Cover Image

Short versus long course antibiotic therapy for acute pyelonephritis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Franco Berti, Tiziana Marcella Attardo, Salva Piras, Letizia Tesei, Daniela Tirotta, Michela Tonani, Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Silvia Minozzi
  • Franco Berti
    Internal Medicine 2 Department, S. Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Roma, Italy |
  • Tiziana Marcella Attardo
    Internal Medicine Department, Hospital of Canicattì (AG), Italy
  • Salva Piras
    Internal Medicine Department, Civile Hospital, Alghero (SS), Italy
  • Letizia Tesei
    Internal Medicine Department, A.V. 2 Ancona, ASUR Marche, Italy
  • Daniela Tirotta
    Internal Medicine Department, Cervesi Hospital, AUSL Romagna, Italy
  • Michela Tonani
    Internal Medicine 2 Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
  • Greta Castellini
    Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milano; Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milano, Italy
  • Silvia Gianola
    Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milano; Center of Biostatistics for Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza (MB), Italy
  • Silvia Minozzi
    Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Roma, Italy


Acute pyelonephritis (aPN) is defined as a severe form of urinary tract infection. Despite its severity and the high incidence in the community setting, there is no consensus on the optimal duration of treatment. The aim was to compare effectiveness and tolerability of short- versus long-course treatment with the same antibiotic agent in patients with aPN. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Three pairs of authors independently extracted data and appraised risk of bias. We included 4 RCTs (439 participants). Short antibiotic treatment lasted from 4 to 14 days and long treatment from 7 to 42 days but was at least 2 days longer than the corresponding short-course. At the end of treatment, we did not find any significant differences in clinical success [risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.07, moderate quality evidence] as well as in microbiological success (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07, very low-quality evidence). At 4-6 weeks after the end of treatment there were no significant differences in clinical relapses (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.43-3.30, very low-quality evidence) and re-infection of other germs (RR 2.40; 95% CI, 0.68-8.49, very low-quality evidence), even if short-term therapy seemed to have more risk of recurrences (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.19-4.83, very low quality of evidence). The incidence of any adverse effect seemed to be lower with the short-term therapy, though the results are not statistically significant (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.02, low quality evidence). Short-term treatment for aPN seems to be equivalent to long-term treatment in terms of clinical and microbiological success at the end of treatment or tolerability. The only relevant difference is the frequency of recurrence of the same biological germ up to 4-6 weeks after the end of treatment, which is significantly higher with the short-term therapy.


Urinary tract infection; drug resistance; treatment outcome; safety; pyelonephritis.

Full Text:

Submitted: 2017-01-14 09:41:45
Published: 2018-03-20 17:25:08
Search for citations in Google Scholar
Related articles: Google Scholar
Abstract views:


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2018 Franco Berti, Tiziana Marcella Attardo, Salva Piras, Letizia Tesei, Daniela Tirotta, Michela Tonani, Greta Castellini, Silvia Gianola, Silvia Minozzi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185     •     Privacy