Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
- PMID: 20139214
- PMCID: PMC2817051
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c199
Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract infection: randomised controlled trial
Abstract
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: JAL has been paid to attend consultancy workshops by Bayer and is currently working in collaboration with Bayer in unpaid capacity.
Comment in
-
Urinary tract infection in primary care.BMJ. 2010 Feb 5;340:c657. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c657. BMJ. 2010. PMID: 20139220 No abstract available.
-
UTI in primary care. Midstream urine sampling is still helpful.BMJ. 2010 Apr 1;340:c1859. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1859. BMJ. 2010. PMID: 20360231 No abstract available.
-
Vergleich von fünf verschiedenen Vorgehensweisen zum Management einer Harnwegsinfektion bei Frauen.Praxis (Bern 1994). 2010 May 26;99(11):675-6. doi: 10.1024/1661-8157/a000149. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2010. PMID: 20506094 German. No abstract available.
-
Targeted, immediate antibiotics following a positive dipstick test may be the optimal management strategy.Evid Based Med. 2010 Jun;15(3):90-1. doi: 10.1136/ebm1068. Evid Based Med. 2010. PMID: 20522692 No abstract available.
References
-
- HMSO, OPCS. Morbidity statistics from general practice: fourth national study 1991. 1st ed. HMSO, 1994.
-
- Foxman B. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs. Dis Mon 2003;49:53-70. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials