Oral Versus Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections



Oral Versus Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections


Matthew G. Gartland

Chadi M. El Saleeby





Background

In young children, urinary tract infections (UTI) may cause serious complications, including permanent scarring and diminished kidney function. Historically, there has been significant heterogeneity both in management with IV vs. PO antibiotic treatment and in duration of therapy.


Objectives

To compare the efficacy of PO antibiotic therapy alone versus sequential IV to PO treatment in young children with febrile UTI.


Methods

Nonblinded randomized trial at 4 US centers from 1992 to 1997.


Patients

309 children ages 1 to 24 months with fever ≥38.3°C, pyuria, bacteriuria, and growth of ≥50,000 colony forming units (CFU)/mL on culture from a catheterized sample. Select exclusion criteria: Gram-positive cocci in urine, alternative source of fever, underlying chronic disease, severe illness, history of UTI, or structural urinary tract abnormality.


Intervention

Patients received a 14-day course of cefixime 8 mg/kg/d PO (double-strength dose on day 1) vs. cefotaxime 200 mg/kg/d IV for 3 days (or until afebrile for ≥24 hours, whichever longer), followed by cefixime PO to complete 14 days. Both groups then received prophylaxis with cefixime (4 mg/kg once daily) for 2 weeks until completion of a voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG). Children with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) of grade 2 or higher were maintained on prophylaxis for 11 months, or until the reflux was grade 1 or resolved.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jun 19, 2016 | Posted by in PEDIATRICS | Comments Off on Oral Versus Intravenous Therapy for Urinary Tract Infections

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access