Evaluation of perioperative prophylaxis with fosfomycin tromethamine in ureteroscopic stone removal: an investigator-driven prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study.

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine with other standard-of-care antibiotics in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. METHODS: This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients scheduled for ureteroscopic lithotripsy were randomly assigned to receive either fosfomycin (fosfomycin group, N = 101 patients) or standard-of-care antibiotic therapy as prophylaxis (control group, N = 115 patients). The incidence of infectious complications and adverse events was analyzed between the two groups, as well as the cost-benefit analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of infections following lithotripsy was 3.0% in the fosfomycin group and 6.1% in the control group (p > 0.05). Only asymptomatic bacteriuria was reported in fosfomycin group. In the control group was reported asymptomatic bacteriuria (3.5%), fever (0.9%), bacteremia (0.9%), and genitourinary infection (0.9%). The rate of adverse events was very low, with no adverse event reported in the fosfomycin group and only one in the control group (forearm phlebitis). The average cost per patient of antibiotic therapy with fosfomycin was 151.45 ± 8.62 yuan (22.7 ± 1.3 USD), significantly lower compared to the average cost per patient of antibiotics used in the control group 305.10 ± 245.95 yuan (45.7 ± 36.9 USD; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Two oral doses of 3 g fosfomycin tromethamine showed good efficacy and safety and low cost in perioperative prophylaxis of infections following ureteroscopic stone removal.

Single-dose treatment of acute cystitis with fosfomycin tromethamine.

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical pharmacology of fosfomycin tromethamine, a new antimicrobial agent for the treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (UTIs). DATA SOURCE: Publications in English on fosfomycin, fosfomycin tromethamine, and fosfomycin trometamol (MEDLINE, 1970-1997), as well as unpublished studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative, randomized, controlled studies were used to analyze the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin tromethamine. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fosfomycin tromethamine is an oral antimicrobial indicated for the treatment of uncomplicated lower UTIs. This agent is active in the urine against common uropathogens that are associated with cystitis in women, including organisms resistant to other antibiotics. A single dose of fosfomycin tromethamine is well absorbed and produces therapeutic concentrations in the urine for 2-4 days. Comparative clinical trials suggest that a single dose of fosfomycin tromethamine 3.0 g is as clinically effective as 7- to 10-day treatment regimens of standard agents used to treat UTIs, such as nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Fosfomycin tromethamine is well tolerated and appears safe to use during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Fosfomycin tromethamine is the only antimicrobial to be approved by the FDA for single-dose therapy in women with acute cystitis. It is as effective and safe as multidose comparators and appears safe to use during pregnancy. The acquisition cost of this new drug will need to be weighed against the improved compliance and convenience associated with its use in the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of single and multiple-dose antibiotic treatment of lower uncomplicated urinary tract infections.

This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatments of different durations for acute cystitis in non-pregnant females. Questionnaires were sent to 400 practitioners evenly distributed throughout Italy. Data are reported from 2,069 patients. The clinical bacteriological efficacy at 10-15 days was 86.4% for single-dose treatment with fosfomycin-trometamol (FT), and 81.8% for the multiple-dose antibiotics group (MDAG). Disappearance of symptoms occurred in 2.1 days with FT and 3.4 days with MDAG. With FT 93.8% of patients were free of adverse events and 86.9% with MDAG. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness indicators for cure rate and absence of adverse events showed that treatment costs were similar for all antibiotics. FT needed less time interval for symptoms to disappear with a slightly higher cost than for MDAG, which had a better cost/effectiveness ratio.