urinary tract infections (UTIs). Due to the emerging resistance rates to fluoroquinolones and β-lactams, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of β-lactams versus fluoroquinolones as empirical therapy for diabetic patients hospitalized for UTIs.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a medical center in Taiwan between 2016 and 2018. Patients with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥20 and hospitalized for UTIs were enrolled. Patients with UTI diagnosis within one year before the admission, co-infections at the admission, or ≥2 pathogens in the urine cultures were excluded. The primary outcome was empiric treatment failure.

RESULTS: 298 patients were followed for at least 30 days after the admission. Escherichia coli (61.07%) was the most common pathogen. The resistance rates of the pathogens to levofloxacin were 28.52% and 34.22% according to the historical Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) breakpoints and the updated 2019 CLSI breakpoints, respectively. The resistance rates of ceftazidime and cefepime were 21.81% and 11.41%, respectively. Empirical β-lactams were associated with less treatment failure compared to fluoroquinolones (adjusted OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.17-0.60). Beta-lactams were associated with less treatment failure than fluoroquinolones when appropriatness was determined by the pre-2019 CLSI breakpoints but not the 2019 CLSI breakpoints.

CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients hospitalized for…

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: 298 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