Intravenous fosfomycin-back to the future. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical literature

被引:132
作者
Grabein, B. [1 ]
Graninger, W. [2 ]
Rodriguez-Bano, Jesus [3 ,4 ]
Dinh, A. [5 ]
Liesenfeld, D. B. [6 ]
机构
[1] Munich Univ Hosp, Dept Clin Microbiol & Hosp Hyg, Munich, Germany
[2] Karl Landsteiner Soc, Inst Infectiol, Vienna, Austria
[3] Univ Sevilla IBIS, Dept Med, Unidad Clin Enfermedades Infecciosas Microbiol &, Hosp Univ Virgen Macarena & Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain
[4] Inst Salud Carlos III, Spanish Network Res Infect Dis, Madrid, Spain
[5] Versailles St Quentin Univ, R Poincare Univ Hosp, AP HP, Infect Dis Unit, Garches, Garches, France
[6] InfectoPharm Arzneimittel & Consilium GmbH, Von Humboldt Str 1, D-64646 Heppenheim, Germany
关键词
Clinical outcome; Fosfomycin; Intravenous; Meta-analysis; Multi drug resistance; Systematic review; RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS-AUREUS; CRITICALLY-ILL PATIENTS; IN-VITRO ACTIVITY; CEREBROSPINAL-FLUID; SEVERE INFECTIONS; ANTIBIOTIC-TREATMENT; COMBINATION THERAPY; MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT; PLUS FOSFOMYCIN; PENETRATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.cmi.2016.12.005
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the clinical evidence and usage patterns of intravenous fosfomycin from its development to the present time. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library and local journals were searched for relevant studies reporting aggregated data of intravenous fosfomycin use in adults and children, with no restrictions regarding study design. Single case reports were excluded. Data were systematically abstracted for all included studies. Clinical and microbiological efficacy from randomized controlled and comparative observational studies were synthesized using meta-analysis to calculate pooled effect sizes. Results: In all, 128 studies on intravenous fosfomycin in 5527 patients were evaluated. Fosfomycin was predominantly used for sepsis/bacteraemia, urinary tract, respiratory tract, bone and joint, and central nervous system infections. No difference in clinical (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.96-2.15) or microbiological (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.82-2.01) efficacy between fosfomycin and other antibiotics was observed in comparative trials. The pooled estimate for resistance development during fosfomycin monotherapy was 3.4% (95% CI 1.8%-5.1%). Fosfomycin showed a favourable safety profile, with generally mild adverse events not requiring discontinuation of treatment. Included studies explored intravenous fosfomycin as an antistaphylococcal agent in monotherapy and combination therapy, whereas studies from 1990 focused on combination therapy (fosfoymcin + beta-lactams or aminoglycosides) for challenging infections frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Conclusion: Intravenous fosfomycin can play a vital role in the antibiotic armamentarium, given its long history of effective and safe use. However, well-designed randomized controlled trials are still desired. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
引用
收藏
页码:363 / 372
页数:10
相关论文
共 103 条