The Benefits and Harms of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Urinary Tract Infection in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of antibiotics in preventing urinary tract infection (UTI) in older adults is unknown. We sought to quantify the benefits and risks of antibiotic prophylaxis among older adults. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study comparing older adults (≥66 years) receiving antibiotic prophylaxis, defined as antibiotic treatment for ≥30 days starting within 30 days of a positive culture, with patients with positive urine cultures who received antibiotic treatment but did not receive prophylaxis. We matched each prophylaxis recipient to 10 nonrecipients based on organism, number of positive cultures, and propensity score. Outcomes included (1) emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization for UTI, sepsis, or bloodstream infection within 1 year; (2) acquisition of antibiotic resistance in urinary tract pathogens; and (3) antibiotic-related complications. RESULTS: Overall, 4.7% (151/3190) of UTI prophylaxis patients and 3.6% (n = 1092/30 542) of controls required an ED visit or hospitalization for UTI, sepsis, or bloodstream infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.57). Acquisition of antibiotic resistance to any urinary antibiotic (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.18-1.44) and to the specific prophylaxis agent (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.80-2.24) was higher in patients receiving prophylaxis. While the overall risk of antibiotic-related complications was similar between groups (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, .94-1.22), the risk of Clostridioidesdifficile and general medication adverse events was higher in prophylaxis recipients (HR [95% CI], 1.56 [1.05-2.23] and 1.62 [1.11-2.29], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults with UTI, the harms of long-term antibiotic prophylaxis may outweigh their benefits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".