Community-onset urinary tract infection in females in the context of COVID-19: a longitudinal population cohort study exploring case presentation, management, and outcomes

Background COVID-19 affected the epidemiology of other infectious diseases and how they were managed. Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common infections treated in the community in England. We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UTI primary care consultations and outcomes in female patients. Methods and findings We analysed General Practice (GP) consultation and hospital admission records using the Whole Systems Integrated Care (WSIC) data in North West London between 2016 and 2021. We quantified the changes in UTI GP consultation rates using time series analysis before and during the pandemic. We assessed the outcomes of UTI, measured by subsequent bacteraemia and sepsis within 60 days, for consultations delivered face-to-face or remotely, with or without diagnostic tests recommended by the national guidelines, and with or without antibiotic treatment. Between January 2016 and December 2021, we identified 375,859 UTI episodes in 233,450 female patients. Before the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2016 – February 2020), the UTI GP consultation rate stayed level at 522.8 cases per 100,000 population per month, with a seasonal pattern of peaking in October. Since COVID-19, (March 2020 – December 2021), monthly UTI GP consultations declined when COVID-19 cases surged and rose when COVID-19 case fell. During the pandemic, the UTI consultations delivered face-to-face reduced from 72.0% to 29.4%, the UTI consultations with appropriate diagnostic tests, including urine culture and urinalysis, reduced from 17.3% to 10.4%, and the UTI cases treated with antibiotics reduced from 52.0% to 47.8%. The likelihood of antibiotics being prescribed was not affected by whether the consultation was delivered face-to-face or remotely but associated with whether there was a diagnostic test. Regardless of whether the UTI consultation occurred before or during the pandemic, the absence of antibiotic treatment for UTI is associated with a 10-fold increase in the risk of having bacteraemia or sepsis within 60 days, though the patients who consulted GPs for UTI during the pandemic were older and more co-morbid. Across the study period (January 2016 – December 2021), nitrofurantoin remained the first-line antibiotic option for UTI. The percentage of non-prophylactic acute UTI antibiotic prescriptions with durations that exceeded the guideline recommendations was 58.7% before the pandemic, and 49.4% since. This led to 830,522 total excess days of treatment, account for 63.3% of all non-prophylactic acute antibiotics prescribed for UTI. Before the pandemic, excess antibiotic days of UTI drugs had been reducing consistently. However, this decline slowed down during the pandemic. Having a diagnostic test was associated with 0.6 less excess days of antibiotic treatment. Conclusions This analysis provides a comprehensive examination of management and outcomes of community-onset UTI in female patients, considering the changes in GP consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlighted the importance of appropriate urine testing to support UTI diagnosis in symptomatic patients and initiation of antibiotic treatment with appropriate course duration. Continued monitoring is required to assess the overall impact on patients and health systems from the changed landscape of primary care delivery. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This research was funded by 1) the World Health Organization (WHO), 2) the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance (HCAI & AMR) at Imperial College London in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (previously Public Health England (PHE)), in collaboration with, Imperial Healthcare Partners, University of Cambridge and University of Warwick, and 3) the Department of Health and Social Care, who funded Centre for Antimicrobial Optimisation (CAMO) at Imperial College London. AH is a NIHR Senior Investigator. PA is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London. RA acknowledges support from Wellcome Trust as the deputy chair of the Surveillance and Epidemiology of Drug-resistant Infections Consortium (SEDRIC). BH is grateful for the support of the NIHR under the Applied Health Research (ARC) programme for North West London. This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the WHO, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or the UK Health Security Agency. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was approved by the Imperial Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) COVID Research Committee, the COVID-19 NWL Data Prioritisation Group, and the Discover Research Advisory Group (DRAG), which jointly provides a governance mechanism. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors