Cargando…

Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess the impact of different management strategies in urinary tract infections. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care. Participants 309 non-pregnant women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. Intervention Patients were randomised to five man...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Little, P, Moore, M V, Turner, S, Rumsby, K, Warner, G, Lowes, J A, Smith, H, Hawke, C, Leydon, G, Arscott, A, Turner, D, Mullee, M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20139214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c199
_version_ 1782177171287048192
author Little, P
Moore, M V
Turner, S
Rumsby, K
Warner, G
Lowes, J A
Smith, H
Hawke, C
Leydon, G
Arscott, A
Turner, D
Mullee, M
author_facet Little, P
Moore, M V
Turner, S
Rumsby, K
Warner, G
Lowes, J A
Smith, H
Hawke, C
Leydon, G
Arscott, A
Turner, D
Mullee, M
author_sort Little, P
collection PubMed
description Objective To assess the impact of different management strategies in urinary tract infections. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care. Participants 309 non-pregnant women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. Intervention Patients were randomised to five management approaches: empirical antibiotics; empirical delayed (by 48 hours) antibiotics; or targeted antibiotics based on a symptom score (two or more of urine cloudiness, urine smell, nocturia, or dysuria), a dipstick result (nitrite or both leucocytes and blood), or a positive result on midstream urine analysis. Self help advice was controlled in each group. Main outcome measures Symptom severity (days 2 to 4) and duration, and use of antibiotics. Results Patients had 3.5 days of moderately bad symptoms if they took antibiotics immediately. There were no significant differences in duration or severity of symptoms (mean frequency of symptoms on a 0 to 6 scale: immediate antibiotics 2.15, midstream urine 2.08, dipstick 1.74, symptom score 1.77, delayed antibiotics 2.11; likelihood ratio test for the five groups P=0.177). There were differences in antibiotic use (immediate antibiotics 97%, midstream urine 81%, dipstick 80%, symptom score 90%, delayed antibiotics 77%; P=0.011) and in sending midstream urine samples (immediate antibiotics 23%, midstream urine 89%, dipstick 36%, symptom score 33%, delayed antibiotics 15%; P<0.001). Patients who waited at least 48 hours to start taking antibiotics reconsulted less (hazard ratio 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.89), P=0.014) but on average had symptoms for 37% longer than those taking immediate antibiotics (incident rate ratio 1.37 (1.11 to 1.68), P=0.003), particularly the midstream urine group (73% longer, 22% to 140%; none of the other groups had more than 22% longer duration). Conclusion All management strategies achieve similar symptom control. There is no advantage in routinely sending midstream urine samples for testing, and antibiotics targeted with dipstick tests with a delayed prescription as backup, or empirical delayed prescription, can help to reduce antibiotic use. Study registration National Research Register N0484094184 ISRCTN: 03525333.
format Text
id pubmed-2817051
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28170512010-02-18 Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial Little, P Moore, M V Turner, S Rumsby, K Warner, G Lowes, J A Smith, H Hawke, C Leydon, G Arscott, A Turner, D Mullee, M BMJ Research Objective To assess the impact of different management strategies in urinary tract infections. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care. Participants 309 non-pregnant women aged 18-70 presenting with suspected urinary tract infection. Intervention Patients were randomised to five management approaches: empirical antibiotics; empirical delayed (by 48 hours) antibiotics; or targeted antibiotics based on a symptom score (two or more of urine cloudiness, urine smell, nocturia, or dysuria), a dipstick result (nitrite or both leucocytes and blood), or a positive result on midstream urine analysis. Self help advice was controlled in each group. Main outcome measures Symptom severity (days 2 to 4) and duration, and use of antibiotics. Results Patients had 3.5 days of moderately bad symptoms if they took antibiotics immediately. There were no significant differences in duration or severity of symptoms (mean frequency of symptoms on a 0 to 6 scale: immediate antibiotics 2.15, midstream urine 2.08, dipstick 1.74, symptom score 1.77, delayed antibiotics 2.11; likelihood ratio test for the five groups P=0.177). There were differences in antibiotic use (immediate antibiotics 97%, midstream urine 81%, dipstick 80%, symptom score 90%, delayed antibiotics 77%; P=0.011) and in sending midstream urine samples (immediate antibiotics 23%, midstream urine 89%, dipstick 36%, symptom score 33%, delayed antibiotics 15%; P<0.001). Patients who waited at least 48 hours to start taking antibiotics reconsulted less (hazard ratio 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.89), P=0.014) but on average had symptoms for 37% longer than those taking immediate antibiotics (incident rate ratio 1.37 (1.11 to 1.68), P=0.003), particularly the midstream urine group (73% longer, 22% to 140%; none of the other groups had more than 22% longer duration). Conclusion All management strategies achieve similar symptom control. There is no advantage in routinely sending midstream urine samples for testing, and antibiotics targeted with dipstick tests with a delayed prescription as backup, or empirical delayed prescription, can help to reduce antibiotic use. Study registration National Research Register N0484094184 ISRCTN: 03525333. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010-02-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2817051/ /pubmed/20139214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c199 Text en © Little et al 2010 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Little, P
Moore, M V
Turner, S
Rumsby, K
Warner, G
Lowes, J A
Smith, H
Hawke, C
Leydon, G
Arscott, A
Turner, D
Mullee, M
Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title_full Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title_short Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
title_sort effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20139214
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c199
work_keys_str_mv AT littlep effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mooremv effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT turners effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT rumsbyk effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT warnerg effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lowesja effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT smithh effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT hawkec effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT leydong effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT arscotta effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT turnerd effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mulleem effectivenessoffivedifferentapproachesinmanagementofurinarytractinfectionrandomisedcontrolledtrial