Evidence Hub

Usefulness and problems of the urinary tract infection criteria for evaluating drug efficacy for complicated urinary tract infections

Soichi Arakawa, Soichi Arakawa, Kazushi Tanaka, Tetsuya Miura, Katsumi Shigemura, Yuzo Nakano, Atsushi Takenaka, Masato Fujisawa et al.

Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy, 2007

159 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

We aimed to reveal the usefulness of and problematic points with the Criteria for evaluation of clinical efficacy of antimicrobial agents on urinary tract infection (draft fourth edition) proposed by the UTI Subcommittee of the Clinical Evaluation Guidelines Committee, Japan Society of Chemotherapy, for evaluating antimicrobial agents for complicated urinary tract infections. We conducted a multicenter trial involving 159 patients with complicated urinary tract infections without indwelling urinary catheters. The antimicrobial agents used were cefcapene pivoxil and levofloxacin. "Early evaluation" took place the day after completion of 7 days of therapy; "late evaluation" took place 5-9 days after the end of treatment, and "follow-up evaluation" was done 4-6 weeks after treatment. In the early evaluation, overall clinical efficacy was judged as excellent in 52.9% of the patients, moderate in 26.1%, and poor in 21.0%, and the bacteriological response was judged as "eradicated" for 86.4% of the 198 bacterial strains isolated. Of 96 patients included in the "late evaluation" category in accordance with the draft fourth edition, the clinical outcome was judged as "cured" in 68.4% and the microbiological outcome was judged as "eradicated" in 59.4%. These rates may be low, because 25 patients in whom clinical efficacy was evaluated as "poor" at the end of treatment were separately classified as "failed" at the late evaluation. Of the 49 patients with an excellent clinical response…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, 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: 159 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