Evidence Hub

Inappropriate Empiric Antibiotic Therapy and Resistance Patterns in Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections: A Retrospective Analysis of the AMR-UTI PhysioNet Dataset

Siddarth Raajasekar, Bavana Ramamurthy, Ragul Periyannan

International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology, 2026

15,806 participants

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance in urinary tract infections (UTIs) undermines the efficacy of empirical therapy;

however, the extent of inappropriate empirical prescribing in uncomplicated UTIs is not fully delineated. This study

measured the prevalence of resistance and the rates of inappropriate empiric therapy for commonly prescribed antibiotics,

and examined the association between prior antibiotic use and treatment failure.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the AMR-UTI PhysioNet dataset. Uncomplicated

UTI episodes (n=15,806) with complete susceptibility and prescription data were included. Resistance prevalence was

calculated for nitrofurantoin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin. Inappropriate empiric

therapy was defined as the prescription of an antibiotic to which the cultured organism demonstrated resistance. Temporal

trends and the effect of prior antibiotic exposure (within 90 days) were assessed using chi-square tests and odds ratios with

95% confidence intervals.

Results: Overall resistance prevalence was 11.1% for nitrofurantoin (95% CI: 10.6-11.6%), 19.6% for trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole (95% CI: 19.0-20.2%), 5.6% for ciprofloxacin (95% CI: 5.3-6.0%), and 5.5% for levofloxacin (95% CI:

5.1-5.8%). Inappropriate empiric therapy occurred in 27.7% of episodes, with the highest rate observed for trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole (17.9%, 95% CI: 17.0-18.9%). Resistance to ciprofloxacin (OR=1.22, 95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 15,806 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