Retrospective review of ceftriaxone versus levofloxacin for treatment of E. coli urinary tract infections
- 672 Downloads
Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections. Options for initial treatment of pyelonephritis or UTI requiring hospitalization include levofloxacin (LVF) or extended-spectrum cephalosporins. Globally, uropathogenic Escherichia coli resistance rates to fluoroquinolones have increased in recent years. Objective To compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving ceftriaxone (CTX) to those who received LVF empirically for the treatment of E. coli UTI. Setting 433-bed community hospital in Lexington, KY. Methods Retrospective, single center, cohort study of adults with a urine culture positive for E. coli who received either IV LVF or CTX empirically for the treatment of UTI. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include time to susceptible therapy (TsT), hospital cost, and susceptibility to empiric therapy. Results There was no statistically significant difference in LOS or hospital cost. Subgroup analysis compared patients that received concordant CTX treatment and patients that received discordant LVF treatment. Patients that received concordant CTX treatment had a nonsignificant shorter median LOS (4.16 vs. 6.34 days). Median hospital cost was lower ($4345 vs. $8462, p = 0.004) and median TsT was shorter (5.83 vs. 64.46 h, p < 0.001) in the concordant CTX group. Conclusion Choice of empiric antibiotic therapy should be based on local antibiogram data. For patients with UTI requiring hospitalization, CTX seems to be an effective empiric therapy for most patients. More data is required to examine the effectiveness of local and source specific antibiograms on clinical outcomes when guiding treatment of patients with UTI.
KeywordsAntibiogram Beta lactam Ceftriaxone Fluoroquinolone Levofloxacin Resistance United States Urinary tract infections
This research was not funded.
Conflicts of interest
All authors have nothing to disclose and no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guidance for industry. Complicated urinary tract infections and pyelonephritis developing antimicrobial drugs for treatment. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070981.pdf. Accessed Sept 2017.
- 6.Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, Wullt B, Colgan R, Miller LG, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(5):e103–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Park DW, Peck KR, Chung MH, Lee JS, Park YS, Kim HY, et al. Comparison of ertapenem and ceftriaxone therapy for acute pyelonephritis and other complicated urinary tract infections in Korean adults: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(5):476–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Wells WG, Woods GL, Jiang Q, Gesser RM. Treatment of complicated urinary tract infection in adults: combined analysis of two randomized, double-blind, multicentre trials comparing ertapenem and ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53(Suppl 2):ii67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Saint Joseph Hospital Antimicrobial Stewardship Team. General Hospital Antibiogram. 2015. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
- 13.FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA advises restricting fluoroquinolone antibiotic use for certain uncomplicated infections; warns about disabling side effects that can occur together. FDA.gov. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm500143.htm. Published May 12, 2016. Updated June 6, 2016. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.
- 17.Lin H, Yang Y, Wang J, Lin HC, Lin DY, Chiu CH, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness and antibiotic cost among ceftriaxone, ertapenem, and levofloxacin in treatment of community-acquired complicated urinary tract infections. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2016;49(2):237–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar