Cargando…
Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study
BACKGROUND: Fosfomycin is increasingly called upon for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) organisms causing urinary tract infection (UTI). We reviewed oral fosfomycin use for UTI treatment in a large UK hospital. The primary goal was to audit our clinical practice against current national g...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5057270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27729016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1 |
_version_ | 1782459034690912256 |
---|---|
author | Matthews, Philippa C. Barrett, Lucinda K. Warren, Stephanie Stoesser, Nicole Snelling, Mel Scarborough, Matthew Jones, Nicola |
author_facet | Matthews, Philippa C. Barrett, Lucinda K. Warren, Stephanie Stoesser, Nicole Snelling, Mel Scarborough, Matthew Jones, Nicola |
author_sort | Matthews, Philippa C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fosfomycin is increasingly called upon for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) organisms causing urinary tract infection (UTI). We reviewed oral fosfomycin use for UTI treatment in a large UK hospital. The primary goal was to audit our clinical practice against current national guidelines. Secondary aims were to identify factors associated with treatment failure, and to investigate the potential for using fosfomycin in patients with co-morbidities. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 75 adult patients with UTI who received 151 episodes of treatment with fosfomycin from March 2013 to June 2015. We collected clinical data from our electronic patient record, and microbiology data pre- and post- fosfomycin treatment. We recorded additional data for patients receiving prolonged courses in order to make a preliminary assessment of safety and efficacy. We also reviewed >18,000 urinary tract isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. processed by our laboratory over the final year of our study period to determine the prevalence of fosfomycin resistance. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in fosfomycin treatment episodes over the course of the study period. Co-morbidities were present in 71 % of patients. The majority had E. coli infection (69 %), of which 59 % were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producers. Klebsiella infections were more likely than E. coli to fail treatment, and more likely to be reported as fosfomycin resistant in cases of relapse following treatment. There were no adverse events in five patients treated with prolonged fosfomycin. Among all urinary isolates collected over a year, fosfomycin resistance was documented in 1 % of E. coli vs. 19 % of Klebsiella spp. (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We report an important role for oral fosfomycin for MDR UTI treatment in a UK hospital population, and based on the findings from this study, we present our own local guidelines for its use. We present preliminary data suggesting that fosfomycin is safe and effective for use in patients with complex comorbidities and over prolonged time periods, but may be less effective against Klebsiella than E. coli. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5057270 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50572702016-10-20 Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study Matthews, Philippa C. Barrett, Lucinda K. Warren, Stephanie Stoesser, Nicole Snelling, Mel Scarborough, Matthew Jones, Nicola BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Fosfomycin is increasingly called upon for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) organisms causing urinary tract infection (UTI). We reviewed oral fosfomycin use for UTI treatment in a large UK hospital. The primary goal was to audit our clinical practice against current national guidelines. Secondary aims were to identify factors associated with treatment failure, and to investigate the potential for using fosfomycin in patients with co-morbidities. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 75 adult patients with UTI who received 151 episodes of treatment with fosfomycin from March 2013 to June 2015. We collected clinical data from our electronic patient record, and microbiology data pre- and post- fosfomycin treatment. We recorded additional data for patients receiving prolonged courses in order to make a preliminary assessment of safety and efficacy. We also reviewed >18,000 urinary tract isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. processed by our laboratory over the final year of our study period to determine the prevalence of fosfomycin resistance. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in fosfomycin treatment episodes over the course of the study period. Co-morbidities were present in 71 % of patients. The majority had E. coli infection (69 %), of which 59 % were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producers. Klebsiella infections were more likely than E. coli to fail treatment, and more likely to be reported as fosfomycin resistant in cases of relapse following treatment. There were no adverse events in five patients treated with prolonged fosfomycin. Among all urinary isolates collected over a year, fosfomycin resistance was documented in 1 % of E. coli vs. 19 % of Klebsiella spp. (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We report an important role for oral fosfomycin for MDR UTI treatment in a UK hospital population, and based on the findings from this study, we present our own local guidelines for its use. We present preliminary data suggesting that fosfomycin is safe and effective for use in patients with complex comorbidities and over prolonged time periods, but may be less effective against Klebsiella than E. coli. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5057270/ /pubmed/27729016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Matthews, Philippa C. Barrett, Lucinda K. Warren, Stephanie Stoesser, Nicole Snelling, Mel Scarborough, Matthew Jones, Nicola Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title | Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full | Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title_short | Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
title_sort | oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5057270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27729016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matthewsphilippac oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT barrettlucindak oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT warrenstephanie oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT stoessernicole oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT snellingmel oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT scarboroughmatthew oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy AT jonesnicola oralfosfomycinfortreatmentofurinarytractinfectionaretrospectivecohortstudy |