Abstract
Background
We aimed to determine the noninferiority of fosfomycin compared to ciprofloxacin as an oral step-down treatment for Escherichia coli febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) in women.
Methods
This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 15 Dutch hospitals. Adult women who were receiving 2–5 days of empirical intravenous antimicrobials for E. coli fUTI were assigned to step-down treatment with once-daily 3g fosfomycin or twice-daily 0.5g ciprofloxacin for 10 days of total antibiotic treatment. For the primary end point, clinical cure at days 6–10 post-end of treatment (PET), a noninferiority margin of 10% was chosen. The trial was registered on Trialregister.nl (NTR6449).
Results
After enrollment of 97 patients between 2017 and 2020, the trial ended prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The primary end point was met in 36 of 48 patients (75.0%) assigned to fosfomycin and 30 of 46 patients (65.2%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (risk difference [RD], 9.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.8% to 28.0%). In patients assigned to fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin, microbiological cure at days 6–10 PET occurred in 29 of 37 (78.4%) and 33 of 35 (94.3%; RD, –16.2%; 95% CI: –32.7 to –0.0%). Any gastrointestinal adverse event was reported in 25 of 48 (52.1%) and 14 of 46 (30.4%) patients (RD, 20.8%; 95% CI: 1.6% to 40.0%), respectively.
Conclusions
Fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin as oral step-down treatment for fUTI caused by E. coli in women. Fosfomycin use is associated with more gastrointestinal events.
Clinical Trial Registration
Trial NL6275 (NTR6449).
Keywords: urinary tract infection, fosfomycin, Escherichia coli, antimicrobial resistance
Fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin regarding clinical cure as a targeted oral step-down treatment for Escherichia colifebrile urinary tract infections in women. Its use could prevent extended hospitalization in cases of resistance, intolerance, or allergies to existing step-down antibiotics.
Febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs), defined as UTIs with systemic symptoms, frequently occur in women and are predominantly caused by Escherichia coli [1]. Guidelines recommend treating fUTIs that require hospitalization with a 7- to 14-day course of antibiotics that usually consists of empiric intravenous (IV) treatment preferably followed by an oral step-down treatment targeted to the susceptibility pattern of the causal uropathogen [2, 3]. Optimal treatment of fUTIs is hampered by the increase in multiresistant gram-negative bacteria [1]. While new antibiotics are being developed for the IV treatment of fUTIs, the arsenal of oral antibiotics has remained stable for decades [4]. Based on antimicrobial resistance, 2%–5% of patients hospitalized for community-acquired fUTIs in the Netherlands cannot be treated with oral antibiotics [5, 6], with even higher rates of antimicrobial resistance in other parts of the world [7, 8], implying the need for prolonged IV antibiotic therapy and extended hospitalization [9–11].
Fosfomycin is a phosphoenolpyruvate analogue that is orally available as fosfomycin–trometamol. It is licensed for the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis in women, has a good safety profile [12], and has in vitro activity against E. coli. Despite its increased use, persisting low resistance rates are observed against fosfomycin, up to 2% [13]. In retrospective studies, fosfomycin appeared effective as a step-down treatment for fUTIs [14, 15]. Our objective in this randomized, controlled trial was to determine if fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin for the oral step-down treatment of fUTIs caused by E. coli in women.
METHODS
Study Design
A randomized, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, investigator-initiated trial was conducted to determine whether oral fosfomycin is noninferior to oral ciprofloxacin for achieving clinical cure in the step-down treatment of E. coli fUTIs in women. The protocol was published [16]. The University Medical Center Utrecht Institutional Review Board provided ethical approval. The study was performed in 15 Dutch hospitals: 4 academic centers and 11 large teaching hospitals. All respective institutional review boards approved the study. The manuscript was written according to the CONSORT checklist [17].
Participants
Eligible patients were competent women aged ≥18 years, hospitalized with a diagnosis of fUTI, with at least 1 urinary tract symptom and systemic symptoms or signs. Urine (≥104 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL) and/or blood cultures had to reveal E. coli susceptible to both ciprofloxacin (minimal inhibitory concentration [MIC]≤0.25mg/L) and fosfomycin (MIC≤32mg/L) according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility (EUCAST) criteria [18], as measured with automated panel tests (PHOENIX or VITEK), disc diffusion, or Etest. If blood and urine cultures both revealed E. coli, local symptoms were not required. Patients should have received appropriate empirical IV antibiotics for 2–5 days, consisting of second- or third-generation cephalosporin, amoxicillin ± clavulanic acid, an aminoglycoside, carbapenem, fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole, or a combination of these with in vitro susceptibility of the causative E. coli, according to EUCAST criteria, to at least 1 of the agents used [18]. Patients were judged to be eligible for an IV–oral switch on clinical judgment, according to the Dutch guideline that recommends switching therapy after 48–72 hours of intravenous antibiotic therapy [19]. A patient was excluded if urine culture (≥103 CFU/mL) or blood culture yielded non–E. coli pathogens. Patients with urinary catheters, placed ≥24 hours before admission, were excluded. Other eligibility criteria are listed in the protocol (Supplementary Material, Protocol S1).
Randomization and Masking
Because empirical antimicrobial treatment for fUTIs differed between hospitals, randomization was performed with stratification per hospital so that each hospital contained a blinded allocation list. Patients, physicians, local dispensing pharmacists, and investigators were blinded for treatment allocation.
Procedures
Baseline variables at admission and randomization were collected using participant questionnaires and from the electronic patient file (Supplemental Material, Protocol S1). Patients were assigned (1:1) to an IV–oral switch to fosfomycin–trometamol every 24 hours as a powder for solution, equivalent to 3g fosfomycin, or ciprofloxacin 0.5g every 12 hours as capsules. Patients received an identical placebo for both active substances to ensure blinding (double-dummy). The duration of antimicrobial treatment was set at 10 days that consisted of 2–5 days empirical IV treatment and the remaining 5–8 days oral study treatment.
Patients were asked to register the intake of study medication and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) in a paper diary. A physical appointment was planned 6–10 days after study treatment was finished to assess early end points and to collect urine; a telephone appointment at 30–35 days was set to assess late end points. At inclusion and during both follow-up meetings, structured questionnaires were obtained regarding urinary tract and systemic symptoms, antimicrobial use, health status, and healthcare consumption.
Outcomes
The primary end point was clinical cure at days 6–10 post-end of treatment (PET). Clinical cure was defined as being alive with reduction of all initial local and systemic fUTI-related symptoms, without the requirement of additional antibiotic therapy for UTI (except for antibiotic prophylaxis). In case of an indwelling catheter, local symptoms were not counted. According to this definition, patients who did not meet the criteria for early clinical cure could do so for late clinical cure and vice versa. Secondary end points included microbiological cure at days 6–10 PET and clinical cure, relapse, reinfection, no additional antibiotic therapy for presumed UTI, and AEs at days 30–35 PET. Microbiological cure was defined as a negative urine culture for E. coli (<103 CFU/mL) with an identical antibiotic resistance profile as the initially cultured E. coli. Microbiological cure was only established in patients who did not use additional antibiotic treatment. Definitions and criteria of all secondary end points are specified in the protocol (Supplementary Material, Protocol S1).
Statistical Analyses
The planned sample size of 240 patients, including 10% loss to follow-up, was based on an assumed cure rate of 92.5% and using a noninferiority margin of 10% difference in clinical cure, with a power of 80% and a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). All end points were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle with inclusion of patients who received at least 1 dose of the oral study drug. A per-protocol analysis was planned for the primary end point and the secondary end point “microbiological cure” for patients who completed at least 80% of the study medication. Risk differences between study arms (P<.05) were calculated with a 2-sided z score for proportions. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare means. Two interim analyses were planned by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to assess the safety after inclusion of 50 patients and to assess the safety and futility of the study after inclusion of 100 patients. Due to the limited final sample size, we decided to not perform exploratory multivariable analyses of associations between certain populations and the outcome.
RESULTS
The trial was halted on 1 July 2020 as a consequence of low enrollment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and discontinued on 26 October 2020 because of expiration of study medication and exhaustion of personnel and financial capacity. Based on the results of the DSMB interim analyses on 13 October 2020 with 97 randomized patients, there was no reason to stop the study prematurely for safety reasons or futility.
Between 11 November 2017 and 24 June 2020, 543 patients were screened for participation, of whom 177 were eligible and 97 provided informed consent. Of these, 48 patients were assigned to fosfomycin and 49 to ciprofloxacin (Figure 1). Three were not evaluable for early end points as they were withdrawn from the study directly on the day of initiation because of a renal abscess that required IV antibiotic therapy (n=1), failure to perform study procedures in a nursing home (n=1), and withdrawal of consent (n=1). Three patients were not evaluable for late end points due to loss to follow-up. Yet, the safety of these 6 patients could be assessed; at discontinuation of the study, all were alive without hospital readmissions.
Figure 1.
Trial profile for the FORECAST randomized, controlled trial. Abbreviations: FORECAST, FOsfomycin Randomised controlled trial for E. coli Complicated urinary tract infections as Alternative Stepdown Treatment; fUTI, febrile urinary tract infection.
At admission, the mean age of enrolled women was 59.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 20.2), the mean Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 7.3 (SD, 4.6), 9 patients (9.3%) had a nonresuscitative policy, and 50 (51.6%) had E. coli bacteremia. More patients assigned to fosfomycin had a history of diabetes mellitus, and more patients in the ciprofloxacin had a history of nephrolithiasis (Table 1). Patients who declined participation (n=80) had a mean age of 60.3 years (SD, 22.2), a mean CCI of 5.9 (SD, 5.5), a nonresuscitative policy in 2 (of 58 with nonmissing data, 3.4%), and 30 (37.5%) had E. coli bacteremia. Empirical antimicrobial treatment was given for a mean duration of 3.3 days (SD, 1.1), consisting of a second-generation cephalosporin (n=35), a third-generation cephalosporin (n=33), a second-generation cephalosporin with an aminoglycoside (n=15), a carbapenem (n=2), or another regimen (n=12), leaving a mean of 6.7 days (SD, 1.1) of oral study medication.
Table 1.
Characteristics of Enrolled Patients
| Characteristic | Fosfomycin (n=48) | Ciprofloxacin (n=49) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | |||
| Age, mean (SD), years | 58.9 (18.8) | 59.9 (21.7) | |
| Charlson comorbidity index (age adjusted), mean (SD) | 7.4 (4.7) | 7.2 (4.5) | |
| History of diabetes mellitus (%) | 17 (35.4) | 7 (14.3) | |
| History of anatomic abnormalities of the urinary tract (%) | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.0) | |
| History of nephrolithiasis (%) | 2 (4.2) | 6 (12.2) | |
| At admission | |||
| Days of urinary tract infection symptoms/signs, median (interquartile range) | 3.0 (1.0 to 5.3) | 3.00 (1.0 to 5.0) | |
| Urinary tract infection symptoms/signs | Fevera (%) | 33 (68.8) | 40 (81.6) |
| Rigors (%) | 39 (81.3) | 32 (65.3) | |
| Confusion (%) | 16 (33.3) | 18 (36.7) | |
| Hallucinations (%) | 9 (18.8) | 7 (14.3) | |
| Flank pain (%) | 26 (54.2) | 32 (65.3) | |
| Vital signsb | Temperature, mean (SD), °C | 39.0 (1.0) | 39.1 (1.0) |
| Pulse, mean (SD) | 105.7 (17.1) | 104.7 (19.1) | |
| Mean arterial pressure,c mean (SD), mm Hg | 79.4 (15.3) | 82.0 (15.8) | |
| Hemodynamic instability requiring intravenous fluidsd | 13 (27.7) | 13 (26.5) | |
| Laboratory valuesb | C-reactive protein, mean (SD), mg/L | 167.7 (137.4) | 169.2 (111.8) |
| White blood count 109/mL, mean (SD) | 14.2 (6.7) | 13.8 (5.3) | |
| Estimated glomerular filtration rate, mean (SD), mL/min | 83.2 (29.0) | 77.5 (35.2) | |
| Leucocyte esterase in urine (>25 µL) (%) | 46 (95.8) | 43 (87.8) | |
| Blood culture positive for Escherichia coli (%) | 25 (52.1) | 25 (51.0) | |
| Urine culture positive for E. coli (%) | 44 (91.7) | 47 (95.9) | |
| Hospital urology department (%) | 10 (20.8) | 14 (28.6) | |
| Internal medicine (%) | 34 (70.8) | 32 (65.3) | |
| Other (%) | 4 (8.3) | 3 (6.1) | |
| Of empirical treatment | |||
| Antibiotic class | Second-generation cephalosporin (%) | 18 (37.5) | 17 (34.7) |
| Third-generation cephalosporin (%) | 16 (33.3) | 17 (34.7) | |
| Second-generation cephalosporin with aminoglycoside (%) | 6 (12.5) | 9 (18.4) | |
| Carbapenem (%) | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.0) | |
| Other (%) | 6 (12.5) | 5 (10.2) | |
| Hours from presentation until antibiotic injection, mean (SD) | 3.0 (4.8) | 2.8 (4.4) | |
| Days of intravenous therapy, mean (SD, range) | 3.4 (1.1, 2.0 to 5.0) | 3.2 (1.1, 2.0 to 5.0) | |
| At randomization | |||
| Presumptive diagnosis | Urosepsis (%) | 24 (50.0) | 24 (49.0) |
| Acute pyelonephritis (%) | 18 (37.5) | 17 (34.7) | |
| Unspecified (%) | 6 (12.5) | 8 (16.3) | |
| Do not resuscitation policy | 5 (10.4) | 4 (8.2) | |
| Intensive care requiremente (%) | 2 (4.2) | 0 | |
| Indwelling cathetere (%) | 12 (25.0) | 15 (30.6) | |
| Vital signsf | Temperature, mean (SD), °C | 37.2 (0.6) | 37.0 (0.5) |
| Pulse, mean (SD) | 79.1 (12.3) | 78.1 (14.2) | |
| Mean arterial pressure,c mean (SD), mm Hg | 94.6 (12.2) | 98.0 (15.4) | |
| Laboratory valuesf | C-reactive protein in mg/L, mean (SD) | 121.7 (86.0) | 118.3 (66.0) |
| White blood count 109/mL, mean (SD) | 11.1 (4.8) | 10.4 (5.9) | |
| Creatinine, mean (SD), µmol/L | 95.6 (22.9) | 90.9 (27.2) | |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Reported by the patient.
Measured at admission.
Mean arterial pressure = (systolic blood pressure + 2 (diastolic blood pressure))/3.
Within 24 hours before or after admission.
At any moment during admission.
If measured within 24 hours before or after randomization.
At randomization, the presumptive diagnosis according to the treating physician was urosepsis in 48 patients (49.5%), acute pyelonephritis in 35 (36.1%), and unspecified fUTI in 14 (14.4%). In 27 (27.8%) patients, an indwelling catheter was placed at some point during admission. At the moment oral study medication started, patients were afebrile for a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 1–3).
The causative E. coli isolate was resistant against amoxicillin–clavulanic acid in 28 of 97 patients (28.9%), against sulfamethoxazole–trimethoprim in 21 of 97 patients (21.6%), and was extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae–producing in 6 of 97 patients (6.2%).
Sixty-six patients (70.2%) met the criteria for clinical cure, 36 of 48 (75.0%) assigned to fosfomycin and 30 of 46 (65.2%) assigned to ciprofloxacin, yielding a risk difference for clinical cure of 9.6% in favor of fosfomycin (95% CI:–8.8% to 28.0%). The lower bound of –8.8% is within the predefined noninferiority margin of 10% (Figure 2). In the per-protocol analysis, 64 of 81 (79.0%) met the criteria for clinical cure, 28 of 38 (73.7%) in the ciprofloxacin arm and 36 of 43 (83.7%) in the fosfomycin arm (risk difference [RD], 10.2%; 95% CI: –8.0 to 28.4). In a post hoc analysis of patients with E. coli bacteremia, clinical cure was found in 18 of 25 (72.0%) patients assigned to fosfomycin and 15 of 22 (68.2%) patients assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, 3.9%; 95% CI: –22.2 to 30.0).
Figure 2.
Noninferiority margin for the risk difference on early clinical cure between fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin. In the blue area, the risk difference is in favor of fosfomycin. In the yellow area, the risk difference is in favor of ciprofloxacin with a margin up to 10%. In the red area, the risk difference is in favor of ciprofloxacin with a margin beyond 10%. The 95% confidence interval remains within the blue and yellow area, indicating that fosfomycin is noninferior to ciprofloxacin with a margin of 10%.
Microbiological cure was met in 62 of 72 (86.1%) patients, 29 of 37 (78.4%) assigned to fosfomycin and 33 of 35 (94.3%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, –16.2%; 95% CI: –32.7% to –0.0%; Table 2). In the per-protocol analysis, microbiological cure was met in 29 of 37 (78.4%) and 32 of 34 (94.1%) patients (RD –15.9%, 95% CI: –32.5% to –0.7%), respectively. Four patients with microbiological failure had diabetes mellitus, all of them were assigned to fosfomycin. Three patients had an indwelling catheter, 2 in the fosfomycin arm and 1 in the ciprofloxacin arm; none of them met the criteria for microbiological failure. The detected isolates are listed in Supplementary Table 2. Additional antibiotic therapy for presumed UTIs was prescribed in 6 of 47 patients (12.8%) using fosfomycin and 7 of 44 patients (15.9%) using ciprofloxacin (RD, –3.4%; 95% CI: –18.6% to 11.9%). Other secondary end points are listed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Secondary End Points of the Intention-to-Treat Population
| Secondary End Point | Fosfomycin (n=48) | Ciprofloxacin (n=49) | Risk Difference (95% Confidence Interval/P Value) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6–10 days post-end of therapy | |||
| Microbiological cure | 29/37 (78.4%) | 33/35 (94.3%) | –16.2% (–32.7% to –0.0%) |
| 30–35 days post-end of therapy | |||
| Clinical cure | 35/47 (74.5%) | 33/44 (75.0%) | 0.4% (–18.4% to 17.6%) |
| Reinfection | 4/47 (8.5%) | 7/44 (15.9%) | –7.8% (–22.3% to 6.6%) |
| Relapse | 2/47 (4.3%) | 0/44 | 5.2% (–4.0% to 14.3%) |
| Additional antibiotic therapy for presumed urinary tract infection | 6/47 (12.8%) | 7/44 (15.9%) | –3.4% (–18.6% to 11.9%) |
| Length of hospital stay, mean (SD), days | 4.4 (1.2) | 5.4 (2.5) | P=.9156a |
| Hospital readmission (any cause) | 3/48 (6.3%) | 1/49 (2.0%) | 5.0% (–5.3% to 15.2%) |
| Absenteeism daysb mean (SD) | 3.0 (6.7) | 2.5 (7.0) | P=.5508c |
| Intensive care unit admissiona | 1/48 (2.1%) | 0/49 | 2.9% (–5.3% to 11.0%) |
| Mortality (any cause) | 2/48 (4.2%) | 0/49 | 5.4% (–3.3% to 14.0%) |
| Mortality (probably related) | 0/48 | 0/49 | NA |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
After randomization.
Number of days absent from paid or voluntary work.
Calculated using a Mann-Whitney test.
Sixty-seven of 94 (71.3%) patients reported 1 or more AEs, 35 of 48 patients (72.9%) assigned to fosfomycin and 32 of 46 (69.6%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, 3.3%; 95% CI: –15.0% to 21.6%). Probably-related AEs occurred in 25 of 48 (52.1%) patients assigned to fosfomycin and 20 of 46 (43.5%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, 8.3%; 95% CI: –11.6% to 28.1%). The nature, relatedness, duration, and severity of AEs are listed in Table 3. Most notably, gastrointestinal AEs were reported by 25 of 48 (52.1%) patients assigned to fosfomycin and 14 of 46 (30.4%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, 20.8%; 95% CI: 1.6% to 40.0%). Seven patients discontinued the study medication prematurely as a consequence of AEs, 3 of 48 (6.3%) assigned to fosfomycin and 4 of 46 (8.7%) assigned to ciprofloxacin (RD, –2.8%; 95% CI: –15.1% to 9.5%).
Table 3.
List of Adverse Events
| Adverse Event | Fosfomycin (n=48) | Ciprofloxacin (n=46) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of adverse events | 83 | 79 | |
| Mild symptomsa (score 1–5) | 33 | 35 | |
| Severe symptomsa (score 6–10) | 27 | 20 | |
| Duration, median (interquartile range), days | 3 (1–6) | 2 (1–4) | |
| Related | 44 | 39 | |
| Gastrointestinal | 42 | 19 | |
| Diarrhea | 22 | 4 | |
| Nausea | 9 | 6 | |
| Abdominal cramping | 7 | 2 | |
| Skin | 1 | 5 | |
| Increased vaginal discharge | 1 | 4 | |
| Neurological/mental | 11 | 8 | |
| Thoracic | 0 | 2 | |
| Other | 13 | 20 | |
| Change in smell or taste | 0 | 5 | |
| Patients without adverse events | 13 (27.1%) | 14 (30.4%) |
Severity is scored by the patient on a scale of 1 to 10 (not to be confused with a serious adverse event).
There were 8 serious AEs (SAEs) reported, 6 in patients assigned to fosfomycin and 2 in patients assigned to ciprofloxacin. Of these, 4 were considered to probably be related to the study medication, 3 after use of fosfomycin and 1 after use of ciprofloxacin. Two patients assigned to fosfomycin redeveloped fever under fosfomycin use that resolved after a switch to intravenous cefuroxime and amoxicillin, respectively. Two patients assigned to fosfomycin died during follow-up; the deaths were considered consequences of underlying diseases, not related to (failure of) study medication. Supplementary Table 3 provides a description of all SAEs.
DISCUSSION
In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, oral step-down treatment with fosfomycin after initial IV antibiotic treatment in women with E. coli fUTIs was noninferior to ciprofloxacin in achieving clinical cure 6–10 days after the end of treatment. The risk difference for clinical cure was 9.6% in favor of fosfomycin with a lower 95% confidence interval boundary of –8.8%, within the predefined 10% noninferiority margin. These results indicate that fosfomycin can be used for the step-down treatment of E. coli fUTIs in women, reducing the need for prolonged IV antibiotic regimens and hospitalizations for patients with E. coli that is resistant to other oral antibiotic options [9–11].
The clinical cure rate of 65.2% with ciprofloxacin was considerably lower than in previous studies, for which we provide the following explanations. First, we used a stringent definition for the primary end point to reflect the clinical goal of step-down treatment, that is, the reduction of initial urinary tract and systemic symptoms without additional systemic antibiotic therapy for UTIs. Previous studies used more pragmatic end points that mimic our secondary end point “no additional antibiotic therapy for presumed UTI” at days 30–35, which was met in 84.1% in the ciprofloxacin arm. Second, the population in our trial was sicker, as evidenced by the high bacteremia rate of 51% vs 8%–27% in previous trials [20–22].
The higher early clinical cure rate in the fosfomycin arm may be a consequence of the long half-life of fosfomycin in urine compared with ciprofloxacin, which could suppress local symptoms [23]. Microbiological cure 6–10 days after the end of treatment was lower for patients assigned to fosfomycin. Possibly, fosfomycin is less able to eliminate bacteria from the urinary tract. In a previous trial evaluating a single dose of 3g fosfomycin for E. coli uncomplicated cystitis in women, a microbiological cure rate of only 58% was observed [24]. Microbiological failures may have been a consequence of diabetes mellitus, which is associated with a 2- to 3-fold higher prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria [25]. Four of 10 patients with microbiological failure had diabetes mellitus, all of them assigned to fosfomycin. Only 2 of 10 patients with microbiological failure, both assigned to fosfomycin, had symptoms that required antimicrobial treatment.
Two patients redeveloped fever under the use of fosfomycin, which resolved after the switch to intravenous cefuroxime and amoxicillin, respectively. These failures may be attributable to the relatively low fosfomycin plasma levels that are reached after the oral use of 3g fosfomycin. It is unclear to what extent plasma and/or urine levels are decisive for efficacy in the step-down treatment of fUTIs. Higher oral doses up to 6–12g per day are expected to be needed for the empiric treatment of systemic infections [26, 27]. We decided to dose fosfomycin at 3g every 24 hours because we anticipated that higher doses would not be tolerated [27]. We considered this dose to be safe, bearing in mind that fosfomycin is prescribed intravenously in doses up to 24g per day [28]. Noninferiority of fosfomycin to ciprofloxacin suggests that either the achievement of high concentrations in urine is sufficient or that the added value of step-down treatment for fUTIs is questionable. However, according to current standards, the 3.3 days of intravenous antibiotic treatment in our trial is too short for treatment of fUTIs, justifying an oral step-down treatment [2, 3].
Fosfomycin was more frequently associated with gastrointestinal AEs than ciprofloxacin, most notably diarrhea. Yet, this did not result in more frequent discontinuation of fosfomycin. In another study, healthy patients less frequently experienced diarrhea when fosfomycin (3g) was dosed every 48 hours instead of every 24 hours [27]. It remains to be determined if fosfomycin every 48 hours is also efficacious for this indication [29].
The strengths of this study are the double-blind design with the use of a double-dummy placebo, which diminishes the risk of information bias. Second, the high percentage of patients with bacteremia illustrates that patients were seriously ill with an evident indication for IV and oral step-down antimicrobial treatment. Third, AEs were queried with a diary, which provided a complete picture of the safety and tolerability of multidose fosfomycin. Last, the research was conducted in hospitals of various sizes, both academic and regional hospitals, and the variety of patients and empirical antibiotic regimens was large, which benefits the generalizability.
This study has some limitations. First, the study was terminated before the planned sample size was reached. Yet, noninferiority of fosfomycin for the primary end point was demonstrated so that the results support the use of fosfomycin for this indication. Continuation of the trial until the planned sample size would have provided more precision for the secondary end points. Second, the current study was performed in settings with low levels of antibiotic resistance, and practices in other countries may differ in the broadness of empirical antibiotic treatment, duration on IV treatment, and IV–oral switch. Nevertheless, eligibility was conditional on susceptibility to both fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin. Therefore, we consider our findings, that is, noninferiority of fosfomycin to ciprofloxacin as oral step-down treatment, valid in such settings for fosfomycin-susceptible isolates. Third, for feasibility and safety reasons, we used a treatment duration of 10 days for all patients, even though 7 days of ciprofloxacin has been demonstrated to be sufficient for treatment of acute pyelonephritis and gram-negative bacteremia [22, 30, 31]. Last, implementation of fosfomycin use for step-down treatment requires reliable susceptibility testing. The MIC of E. coli to fosfomycin, as measured with automated panel tests, seems to correlate poorly with clinical and microbiological efficacy of fosfomycin for the empirical treatment of cystitis [24]. Future improvements in routine fosfomycin susceptibility testing possibly affect the targeted use of fosfomycin, although theoretically it would lead to a higher of fosfomycin efficacy.
In conclusion, this trial demonstrates that fosfomycin 3g every 24 hours as targeted step-down treatment for E. coli fUTIs in women is noninferior to ciprofloxacin with regard to clinical cure. Fosfomycin is an additional oral antibiotic option for this indication, especially in cases of resistance, intolerance, or allergies to existing options.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Consisting of data provided by the authors to benefit the reader, the posted materials are not copyedited and are the sole responsibility of the authors, so questions or comments should be addressed to the corresponding author.
Notes
The FOsfomycin Randomised controlled trial for E .coli Complicated urinary tract infections as Alternative Stepdown Treatment (FORECAST) study team consists of Thijs ten Doesschate1 2, Andy. I.M. Hoepelman1, Cornelis. H. van Werkhoven2, Marc J.M. Bonten2, Cees van Nieuwkoop3, Sander Kuiper3 5, Marleen M. van Dijk4, Janneke E. Stalenhoef5, Linda Smid5 Robert-Jan Hassing6, Tom Ketels6, Yvonne den Ouden-van der Thiel7, Elisabeth H. Gisolf6, Suzan P. van Mens8, Wouter van den Bijllaardt9 10, Akke K. van der Bij11, Tanja Voogt-Vrijhoef11, Suzanne E. Geerlings12, Thomas W. van der Vaart12, Ad Koster13, Evert L. Koldewijn14, Mandy Hobijn14, Maartje Van ‘t Hof14, Judith Branger15, Aafke S. Cents-Bosma15, Arend-Jan Meinders16, Steven van Lelyveld17, Kelly D. Hendriks18
1University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Infectious Diseases, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Julius Centre for health sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 3Haga Teaching Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, The Hague, the Netherlands, 4Haga Teaching Hospital, Department of Urology, The Hague, the Netherlands, 5Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden, the Netherlands, 6Rijnstate hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Arnhem, the Netherlands, 7Rijnstate hospital, Department of Medical Microbiology, Arnhem, the Netherlands, 8Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 9Amphia Hospital, Microvida Laboratory for Microbiology, Breda, the Netherlands, 10Amphia Hospital, Department of Infection Control, Breda, the Netherlands, 11Diakonessenhuis, Department of Medical Microbiology, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 12University of Amsterdam, Department of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 13Viecuri Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Venlo, the Netherlands, 14Catharina Hospital, Department of Urology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 15Flevohospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Almere, the Netherlands, 16St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, 17Spaarne Gasthuis, Department of Internal Medicine, Haarlem, the Netherlands, and 18Tergooi Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Hilversum, the Netherlands
Author contributions. T. D., C. N., M. B., S. G., S. M., and A. H. constructed the design of the study. H. W. and T. D. performed the statistical analysis. T. D. wrote the first draft of the report with input from M. B. and S. K. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. T. D. and H. W. have accessed and verified the data.
Acknowledgments. We are grateful to all patients and their relatives for their participation in this study. We thank the physicians, nurses, medical microbiologists, pharmacists, secretaries, and assistants at all participating sites for their cooperation. We thank Miquel van Ekkelenkamp and Joost Wiersinga for their role as independent expert physicians and Judith Vlooswijk for her microbiological expertise. This study was conducted in memory of Johan Mouton for his pharmacokinetic expertise regarding the use of fosfomycin.
Disclaimer. This was an investigator-initiated study, sponsored by the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The authors declare that there are no other sources of funding.
Data sharing. The study protocol was published before the execution of the study in the Supplement. The questionnaire (in Dutch) providing demographic data, comorbidity, urinary tract symptoms and signs at baseline, and follow-up is available in the Supplementary Material. The statistical analyses plan is available on request to the corresponding author. Deidentified individual patient data will remain available exclusively for study team members.
Others. Ethics approval and consent to participate was provided by the medical ethics committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht approved the study protocol, followed by the Institutional Scientific Boards of the following Dutch participating centers:
Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam
Amphia hospital, Breda
St. Antonius hospital, Nieuwegein
Diakonessenhuis hospital, Utrecht
St. Catharina hospital, Eindhoven
Flevohospital, Almere
Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague
Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague
Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden
Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht
Rijnstate hospital, Arnhem
Spaarne Gasthuis, Harlem
Tergooi hospital, Hilversum
University Medical Centre, Utrecht
Viecuri Medical Centre, North-Limburg
Contributor Information
Thijs ten Doesschate, Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sander Kuiper, Department of Internal Medicine, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands; Department of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Cees van Nieuwkoop, Department of Internal Medicine, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Robert Jan Hassing, Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Tom Ketels, Department of Internal Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Suzan P van Mens, Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Wouter van den Bijllaardt, Microvida Laboratory for Microbiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
Akke K van der Bij, Department of Medical Microbiology, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Suzanne E Geerlings, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ad Koster, Department of Internal Medicine, Viecuri Medical Center, Venlo, The Netherlands.
Evert L Koldewijn, Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlandsand.
Judith Branger, Department of Internal Medicine, Flevohospital, Almere, The Netherlands.
Andy I M Hoepelman, Department of Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis H van Werkhoven, Department of Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc J M Bonten, Department of Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
FORECAST Study Team:
Thijs ten Doesschate, Andy I M Hoepelman, Cornelis H van Werkhoven, Marc J M Bonten, Cees van Nieuwkoop, Sander Kuiper, Marleen M van Dijk, Janneke E Stalenhoef, Linda Smid, Robert Jan Hassing, Tom Ketels, Yvonne den Ouden-van der Thiel, Elisabeth H Gisolf, Suzan P van Mens, Wouter van den Bijllaardt, Akke K van der Bij, Tanja Voogt-Vrijhoef, Suzanne E Geerlings, Thomas W van der Vaart, Ad Koster, Evert L Koldewijn, Mandy Hobijn, Maartje Van ‘t Hof, Judith Branger, Aafke S Cents-Bosma, Arend Jan Meinders, Steven van Lelyveld, and Kelly D Hendriks
References
- 1. Flores-Mireles AL, Walker JN, Caparon M, Hultgren SJ.. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nat Rev Microbiol 2015; 13:269–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, et al. ; Infectious Diseases Society of America, European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. . International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52:e103–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Terpstra ML, Geerlings SE, Nieuwkoop C, Haarst EP.. Swab guidelines for antimicrobial therapy of urinary tract infections in adults. 2020. Available at: https://swab.nl/nl/gecompliceerde-urineweginfecties. Accessed 30 August 2021.
- 4. Ten Doesschate T, van der Vaart TW, Damen JAA, Bonten MJM, van Werkhoven CH.. Carbapenem-alternative strategies for complicated urinary tract infections: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Infect 2020; 81:499–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. de Greeff SC, Mouton JW, Schoffelen AF, Verduin CM.. NethMap 2019: consumption of antimicrobial agents and antimicrobial resistance among medically important bacteria in the Netherland in 2018. 2019. Available at: https://swab.nl/en/abstract-nethmap-2019. Accessed 9 July 2021.
- 6. van der Starre WE, van Nieuwkoop C, Paltansing S, et al. Risk factors for fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli in adults with community-onset febrile urinary tract infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011; 66:650–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Critchley IA, Cotroneo N, Pucci MJ, Mendes R.. The burden of antimicrobial resistance among urinary tract isolates of Escherichia coli in the United States in 2017. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0220265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Critchley IA, Cotroneo N, Pucci MJ, Jain A, Mendes RE.. Resistance among urinary tract pathogens collected in Europe during 2018. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2020; 23:439–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Simmering JE, Tang F, Cavanaugh JE, Polgreen LA, Polgreen PM.. The increase in hospitalizations for urinary tract infections and the associated costs in the United States, 1998–2011. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017; 4:ofw281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Shaw E, Addy I, Stoddart M, et al. ; COMBACTE-MAGNET Consortium. . Retrospective observational study to assess the clinical management and outcomes of hospitalised patients with complicated urinary tract infection in countries with high prevalence of multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria (RESCUING). BMJ Open 2016; 6:e011500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Vallejo-Torres L, Pujol M, Shaw E, et al. ; RESCUING Study Group and Study Sites. . Cost of hospitalised patients due to complicated urinary tract infections: a retrospective observational study in countries with high prevalence of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria: the COMBACTE-MAGNET, RESCUING study. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e020251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Iarikov D, Wassel R, Farley J, Nambiar S.. Adverse events associated with fosfomycin use: review of the literature and analyses of the FDA adverse event reporting system database. Infect Dis Ther 2015; 4:433–58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Falagas ME, Athanasaki F, Voulgaris GL, Triarides NA, Vardakas KZ.. Resistance to fosfomycin: mechanisms, frequency and clinical consequences. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Veve MP, Wagner JL, Kenney RM, Grunwald JL, Davis SL.. Comparison of fosfomycin to ertapenem for outpatient or step-down therapy of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2016; 48:56–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Hatlen TJ, Flor R, Nguyen MH, Lee GH, Miller LG.. Oral fosfomycin use for pyelonephritis and complicated urinary tract infections: a 1 year review of outcomes and prescribing habits in a large municipal healthcare system. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75:1993–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Doesschate TT, van Mens SP, van Nieuwkoop C, Geerlings SE, Hoepelman AIM, Bonten MJM.. Oral fosfomycin versus ciprofloxacin in women with E. coli febrile urinary tract infection, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled non-inferiority trial (FORECAST). BMC Infect Dis 2018; 2:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Barbour V, Bhui K, Chescheir N, et al. CONSORT statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med 2017. doi: 10.7326/M17-0046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. EUCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters, version 10.0, 2020. 2020. Available at https://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/. Accessed 9 August 2021.
- 19. SWAB. SWAB guidelines for antibacterial therapy of adult patients with sepsis. Sticht Werkgr Antibiot 2010; 49. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Wagenlehner FM, Umeh O, Steenbergen J, Yuan G, Darouiche RO.. Ceftolozane-tazobactam compared with levofloxacin in the treatment of complicated urinary-tract infections, including pyelonephritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cUTI). Lancet 2015; 385:1949–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Sandberg T, Skoog G, Hermansson AB, et al. Ciprofloxacin for 7 days versus 14 days in women with acute pyelonephritis: a randomised, open-label and double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2012; 380:484–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. van Nieuwkoop C, van der Starre WE, Stalenhoef JE, et al. Treatment duration of febrile urinary tract infection: a pragmatic randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial in men and women. BMC Med 2017; 15:70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Wijma RA, Koch BCP, van Gelder T, Mouton JW.. High interindividual variability in urinary fosfomycin concentrations in healthy female volunteers. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018; 24:528–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Huttner A, Kowalczyk A, Turjeman A, et al. Effect of 5-day nitrofurantoin vs single-dose fosfomycin on clinical resolution of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection in women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 319:1781–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Cai T, Mazzoli S, Mondaini N, et al. The role of asymptomatic bacteriuria in young women with recurrent urinary tract infections: to treat or not to treat? Clin Infect Dis 2012; 55:771–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Ortiz Zacarías NV, Dijkmans AC, Burggraaf J, et al. Fosfomycin as a potential therapy for the treatment of systemic infections: a population pharmacokinetic model to simulate multiple dosing regimens. Pharmacol Res Perspect 2018. doi: 10.1002/prp2.378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Wenzler E, Bleasdale SC, Sikka M, et al. Phase I study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of two dosing regimens of oral fosfomycin tromethamine in healthy adult participants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00464-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kaye KS, Rice LB, Dane AL, et al. Fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection including acute pyelonephritis: ZEUS, a phase 2/3 randomized trial. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 69:2045–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Rosso-Fernández C, Sojo-Dorado J, Barriga A, et al. Fosfomycin versus meropenem in bacteraemic urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (FOREST): study protocol for an investigator-driven randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e007363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. von Dach E, Albrich WC, Brunel AS, et al. Effect of C-reactive protein-guided antibiotic treatment duration, 7-day treatment, or 14-day treatment on 30-day clinical failure rate in patients with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 323:2160–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Yahav D, Franceschini E, Koppel F, et al. Seven versus 14 days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 69:1091–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.