Evidence Hub

Comparison of the effectiveness and antibiotic cost among ceftriaxone, ertapenem, and levofloxacin in treatment of community-acquired complicated urinary tract infections

Lin HA, Yang YS, Wang JX, Lin HC, Lin DY, Chiu CH, Yeh KM, Lin JC et al.

Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi, 2016

22 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

To study characteristics of patients with community-acquired complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) and to compare effectiveness and antibiotic cost of treatment with ceftriaxone (CRO), levofloxacin (LVX), and ertapenem (ETP).

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled patients who had community-acquired cUTIs admitted to Division of Infectious Diseases in a single medical center from January 2011 to March 2013. Effectiveness, antibiotic cost, and clinical characteristics were compared among patients treated with CRO, LVX, and ETP.

RESULTS

There were 358 eligible cases, including 139 who received CRO, 128 treated with ETP, and 91 with LVX. The most common pathogen was Escherichia coli. The susceptibilities of these three agents were higher and more superior than first-line antibiotics. Treatment with ETP was associated with a significantly shorter time to defervescence since admission (CRO: 39 hours, ETP: 30 hours, and LVX: 38 h; p = 0.031) and shorter hospitalization stay (CRO: 4 days, ETP: 3 days, and LVX: 4 days; p < 0.001). However, the average antibiotic costs in the CRO group were significantly lower than that in the other two groups [CRO: 62.4 United States dollars (USD), ETP: 185.33 USD, and LVX: 204.85 USD; p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

The resistance of cUTIs isolates to first-line antibiotic is high. Using ETP, CRO, and LVX in the treatment of cUTIs for good clinical response should be suggested. Among the three agents, ETP had better susceptibility than CRO…

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.

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