Importance: Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of urinary tract infections that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In May 2023, new and existing members were solicited for questions on urinary tract infection prevention, diagnosis, and management. For each topic, literature searches were conducted up until early 2024 in any language. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were developed discussing the available literature and associated risks and benefits of various approaches. Findings: A total of 54 members representing 12 countries reviewed 914 articles and submitted information relevant to 5 sections: prophylaxis and prevention (7 questions), diagnosis and diagnostic stewardship (7 questions), empirical treatment (3 questions), definitive treatment and antimicrobial stewardship (10 questions), and special populations and genitourinary syndromes (10 questions). Of 37 unique questions, a clear recommendation could be provided for 6 questions. In 3 of the remaining questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for certain aspects of the question. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions and aspects of questions not meeting criteria for a clear recommendation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuidelines method for clinical guideline development, the majority of topics relating to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of urinary tract infections lack high-quality prospective data and clear recommendations could not be made. Randomized clinical trials are underway to address some of these gaps; however further research is of utmost importance to inform true evidence-based, rather than eminence-based practice.

Background: Pharmacists have the authorization to prescribe medications for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTI) in some provinces. However, there are limited data on the outcomes of this care by pharmacists. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction with pharmacist prescribing and care in patients with uncomplicated UTI. Methods: We conducted a prospective registry trial in 39 community pharmacies in the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Adult patients were enrolled if they presented to the pharmacy with either symptoms of UTI with no current antibacterial treatment (Pharmacist-Initial Arm) or if they presented with a prescription for an antibacterial to treat UTI from another health care provider (Physician-Initial Arm). Pharmacists assessed patients and if they had complicating factors or red flags for systemic illness or pyelonephritis, they were excluded from the study. Pharmacists either prescribed antibacterial therapy, modified antibacterial therapy, provided education only or referred to physician, as appropriate. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 2 weeks and the secondary outcomes included adverse events and patient satisfaction. Results: A total of 750 patients were enrolled (87.4% in the Pharmacist-Initial Arm), average age was 40.9 (SD 16.0) years. Clinical cure was achieved in 88.9% of patients. Of those that did not have sustained symptom resolution, most (5.5% overall) had symptom recurrence after completion of therapy. Adverse events were reported by 7.2% of patients and 88.9% of those continued their medication. Most adverse events were gastrointestinal-related and transient. The patient satisfaction survey reflected very high levels of satisfaction for the care they received, as well as for trust and accessibility of the pharmacist. Conclusion: Pharmacist management of uncomplicated UTI is effective, safe, and patient satisfaction appears very high.

Pharmacist prescribing authority is expanding, while antimicrobial resistance is an increasing global concern. We sought to synthesize the evidence for antimicrobial prescribing by community pharmacists to identify opportunities to advance antimicrobial stewardship in this setting. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the existing literature on community pharmacist prescribing of systemic antimicrobials. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for English-language articles published between 1999 and June 20, 2019, as well as hand-searched reference lists of included articles and incorporated expert suggestions. Of 3793 articles identified, 14 met inclusion criteria. Pharmacists are most often prescribing for uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), acute pharyngitis and cold sores using independent and supplementary prescribing models. This was associated with high rates of clinical improvement (4 studies), low rates of retreatment and adverse effects (3 studies) and decreased health care utilization (7 studies). Patients were highly satisfied (8 studies) and accessed care sooner or more easily (7 studies). Seven studies incorporated antimicrobial stewardship into study design, and there was overlap between study outcomes and those relevant to outpatient antimicrobial stewardship. Pharmacist intervention reduced unnecessary prescribing for acute pharyngitis (2 studies) and increased the appropriateness of prescribing for UTI (3 studies). There is growing evidence to support the role of community pharmacists in antimicrobial prescribing. Future research should explore additional opportunities for pharmacist antimicrobial prescribing and ways to further integrate advanced antimicrobial stewardship strategies in the community setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2021;154:xx-xx.

Despite the convenience of once-daily dosing, the use of ceftriaxone for Staphylococcus aureus infections has significant limitations, including scarce clinical evidence and increasingly questionable pharmacodynamic activity. Our goal was to conduct an integrated pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic analysis of the appropriateness of ceftriaxone compared with cefazolin for treating serious MSSA infections. Ceftriaxone and cefazolin activity against five clinical MSSA isolates was characterized in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model. Monte Carlo simulations were then used to evaluate various dosing regimens of ceftriaxone and cefazolin based on relevant patient pharmacokinetic data, significant pharmacodynamic targets derived from the in vitro studies (55%ƒT_>MIC for bacteriostasis, 75%ƒT_>MIC for 1 log₁₀ bacterial kill, 100%ƒT_>MIC for ≥3 log₁₀ bacterial kill) and MIC distributions for MSSA from national surveillance data. Ceftriaxone at 1 g once daily had poor activity against MSSA with net bacterial growth predicted in 76% of simulated subjects. The standard 2 g of ceftriaxone once daily had predicted bacterial growth or bacteriostasis in 54% of cases with bactericidal effects in only 17%. Cefazolin at 2 g once daily was notably similar to ceftriaxone in expected target attainments. Cefazolin at 2 g twice daily demonstrated maximal pharmacodynamic activity with bactericidal effects in 97% of simulated subjects. Given the limited activity of ceftriaxone against S. aureus, particularly for serious infections when bacterial kill is desired, the convenience of once-daily dosing should be weighed against the risks of using an overly broad, suboptimal therapy. Cefazolin warrants further consideration, particularly as optimal pharmacodynamics against MSSA may be achieved with twice-daily dosing in most patients.