Short versus prolonged antibiotic treatment for complicated urinary tract infection after kidney transplantation.

There is no consensus regarding the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infection (UTI) following kidney transplantation (KT). We performed a retrospective study comparing short (6-10 days) versus prolonged (11-21 days) antibiotic therapy for complicated UTI among KT recipients. Univariate and inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) adjusted multivariate analysis for composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or readmissions within 30 days and relapsed UTI 180 days were performed. Overall, 214 KT recipients with complicated UTI were included; 115 short-course treatment (median 8, interquartile range [IQR] 6-9 days), 99 prolonged course (median 14, IQR 12-21 days). The composite outcome occurred in 33 (28.6%) in the short-course group and 30 (30%) in the prolonged-course group; relapsed UTI occurred in 19 (16.5%) vs. 21 (21%), respectively. Duration of antibiotic treatment was not associated with any of these outcomes. The only risk factor for mortality/readmissions in multivariate analysis was deceased donor. No differences between groups were demonstrated for length of hospital stay, rates of bacteraemia, resistance development, and serum creatinine at 30 and 90 days. In conclusion, we found no difference in clinical outcomes between KT recipients treated for complicated UTI with short-course antibiotic (6-10 days) versus longer course (11-21 days).

Representation of women in editorial boards of infectious disease and microbiology journals-cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether there is an association between the proportion of female editors-in-chief and members of editorial boards in infectious disease (ID) and microbiology journals. METHODS: Our cross-sectional observational study included ID or microbiology journals according to the 2019 Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. Journals' Q ranking, open-access status, and number and gender of editors-in-chief and editorial board members were collected from the journals' official websites. We conducted a binary gender assignment for each editor using names, pictures, and other online descriptors. Journals with over 100 editorial board members and those with over 25% of board members for whom we could not determine gender were excluded. Editorial teams with >50% women were considered women dominant. Univariate and multivariable analyses for female editor dominance were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 167 journals were included, with total 6057 editorial members, 1655 (27.3%) of whom were women. Of 214 editors-in-chief, 48 (22%) were women, and only 25% (40 of 162) of journals had female editor-in-chief dominance. Factors associated with female dominance in the editor-in-chief role in univariate analysis were higher quartile rank, higher impact factor, and open access. Open-access journals remined significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio (OR) 2.521; 95% CI, 1.140-5.576, p = 0.022). Larger editorial boards were less likely to have female dominance. Female editor-in-chief dominance was significantly associated with women-dominant editorial boards. DISCUSSION: ID and microbiology journals have significantly few women as editors-in-chief and editorial board members. Understanding the reasons for this inequality is required as an important step to confront and resolve it.