BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the comparative efficacy of fosfomycin vs ertapenem for outpatient treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving patients with cUTI treated with outpatient oral fosfomycin vs intravenous ertapenem at 3 public hospitals in Los Angeles County between January 2018 and September 2020. The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms 30 days after diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 322 patients with cUTI treated with fosfomycin (n = 110) or ertapenem (n = 212) meeting study criteria. The study arms had similar demographics, although patients treated with ertapenem more frequently had pyelonephritis or bacteremia while fosfomycin-treated patients had more retained catheters, nephrolithiasis, or urinary obstruction. Most infections were due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, 80%-90% of which were resistant to other oral options. Adjusted odds ratios for clinical success at 30 days, clinical success at last follow-up, and relapse were 1.21 (95% CI, 0.68-2.16), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46-1.52), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.52-1.70) for fosfomycin vs ertapenem, respectively. Patients treated with fosfomycin had significant reductions in length of hospital stay and length of antimicrobial therapy and fewer adverse events (1 vs 10). Fosfomycin outcomes were similar irrespective of duration of lead-in intravenous (IV) therapy or fosfomycin dosing interval (daily, every other day, every third day). CONCLUSIONS: These results would support the conduct of a randomized controlled trial to verify efficacy. In the meantime, they suggest that fosfomycin may be a reasonable stepdown from IV antibiotics for cUTI.
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the comparative efficacy of fosfomycin vs ertapenem for outpatient treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving patients with cUTI treated with outpatient oral fosfomycin vs intravenous ertapenem at 3 public hospitals in Los Angeles County between January 2018 and September 2020. The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms 30 days after diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 322 patients with cUTI treated with fosfomycin (n = 110) or ertapenem (n = 212) meeting study criteria. The study arms had similar demographics, although patients treated with ertapenem more frequently had pyelonephritis or bacteremia while fosfomycin-treated patients had more retained catheters, nephrolithiasis, or urinary obstruction. Most infections were due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, 80%-90% of which were resistant to other oral options. Adjusted odds ratios for clinical success at 30 days, clinical success at last follow-up, and relapse were 1.21 (95% CI, 0.68-2.16), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46-1.52), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.52-1.70) for fosfomycin vs ertapenem, respectively. Patients treated with fosfomycin had significant reductions in length of hospital stay and length of antimicrobial therapy and fewer adverse events (1 vs 10). Fosfomycin outcomes were similar irrespective of duration of lead-in intravenous (IV) therapy or fosfomycin dosing interval (daily, every other day, every third day). CONCLUSIONS: These results would support the conduct of a randomized controlled trial to verify efficacy. In the meantime, they suggest that fosfomycin may be a reasonable stepdown from IV antibiotics for cUTI.
Authors: Ho-Kwong Li; Ines Rombach; Rhea Zambellas; A Sarah Walker; Martin A McNally; Bridget L Atkins; Benjamin A Lipsky; Harriet C Hughes; Deepa Bose; Michelle Kümin; Claire Scarborough; Philippa C Matthews; Andrew J Brent; Jose Lomas; Roger Gundle; Mark Rogers; Adrian Taylor; Brian Angus; Ivor Byren; Anthony R Berendt; Simon Warren; Fiona E Fitzgerald; Damien J F Mack; Susan Hopkins; Jonathan Folb; Helen E Reynolds; Elinor Moore; Jocelyn Marshall; Neil Jenkins; Christopher E Moran; Andrew F Woodhouse; Samantha Stafford; R Andrew Seaton; Claire Vallance; Carolyn J Hemsley; Karen Bisnauthsing; Jonathan A T Sandoe; Ila Aggarwal; Simon C Ellis; Deborah J Bunn; Rebecca K Sutherland; Gavin Barlow; Cushla Cooper; Claudia Geue; Nicola McMeekin; Andrew H Briggs; Parham Sendi; Elham Khatamzas; Tri Wangrangsimakul; T H Nicholas Wong; Lucinda K Barrett; Abtin Alvand; C Fraser Old; Jennifer Bostock; John Paul; Graham Cooke; Guy E Thwaites; Philip Bejon; Matthew Scarborough Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Lindsay Grayson; Nenad Macesic; Janine Trevillyan; Andrew G Ellis; Phillip T Zeglinski; Nicholas H Hewitt; Bradley J Gardiner; Albert G Frauman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sibylle H Lob; Lindsay E Nicolle; Daryl J Hoban; Krystyna M Kazmierczak; Robert E Badal; Daniel F Sahm Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Matthew E Falagas; Evridiki K Vouloumanou; George Samonis; Konstantinos Z Vardakas Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Yohei Doi; Yoon Soo Park; Jesabel I Rivera; Jennifer M Adams-Haduch; Ameet Hingwe; Emilia M Sordillo; James S Lewis; Wanita J Howard; Laura E Johnson; Bruce Polsky; James H Jorgensen; Sandra S Richter; Kathleen A Shutt; David L Paterson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: M Amodio-Groton; A Madu; C N Madu; L L Briceland; M Seligman; P McMaster; M H Miller Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 3.154