A retrospective review of oral cephalosporins versus fluoroquinolones for the treatment of pyelonephritis Article

Full Text via DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274194 Web of Science: 000950930600001

Cited authors

  • Lin K, Zahlanie Y, Ortwine JK, Wei WJ, Mang NS, Prokesch BC


  • BackgroundThe current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis (AUP) advise caution when using oral beta-lactams due to concern for potentially inferior efficacy compared to fluoroquinolones (FQs) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; however, studies specifically evaluating the efficacy of oral cephalosporins (CPs) in AUP are limited. ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of oral CPs versus FQs for the treatment of AUP. Design, setting and participantsThis is a retrospective, chart review study conducted at a single-center, tertiary care hospital. MeasurementsThe primary endpoint was treatment failure within 30 days, defined as a change in antibiotic or return to ED or clinic due to persistent symptoms. Secondary endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and C. difficile infection (CDI) within 30 days. ResultsOf the 343 patients included in the study, treatment failure occurred in 54/338 (16.0%) patients and was similar between oral CPs and FQs (35/229 [15.3%] vs. 19/109 [17.4%]). A higher percentage of treatment failures were observed for third generation (3GC) and first generation (1GC) CPs compared to second generation CPs (2GC) (3GC: 15/65 [23.4%]; 1GC: 11/49 [22.4%]; 2GC: 9/115 [7.8%]). Documented ADRs were low (6/343 [1.7%]) and no cases of CDI were documented. ConclusionsOral CPs appear to be as safe and effective as FQs for the treatment of AUP. Fewer treatment failures were noted with 2GCs as compared to 3GCs and 1GCs.

Publication date

  • 2022

Published in

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1932-6203

Number of pages

  • 10


  • 17


  • 9