Cefdinir vs cephalexin for the treatment of urinary tract infections: A retrospective evaluation.

PURPOSE: Cefdinir and cephalexin are cephalosporin antibiotics commonly used in the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Their efficacy depends on achieving sufficient time with concentrations exceeding the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Despite being frequently prescribed for UTIs, cefdinir has markedly lower urine penetration compared to cephalexin. It is possible that differences in pharmacokinetics could result in dissimilar efficacy between these agents; however, comparative studies of cephalosporins in UTIs are lacking. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study of patients discharged from emergency departments within a community health system with a diagnosis of acute cystitis who were prescribed cefdinir or cephalexin. Treatment failure rates at 7 and 14 days were compared between the 2 agents using a χ2 or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: There were no differences in overall treatment failure between the cefdinir and cephalexin groups. Treatment failure at 7 days occurred in 11.6% (n = 14) of patients in the cefdinir group and 8.3% (n = 10) of patients in the cephalexin group (P = 0.389). Treatment failure at 14 days was higher for cefdinir at 20.7% (n = 25) than for cephalexin at 11.8% (n = 14), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.053). There were no differences in the rate of treatment failure in subgroup analyses of uncomplicated or complicated UTIs. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that cefdinir and cephalexin have comparable efficacy for the treatment of lower UTIs. While there was a numerically higher rate of treatment failure with cefdinir, there were no significant differences in treatment failure between the agents.

Measurement of Pharmacist-Physician Collaborative Care on Therapeutic Inertia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Team-based care practice models have been shown to improve diabetes-related therapeutic inertia, yet the method and type of antidiabetic treatment intensification (TI) leading to improvements in glycemic control are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate time to TI in a pharmacist-physician practice model (PPM) as compared with usual medical care (UMC), explore the method and type of antidiabetic TI, and evaluate achievement of hemoglobin A1C (A1C) goal among each cohort. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. Median time to TI was calculated and compared between patients in the PPM and UMC groups using the log rank test. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the method and type of TI and A1C goal achievement. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients were included. The median (interquartile range) time to antidiabetic TI among the PPM cohort was 37.5 days (8, 216.5), as compared with 142 days (16, 465) in the UMC cohort (P = 0.19). At 1 year post-index date, 25% of patients in the PPM cohort reached their A1C goal compared with 18.8% of patients in the UMC cohort. This effect was maintained in the subgroup (n = 49) of patients receiving TI (23.1% vs 17.8%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A shorter time to TI and improvement in A1C goal achievement was observed with pharmacist-physician care compared with UMC. These findings suggest that pharmacist-physician care may be one of several interventions necessary to overcome therapeutic inertia in diabetes care.

Anticipatory guidance and systematic review of prescribing combination incretin therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clinicians may frequently encounter this drug therapy combination in practice and should be aware of clinical evidence and risks associated with its use. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Embase (1947-April 20, 2020), Medline - Ovid (1946-April 21, 2020), Medline - PubMed (1946-April 21, 2020), Cochrane Library CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (1991-April 20, 2020) and Web of Science (1900-April 17, 2020). Databases were searched using keywords and subject headings to identify studies assessing efficacy and safety of combination incretin therapy. The search identified 1255 studies. Of these, 383 were excluded for duplicate citations. Articles were then excluded based on title and abstract screen. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Six studies were included. A small reduction in haemoglobin A1c and weight loss was found by combining incretin therapy. Adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal upset and pancreatitis were infrequent. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: On current evidence, the small benefit in glycaemic control that may be realized by using combination incretin therapy is unlikely to be offset by the potential increased risk of pancreatitis or additional cost. Additional long-term prospectively designed studies are needed to better understand the efficacy and safety of combination incretin therapy.