Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of different oral antibiotics regimens for treatment of urinary tract infection in outpatients: an analysis of national representative claims database

M. Lee, Shih-Hao Lee, Shy-Shin Chang, Sie-Huei Lee, Matthew Lee, Cheng-Chung Fang, Shyr-Chyr Chen, Chien-Chang Lee

Medicine, 2014

73,675 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

AbstractThere 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…

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: 73,675 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