Evidence Hub

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence of the Effectiveness and Safety of Immunoprophylaxis Using Sublingual Dead Whole Bacteria to Prevent Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections (rUTIs)

J. Medina-Polo, A. Arrébola-Pajares, Eva Falkensammer, Z. Tandoğdu

Antibiotics, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) remain a major clinical challenge, but sublingual immunoprophylaxis with inactivated whole bacteria is a promising alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual bacterial vaccines. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase (January 1979–August 2025) for English-language studies evaluating bacterial vaccines for rUTI prevention. Eligible studies included adults receiving sublingual immunoprophylaxis with heat-inactivated whole bacteria. Outcomes were UTI recurrence, infection-free interval, and adverse events. Both MV140 and autovaccines were assessed. Results: Of the 262 records identified, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (4 comparatives, including 1 randomized trial, and 10 observational studies). UTI incidence decreased from 3.2–6.8 to 0–1.5 episodes/year at 12 months. The proportion of UTI-free patients ranged from 9.8 to 90% with immunoprophylaxis versus 0 to 25% with antibiotics or placebo. At 12 months, UTI-free rates were 10–49% with autovaccines and 9.7–60% with MV140. Patients with ≥3 UTIs ranged from 14.3 to 60.2% and 20 to 56.1% with autovaccines and MV140, respectively. The RCT reported adverse events in 0–40.8% of treated patients and 50% of placebo patients, predominantly mild. Conclusions: Although the available evidence is heterogeneous and largely derived from observational studies,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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