4.7 Review

First-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of complicated upper urinary tract infection in adults: A systematic literature review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 116, Issue -, Pages 403-410

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.363

Keywords

Complicated urinary tract infection; Acute pyelonephritis; First-generation cephalosporins; Efficacy; Safety; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

First-generation cephalosporins could be a potential therapy for community-acquired complicated upper UTI in adults requiring hospital care, although further comparative studies are needed to evaluate their benefits and harms due to limitations in the existing evidence.
Introduction: Complicated upper urinary tract infection (UTI) is a significant cause of infectious morbidity and in-hospital antibiotic therapy. However, the use of first-generation cephalosporins in this scenario is not clearly defined. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-generation cephalosporins for community-acquired complicated upper UTI in adults requiring hospital care. Methods: Systematic review by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) and trials registers. The articles were then screened and the references were selected, data was extracted, and risk of bias assessment was conducted. The results are presented in a narrative synthesis. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials were included. We did not identify statistically significant differences when comparing first-generation cephalosporins with other antimicrobials for outcomes of clinical cure, length of hospital-stay, and reinfection. However, a lower probability of microbiological cure and a higher probability of relapse was identified in the first-generation cephalosporin group in 3 of 7 studies and in 2 of 5 studies, respectively. No serious adverse effects were reported. Conclusions: First-generation cephalosporins could be a potential therapy in this setting, nevertheless the low quality of evidence for analyzed outcomes should be considered because of the limitations of the risk of bias assessment and its inaccuracy. It is essential to carry out comparative studies in which the benefits and harms of these antibiotics are evaluated. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available