Fosfomycin trometamol in the prophylaxis of post-kidney transplant urinary tract infection: A controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin trometamol (FOS) in urinary tract infection (UTI) prophylaxis during the first 6 months after renal transplant (RT). METHODS: The intervention group received 3 g of FOS PO every 10 days and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX, 160/800 mg) three times per week (Group 1), whereas the control group received TMP-SMX (160/800 mg) daily (Group 2). The outcomes were the time until the first UTI (symptomatic infection or asymptomatic bacteriuria (>105  CFU/mL)) and the incidence of UTI during the first 6 months post RT. Intermediate analysis was conducted after one-half of the estimated sample size of patients was enrolled. RESULTS: The recruitment of patients was stopped after the intermediate analysis due showed no emerging trends or reasonable chance of demonstrating benefit. Sixty-seven patients were included (32 in Group 1 and 35 in Group 2). The UTI incidence (40.6% vs 42.8%, P = 0.85) and time until the first episode were similar between the groups (log rank, P = 0.862). UTI due to Klebsiella spp. was observed in both groups at equal rates (25% vs 20%, P = 0.62), episodes due to Escherichia coli were less frequent in Group 1 (12.5% vs 34.2%, P = 0.04), and Enterococcus faecalis infection only occurred in Group 2 (n = 4). Resistance to FOS was observed for Klebsiella spp.; in contrast, E. coli and E. faecalis were susceptible. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of FOS to TMP-SMX was not beneficial for the prevention of UTI after RT in our setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01820897).

Endemic infusate contamination and related bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that in-use contamination of intravenous infusates is uncommon in hospitals with good standards of care. METHODS: We conducted a survey in a referral hospital in Mexico with good standards of care but no pharmacists to prepare intravenous infusates; we tested the a priori hypothesis that the contamination rate is zero. Using a sterile syringe, we took an initial infusate specimen at the time of recruitment, specimen 1, for culture. We took a second specimen, specimen 2, from administration sets that were maintained for 72 hours. Blood cultures were obtained at the discretion of the physicians caring for the patients. RESULTS: We cultured 1093 infusate specimens from 621 administration sets comprising 421 patients. We obtained a specimen 1 from each of the enrolled sets and a specimen 2 from 472 sets (76%). We analyzed 10 significant cultures and obtained a global infusate contamination rate of 0.9% (10/1093; 95% CI: 0.5%-1.7%). Two cases of infusate-related bacteremia occurred, establishing a global rate of 0.003/72 infusion hours. CONCLUSIONS: Even in institutions with good nursing standards, endemic in-use infusate contamination may be a present danger. We must avoid the use of intravenous therapy whenever possible.