Oral versus initial intravenous therapy for urinary tract infections in young febrile children.

Robert M Jacobson MD
{"title":"Oral versus initial intravenous therapy for urinary tract infections in young febrile children.","authors":"Robert M Jacobson MD","doi":"10.1046/j.1467-0658.2000.0062h.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p> <i>Background</i> The standard recommendation for treatment of young, febrile children with urinary tract infection has been hospitalization for intravenous antimicrobials. The availability of potent, oral, third-generation cephalosporins, as well as interest in cost containment and avoidance of nosocomial risks prompted evaluation of the safety and efficacy of outpatient therapy.</p><p> <i>Methods</i> In a multicentre, randomized clinical trial, the investigators evaluated the efficacy of oral versus initial intravenous therapy in 306 children 1 to 24 months old with fever and urinary tract infection, in terms of short-term clinical outcomes (sterilization of the urine and defervescence) and long-term morbidity (incidence of reinfection and incidence and extent of renal scarring documented at 6 months by <sup>99m</sup>Tc-dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scans). Children received either oral cefixime for 14 days (double dose on day 1) or initial intravenous cefotaxime for 3 days followed by oral cefixime for 11 days. Costs were estimated using charge-data.</p><p> <i>Results</i> Treatment groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics. Of the short-term outcomes: (1) repeat urine cultures were sterile within 24 h in all 306 children, and (2) mean time to defervescence was 25 and 24 h for children treated orally and intravenously, respectively. Of the long-term outcomes: (1) symptomatic re-infections occurred in 4.6% of children treated orally and 7.2% of children treated intravenously; (2) renal scarring at 6 months was noted in 9.8% of children treated orally versus 7.2% of children treated intravenously; and (3) mean extent of scarring was ~8% in both treatment groups. Mean costs were at least twofold higher for children treated intravenously ($3577 versus $1473) compared with those treated orally.</p><p> <i>Conclusions</i> Oral cefixime can be recommended as a safe and effective treatment for children with fever and urinary tract infection. Use of cefixime will result in substantial reductions of health care expenditures.</p>","PeriodicalId":100075,"journal":{"name":"Ambulatory Child Health","volume":"6 1","pages":"72-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambulatory Child Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1467-0658.2000.0062h.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

Abstract

Background The standard recommendation for treatment of young, febrile children with urinary tract infection has been hospitalization for intravenous antimicrobials. The availability of potent, oral, third-generation cephalosporins, as well as interest in cost containment and avoidance of nosocomial risks prompted evaluation of the safety and efficacy of outpatient therapy.

Methods In a multicentre, randomized clinical trial, the investigators evaluated the efficacy of oral versus initial intravenous therapy in 306 children 1 to 24 months old with fever and urinary tract infection, in terms of short-term clinical outcomes (sterilization of the urine and defervescence) and long-term morbidity (incidence of reinfection and incidence and extent of renal scarring documented at 6 months by 99mTc-dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scans). Children received either oral cefixime for 14 days (double dose on day 1) or initial intravenous cefotaxime for 3 days followed by oral cefixime for 11 days. Costs were estimated using charge-data.

Results Treatment groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics. Of the short-term outcomes: (1) repeat urine cultures were sterile within 24 h in all 306 children, and (2) mean time to defervescence was 25 and 24 h for children treated orally and intravenously, respectively. Of the long-term outcomes: (1) symptomatic re-infections occurred in 4.6% of children treated orally and 7.2% of children treated intravenously; (2) renal scarring at 6 months was noted in 9.8% of children treated orally versus 7.2% of children treated intravenously; and (3) mean extent of scarring was ~8% in both treatment groups. Mean costs were at least twofold higher for children treated intravenously ($3577 versus $1473) compared with those treated orally.

Conclusions Oral cefixime can be recommended as a safe and effective treatment for children with fever and urinary tract infection. Use of cefixime will result in substantial reductions of health care expenditures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期发热儿童尿路感染的口服与初始静脉治疗。
背景:治疗年幼发热儿童尿路感染的标准建议是住院静脉注射抗菌素。有效的口服第三代头孢菌素的可用性,以及对成本控制和避免医院风险的兴趣,促使对门诊治疗的安全性和有效性进行评估。方法在一项多中心随机临床试验中,研究人员评估了306名1至24个月大的发热和尿路感染儿童口服与初始静脉治疗的疗效,包括短期临床结果(尿消毒和退热)和长期发病率(6个月时99mtc -二巯丁二酸肾脏扫描记录的再感染发生率和肾瘢痕的发生率和程度)。儿童口服头孢克肟14天(第1天双倍剂量)或初始静脉注射头孢克肟3天,随后口服头孢克肟11天。成本是根据电荷数据估算的。结果治疗组在人口学、临床和实验室特征方面具有可比性。短期结果:(1)所有306名儿童的重复尿培养在24小时内无菌,(2)口服和静脉注射儿童的平均退热时间分别为25和24小时。长期结果:(1)有症状的再感染发生率为口服治疗儿童的4.6%,静脉注射治疗儿童的7.2%;(2) 6个月时,9.8%的口服治疗儿童出现肾脏瘢痕,而7.2%的静脉注射治疗儿童出现肾脏瘢痕;(3)两组平均瘢痕形成程度为~8%。与口服治疗相比,静脉治疗儿童的平均费用至少高出两倍(3577美元对1473美元)。结论口服头孢克肟是一种安全有效的治疗小儿发热和尿路感染的方法。使用头孢克肟将大大减少卫生保健支出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The greatest impact of war and conflict Child, adolescent and student health monitor Social gradients in child health: why do they occur and what can paediatricians do about them? Current literature Editorial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1