Efficacy and safety of oral fosfomycin for asymptomatic bacteriuria in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a Spanish multicenter cohort.

Current guidelines recommend against systematic screening or treating asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) among kidney transplant (KT) recipients, although the evidence regarding episodes occurring early after transplantation or in the presence of anatomical abnormalities is inconclusive. Oral fosfomycin may constitute a good option for the treatment of post-transplant AB, particularly due to the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) uropathogens. Available clinical evidence supporting its use in this specific setting, however, remains scarce. We performed a retrospective study in 14 Spanish institutions from January 2005 to December 2017. Overall, 137 episodes of AB diagnosed in 133 KT recipients treated with oral fosfomycin (calcium and trometamol salts) with a test-of-cure urine culture within the first 30 days were included. Median time from transplantation to diagnosis was 3.1 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.1 - 10.5). Most episodes (96.4% [132/137]) were caused by gram-negative bacteria (GNB), and 56.9% (78/137) were categorized as MDR (extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales [20.4%] and carbapenem-resistant GNB [2.9%]). Rate of microbiological failure at month 1 was 40.1% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 31.9 - 48.9) for the whole cohort and 42.3% (95%CI: 31.2 - 54.0) for episodes due to MDR pathogens. Previous urinary tract infection (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42; 95%CI: 1.11 - 5.29; P-value = 0.027) and use of fosfomycin as salvage therapy (OR: 8.31; 95%CI: 1.67 - 41.35; P-value = 0.010) were predictors of microbiological failure. No severe treatment-related adverse event were detected. Oral fosfomycin appears to be a suitable and safe alternative for the treatment (if indicated) of AB after KT, including those episodes due to MDR uropathogens.

Oral fosfomycin for the treatment of lower urinary tract infections among kidney transplant recipients-Results of a Spanish multicenter cohort.

Oral fosfomycin may constitute an alternative for the treatment of lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), particularly in view of recent safety concerns with fluroquinolones. Specific data on the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin in KTR are scarce. We performed a retrospective study in 14 Spanish hospitals including KTRs treated with oral fosfomycin (calcium and trometamol salts) for posttransplant cystitis between January 2005 and December 2017. A total of 133 KTRs developed 143 episodes of cystitis. Most episodes (131 [91.6%]) were produced by gram-negative bacilli (GNB), and 78 (54.5%) were categorized as multidrug resistant (including extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [14%] or carbapenem-resistant GNB [3.5%]). A median daily dose of 1.5 g of fosfomycin (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.5-2) was administered for a median of 7 days (IQR: 3-10). Clinical cure (remission of UTI-attributable symptoms at the end of therapy) was achieved in 83.9% (120/143) episodes. Among those episodes with follow-up urine culture, microbiological cure at month 1 was achieved in 70.2% (59/84) episodes. Percutaneous nephrostomy was associated with a lower probability of clinical cure (adjusted odds ratio: 10.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.98-112.29; P = 0.052). In conclusion, fosfomycin is an effective orally available alternative for treating cystitis among KTRs.

Cytomegalovirus prevention strategies in seropositive kidney transplant recipients: an insight into current clinical practice.

There is notable heterogeneity in the implementation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) prevention practices among CMV-seropositive (R+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. In this prospective observational study, we included 387 CMV R+ KT recipients from 25 Spanish centers. Prevention strategies (antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy) were applied according to institutional protocols at each site. The impact on the 12-month incidence of CMV disease was assessed by Cox regression. Asymptomatic CMV infection, acute rejection, graft function, non-CMV infection, graft loss, and all-cause mortality were also analyzed (secondary outcomes). Models were adjusted for a propensity score (PS) analysis for receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Overall, 190 patients (49.1%) received preemptive therapy, 185 (47.8%) antiviral prophylaxis, and 12 (3.1%) no specific intervention. Twelve-month cumulative incidences of CMV disease and asymptomatic infection were 3.6% and 39.3%, respectively. Patients on prophylaxis had lower incidence of CMV disease [PS-adjusted HR (aHR): 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.79] and asymptomatic infection (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.72) than those managed preemptively, with no significant differences according to the duration of prophylaxis. All cases of CMV disease in the prophylaxis group occurred after prophylaxis discontinuation. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a lower occurrence of CMV disease in CMV R+ KT recipients, although such benefit should be balanced with the risk of late-onset disease.