Methenamine use in recurrent urinary tract infection
BAUS ePoster online library. Healy R. 06/21/21; 319127; p8-9
Disclosure(s): No disclosures.
Ms. Rion Healy
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction:
Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) represents a significant burden to the national health service. 25-30% of women who have an initial UTI will go on to have recurrent infections which significantly impact their quality of life. This study aims to review the use of Methenamine, a urinary anti-septic and non-antibiotic treatment for recurrent UTI.
Patients and Methods:
All patients from a district general hospital prescribed Methenamine between January 2019 and June 2020 had their electronic records reviewed including clinic letters, urine culture and urinalysis results.
Results:
36 patients were included, 31 female and 5 male. E-coli was the most commonly cultured bacteria. 56% of patients had previously trialled low dose prophylactic antibiotics. Only 25% of patients had a recorded pH <5.5 prior to commencing Methenamine while 36% had no urinalysis result recorded. 47% have had no positive urine cultures since starting this treatment and 64% of the 28 patients who had been followed up in clinic by the time of this review claimed benefit.
Conclusion:
This study supports the current evidence that Methenamine may be beneficial in treatment of recurrent UTI. It offers a good alternative to long term antibiotic prophylaxis. However, understanding its mechanism of action and ensuring patients have acidic urine while taking Methenamine is essential to optimise its benefits.
Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) represents a significant burden to the national health service. 25-30% of women who have an initial UTI will go on to have recurrent infections which significantly impact their quality of life. This study aims to review the use of Methenamine, a urinary anti-septic and non-antibiotic treatment for recurrent UTI.
Patients and Methods:
All patients from a district general hospital prescribed Methenamine between January 2019 and June 2020 had their electronic records reviewed including clinic letters, urine culture and urinalysis results.
Results:
36 patients were included, 31 female and 5 male. E-coli was the most commonly cultured bacteria. 56% of patients had previously trialled low dose prophylactic antibiotics. Only 25% of patients had a recorded pH <5.5 prior to commencing Methenamine while 36% had no urinalysis result recorded. 47% have had no positive urine cultures since starting this treatment and 64% of the 28 patients who had been followed up in clinic by the time of this review claimed benefit.
Conclusion:
This study supports the current evidence that Methenamine may be beneficial in treatment of recurrent UTI. It offers a good alternative to long term antibiotic prophylaxis. However, understanding its mechanism of action and ensuring patients have acidic urine while taking Methenamine is essential to optimise its benefits.
Introduction:
Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) represents a significant burden to the national health service. 25-30% of women who have an initial UTI will go on to have recurrent infections which significantly impact their quality of life. This study aims to review the use of Methenamine, a urinary anti-septic and non-antibiotic treatment for recurrent UTI.
Patients and Methods:
All patients from a district general hospital prescribed Methenamine between January 2019 and June 2020 had their electronic records reviewed including clinic letters, urine culture and urinalysis results.
Results:
36 patients were included, 31 female and 5 male. E-coli was the most commonly cultured bacteria. 56% of patients had previously trialled low dose prophylactic antibiotics. Only 25% of patients had a recorded pH <5.5 prior to commencing Methenamine while 36% had no urinalysis result recorded. 47% have had no positive urine cultures since starting this treatment and 64% of the 28 patients who had been followed up in clinic by the time of this review claimed benefit.
Conclusion:
This study supports the current evidence that Methenamine may be beneficial in treatment of recurrent UTI. It offers a good alternative to long term antibiotic prophylaxis. However, understanding its mechanism of action and ensuring patients have acidic urine while taking Methenamine is essential to optimise its benefits.
Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) represents a significant burden to the national health service. 25-30% of women who have an initial UTI will go on to have recurrent infections which significantly impact their quality of life. This study aims to review the use of Methenamine, a urinary anti-septic and non-antibiotic treatment for recurrent UTI.
Patients and Methods:
All patients from a district general hospital prescribed Methenamine between January 2019 and June 2020 had their electronic records reviewed including clinic letters, urine culture and urinalysis results.
Results:
36 patients were included, 31 female and 5 male. E-coli was the most commonly cultured bacteria. 56% of patients had previously trialled low dose prophylactic antibiotics. Only 25% of patients had a recorded pH <5.5 prior to commencing Methenamine while 36% had no urinalysis result recorded. 47% have had no positive urine cultures since starting this treatment and 64% of the 28 patients who had been followed up in clinic by the time of this review claimed benefit.
Conclusion:
This study supports the current evidence that Methenamine may be beneficial in treatment of recurrent UTI. It offers a good alternative to long term antibiotic prophylaxis. However, understanding its mechanism of action and ensuring patients have acidic urine while taking Methenamine is essential to optimise its benefits.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}