Could sublingual vaccination be a viable option for the prevention of recurrent urinary tract infection in Canada? A systematic review of the current literature and plans for the future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review to examine the role of a novel sublingual vaccine - Uromune - for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI) to understand its potential role for Canadian women suffering from rUTI. METHODS: Databases were searched for studies published from 2010-2020 that investigated use of Uromune in the management of rUTI. Only original clinical studies that included use of Uromune as prophylaxis for uncomplicated rUTI in women that included UTI-free rate following initiation of vaccine as an outcome were included. RESULTS: Of 73 publications related to Uromune and UTIs, 19 unique clinical studies were identified evaluating Uromune for prevention of rUTI. Five studies met our inclusion criteria for primary review. These included 1408 women treated with Uromune. In two retrospective comparative studies, subjects treated with Uromune daily for three months (519 women in total) had significantly higher UTI-free rates (35-90%) than subjects treated with six months of antibiotic prophylaxis (0% in 499 women in total) over 15 months (p<0.001 for both studies). In three prospective, uncontrolled studies, UTI-free rates for subjects treated with Uromune ranged from 33-78% over 9-24 months. No major safety issues were identified in these trials. Additional unique studies evaluating Uromune for rUTI that did not meet our criteria added consistent confirmation of the potential effectiveness and safety of Uromune to prevent rUTI. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings require confirmation in currently active, prospective clinical studies, including a randomized placebo-controlled trial, Uromune may be an alternative to antibiotics to prevent rUTI in Canadian women.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".