Evidence Hub

"Effectiveness and tolerability of intravenous fosfomycin in treating complicated urinary tract infections caused by Escherichia coli: A prospective cohort study from the FOSFO-MIC Project".

Elisa Moreno-Mellado, A. T. Aslan, M. Akova, Eva León, Nicolás Merchante, D. Vinuesa, E. Moral-Escudero, S. Sadyrbaeva-Dolgova et al.

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 2025

7 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The FOSFO-MIC study assessed the clinical and microbiological effectiveness, and safety of intravenous fosfomycin in treating complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) caused by Escherichia coli, in comparison with other intravenous antimicrobials.

METHODS

A prospective, multinational matched-cohorts study involving adults with community-acquired cUTIs and receiving targeted therapy with intravenous fosfomycin or other first-line drugs (beta-lactams or fluoroquinolones) was conducted from November 2019 to May 2023 in 10 centres from Spain, Italy, and Türkiye. Matching criteria included healthcare-relation, Charlson and Pitt scores. Endpoints were clinical and microbiological cure, mortality, recurrence, and adverse effects. Analyses used conditional logistic regression and DOOR.

RESULTS

Overall, 155 matched pairs were included. Clinical and microbiological cure rates were 65.2% (101/155; 95% CI: 57.4-72.2) and to 63.2% (98/155; 95% CI:55.4-70.4) with fosfomycin and comparators, respectively (aOR: 1.09; 95% CI:0.68-1.73; p=0.73). Mortality rates were 1.9% (3/155; 95% CI:0.7-5.5) and 5.8% (9/155; 95% CI:3.1-10.7), respectively (p=0.11). Recurrence rates were 14.2% (22/155; 95% CI: 9.6-20.6) in the fosfomycin group versus 10.3% (16/155; 95% CI: 6.1-16.1) (p=0.39). Severe adverse effects occurred in 1.9% (3/155; 95% CI: 0.7-5.5) of patients treated with fosfomycin versus 0.6% (1/155; 95% CI: 0.0-3.3) in the control group (p=0.62). Non-severe adverse effects were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free