Title |
Prospective Cohort Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of Ambulatory Treatment With Oral Cefuroxime-Axetil in Febrile Children With Urinary Tract Infection
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fped.2018.00237 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Elise Hennaut, Hong P. Duong, Benedetta Chiodini, Brigitte Adams, Ksenija Lolin, Sophie Blumental, Karl M. Wissing, Khalid Ismaili |
Abstract |
Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of ambulatory oral cefuroxime-axetil treatment in children presenting with first febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) in terms of resolution of fever, antibiotics tolerance, bacterial resistance, and loss to ambulatory follow-up. Methods: Two-year prospective single-center evaluation of the local protocol of oral ambulatory treatment of children presenting first febrile urinary tract infection (UTI). Results: From October 2013 to October 2015, 82 children were treated ambulatory with oral cefuroxime-axetil. The median age was 8 months. When analyzing those 82 children treated orally, 51 (62%) completed oral treatment, 14 (17%) missed their scheduled follow-up visits (3 patients at day 2 and 11 patients at week 2), and 17 (21%) were switched to IV therapy for the following reasons: vomiting in 9, persistent fever in 5, antibiotic resistance in 2 and bacteremia in 1. Six children (8%) presented recurrent UTI after a median of 5 months of follow-up. Conclusions: This 2-year evaluation suggests that oral treatment with cefuroxime-axetil in febrile UTI is feasible but should be implemented with caution. Home-treated children require reevaluation during treatment since 21% of our cohort had to be temporarily switched to parenteral therapy and 17% did not attend scheduled follow-up visits during oral treatment. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
Researcher | 3 | 18% |
Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
Other | 2 | 12% |
Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 18% |
Unknown | 2 | 12% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 53% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
Materials Science | 1 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 2 | 12% |