Risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection and renal scarring.

2015

e13-21

07/2015

1098-4275

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>To identify risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) and renal scarring in children who have had 1 or 2 febrile or symptomatic UTIs and received no antimicrobial prophylaxis.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>This 2-year, multisite prospective cohort study included 305 children aged 2 to 71 months with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) receiving placebo in the RIVUR (Randomized Intervention for Vesicoureteral Reflux) study and 195 children with no VUR observed in the CUTIE (Careful Urinary Tract Infection Evaluation) study. Primary exposure was presence of VUR; secondary exposures included bladder and bowel dysfunction (BBD), age, and race. Outcomes were recurrent febrile or symptomatic urinary tract infection (F/SUTI) and renal scarring.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Children with VUR had higher 2-year rates of recurrent F/SUTI (Kaplan-Meier estimate 25.4% compared with 17.3% for VUR and no VUR, respectively). Other factors associated with recurrent F/SUTI included presence of BBD at baseline (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.07 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-3.93]) and presence of renal scarring on the baseline (99m)Tc-labeled dimercaptosuccinic acid scan (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.88 [95% CI: 1.22-6.80]). Children with BBD and any degree of VUR had the highest risk of recurrent F/SUTI (56%). At the end of the 2-year follow-up period, 8 (5.6%) children in the no VUR group and 24 (10.2%) in the VUR group had renal scars, but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio: 2.05 [95% CI: 0.86-4.87]).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>VUR and BBD are risk factors for recurrent UTI, especially when they appear in combination. Strategies for preventing recurrent UTI include antimicrobial prophylaxis and treatment of BBD.</p>

10.1542/peds.2015-0409

Pediatrics

26055855

Comparative effectiveness of intravenous vs oral antibiotics for postdischarge treatment of acute osteomyelitis in children.

2015

120-8

02/2015

2168-6211

<p><strong>IMPORTANCE: </strong>Postdischarge treatment of acute osteomyelitis in children requires weeks of antibiotic therapy, which can be administered orally or intravenously via a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). The catheters carry a risk for serious complications, but limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of oral therapy.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To compare the effectiveness and adverse outcomes of postdischarge antibiotic therapy administered via the PICC or the oral route.</p>

<p><strong>DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing PICC and oral therapy for the treatment of acute osteomyelitis. Among children hospitalized from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, at 36 participating children's hospitals, we used discharge codes to identify potentially eligible participants. Results of medical record review confirmed eligibility and defined treatment group allocation and study outcomes. We used within- and across-hospital propensity score-based full matching to adjust for confounding by indication.</p>

<p><strong>INTERVENTIONS: </strong>Postdischarge administration of antibiotics via the PICC or the oral route.</p>

<p><strong>MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: </strong>The primary outcome was treatment failure. Secondary outcomes included adverse drug reaction, PICC line complication, and a composite of all 3 end points.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Among 2060 children and adolescents (hereinafter referred to as children) with osteomyelitis, 1005 received oral antibiotics at discharge, whereas 1055 received PICC-administered antibiotics. The proportion of children treated via the PICC route varied across hospitals from 0 to 100%. In the across-hospital (risk difference, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.5%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.2% to 3.0%]) matched analyses, children treated with antibiotics via the oral route (reference group) did not experience more treatment failures than those treated with antibiotics via the PICC route. Rates of adverse drug reaction were low (&lt;4% in both groups) but slightly greater in the PICC group in across-hospital (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 0.1%-3.3%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%]) matched analyses. Among the children in the PICC group, 158 (15.0%) had a PICC complication that required an emergency department visit (n = 96), a rehospitalization (n = 38), or both (n = 24). As a result, the PICC group had a much higher risk of requiring a return visit to the emergency department or for hospitalization for any adverse outcome in across-hospital (risk difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 11.3%-17.9%]) and within-hospital (risk difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.5%-17.6%]) matched analyses.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: </strong>Given the magnitude and seriousness of PICC complications, clinicians should reconsider the practice of treating otherwise healthy children with acute osteomyelitis with prolonged intravenous antibiotics after hospital discharge when an equally effective oral alternative exists.</p>

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.2822

JAMA Pediatr

25506733