A randomized, double-blind trial of women aged 18 to 55 years with acute uncomplicated cystitis compared ciprofloxacin (n = 150) with cefpodoxime (n = 150).4 Study subjects were randomized to receive either 250 mg of ciprofloxacin orally twice daily for 3 days or 100 mg of cefpodoxime proxetil orally twice daily for 3 days. The primary end point was overall clinical cure (defined as not requiring antimicrobial treatment during follow-up) at the 30-day follow-up visit.
The study demonstrated that the overall clinical cure rate at the 30-day visit with the intent-totreat approach in which patients lost to follow-up were considered as having clinical cure was 93% for ciprofloxacin compared with 82% for cefpodoxime (difference of 11%; 95% CI, 3%-18%). For the intent-to-treat approach, in which patients lost to follow-up were considered as having not responded to treatment, the clinical cure rate was 83% for ciprofloxacin compared with 71% for cefpodoxime (difference of 12%; 95% CI, 3%-21%).
The authors concluded that the use of cefpodoxime as a first-line fluoroquinolone-sparing antimicrobial for acute uncomplicated cystitis cannot be supported by this trial.
References:
1. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012;307(13):1394-1404.
2. Schauer PR, Kashyap SR, Wolski K, et al. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy in obese patients with diabetes [published online ahead of print March 26, 2012]. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(17):1567-1576.
3. Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? a national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340-349.
4. Avery AJ, Rodgers S, Cantrill JA, et al. A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis [published online ahead of print February 21, 2012]. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1310-1319.