Evidence Hub

Identification and pretherapy susceptibility of pathogens in patients with complicated urinary tract infection or acute pyelonephritis enrolled in a clinical study in the United States from November 2004 through April 2006

Peterson J, Kaul S, Khashab M, Fisher A, Kahn JB

Clinical therapeutics, 2007

650 participants · 43 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the pretherapy microbiology and fluoroquinolone susceptibility of pathogens from 650 patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) or acute pyelonephritis (AP) as part of a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, adults with a clinical diagnosis of cUTI or AP were recruited from 130 community-based and institution-based study centers in the United States from November 2004 through April 2006. Urine and blood culture specimens were identified and tested for susceptibility according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute methods. Presence of a pathogen in the urine culture was confirmed by a colony count of =105 colony-forming units per milliliter. Susceptibility to nonstudy drugs (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole [TMP/SMX] and ampicillin) and to study drugs (levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) was categorized as susceptible, intermediate, or resistant.

RESULTS: Six hundred fifty patients (417 women, 233 men; age range, 18-94 years) with a diagnosis of cUTI or AP were recruited. A total of 68.2% patients (224 men, 219 women) were diagnosed with cUTI, and 31.8% (198 women, 9 men), with AP. Most (646/650 [99.4%]) infections were community acquired. The most common pathogen was Escherichia coli (65.6%), although 12.2% of patients had gram-positive pathogens. Testing for susceptibility to ampicillin and TMP/SMX found that…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 650 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