Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) often lead to the overuse of empiric antibiotics, risking inappropriate treatment and contributing to antimicrobial resistance. This randomized, multi-center, investigator-blinded clinical trial is the first global head-to-head comparison of molecular diagnostic testing (Polymerase Chain Reaction : PCR) versus conventional culture and sensitivity (C&S) for managing cUTIs in adults.
Conducted across six U.S. clinical sites, the study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of PCR-guided treatment relative to C&S-guided care. Eligible adult patients were randomized 1:1 into two diagnostic arms-PCR or C&S-after providing informed consent. Urine samples were collected before randomization, tested by both methods, but clinicians remained blinded to the comparator results to avoid bias. Treatment decisions were based only on the assigned test results.
Urine was collected at baseline (Day 1) and at end-of-study (Day 28). Samples were processed centrally: the PCR method (DocLab UTM 2.0) detected 28 uropathogens and 16 antibiotic resistance gene classes; C&S testing quantified bacterial loads and assessed antimicrobial susceptibility using standard thresholds (≥10⁵ CFU/mL).
The primary endpoint was the number of patients in each arm achieving a Favorable Clinical Outcome (FCl) at Day 28, defined as either:
Secondary endpoints included:
Full description
Study Overview:
Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) remain a significant clinical challenge, often prompting empiric antibiotic use that may result in inappropriate therapy, antimicrobial overuse, and treatment failure. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of molecular diagnostics (PCR) versus Conventional culture and sensitivity (C&S) methods in managing cUTIs, with the goal of identifying more effective patient management strategies.
This was a randomized, parallel-group, investigator-blinded, multi-center clinical trial conducted across six sites in the United States. Adults meeting all inclusion and no exclusion criteria who provided informed consent were randomized 1:1 into two arms: PCR-guided therapy and C&S-guided therapy. Each participant provided a urine sample before randomization, which was tested using both PCR and C&S. However, treating investigators remained blinded to the comparator test results throughout the study to ensure unbiased clinical decision-making.
Study Protocol:
Urine specimens were collected using a clean-catch midstream method at two time points: Day 1 (baseline) and Day 28 (end of study, EOS). Samples were refrigerated at 2-8°C and processed at a central lab. All specimens were split for parallel testing using:
Blinding and Treatment Allocation:
Participants were treated based exclusively on the test result assigned by randomization (PCR or C&S). Comparator test results were withheld from clinicians until after the study concluded.
The primary endpoint was the number (and percentage) of subjects in each study arm with favorable clinical outcomes (FCl) at the EOS visit. The FCl was defined as a patient's clinical response, assessed by the treating investigator, indicating either clinical improvement or cure. Clinical improvement was defined as the resolution of at least one symptom of cUTI present at baseline, absence of new cUTI symptoms, and/or avoidance of parenteral antibiotic therapy following randomization. Clinical cure was defined as the complete resolution of all acute signs and symptoms of cUTI present at baseline, to the extent that no further antimicrobial therapy (either IV or oral) was required for the treatment of the cUTI.
The secondary endpoint included several assessments:
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
773 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal