Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10969043

Preface.

Abstract

Although the clinical presentation and the treatment of lower urinary tract infection (UTI) have changed little in the 60 to 70 years of the 'antibiotic era', uropathogenic bacteria have not been slow to respond to the selecting pressure of antimicrobials. This is because such infections are common. Approximately 3% of all consultations made to general practitioners are for symptoms of UTI and approximately 12-20% of all antibiotic prescriptions are for this indication. Between one-quarter and one-half of all women experience a UTI at some time. The problem, therefore, is a considerable one and warrants reevaluation. This supplement is based upon papers presented at a meeting held in March 2000 in Vienna, Austria and sponsored by Leo Pharmaceutical Laboratories. It draws together the current views on the diagnosis and the treatment of UTIs at a time when the disease-causing microorganisms are most certainly changing. Antibiotic resistance to commonly used agents, such as trimethoprim and ampicillin, often now exceeds 30-50%. The clinician may be tempted to choose an agent such as a fluoroquinolone for the treatment of this disease, yet it is known that fluoroquinolone resistance can develop rapidly. Views on the length of treatment have also changed over the years and a 3 day regimen is usually now advocated. Pivmecillinam, which is hydrolysed to mecillinam after absorption, has a novel mode of action, rapid bacterial cell penetration and lower affinity for common beta-lactamases. Its spectrum of activity and good safety profile make it an ideal candidate for the treatment of this common condition. Experience in several countries over many years confirms this assessment and it may be time to reconsider the potential role of pivmecillinam in the treatment of UTIs. The Editors would like to thank Inge Boe and Paul Menday of Leo Laboratories for their untiring support and assistance in the preparation of this supplement.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

LE Nicolle, R Wise, MJ Wood. 2000. Preface.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10969043/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗