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

Intravesical hyaluronic acid with chondroitin sulphate to prevent urinary tract infection after spinal cord injury

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE

Prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI) after spinal cord injury is an important goal. Intravesical hyaluronic acid with chondroitin sulphate (HA+CS) has been effective in preventing UTI in other settings. We aimed to demonstrate safety and feasibility of a standard treatment course of 7 intravesical HA+CS instillations over 12 weeks, in patients with acute (Arm A) and chronic (Arm B) spinal cord injury (SCI).

DESIGN

Follow-up of adverse events, quality of life bladder management difficulty (BMD) and bladder complication (BC) T-scores at baseline (Arm B only), 12 and 24 weeks, and symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI).

RESULTS

Of 33 and 14 individuals screened, 2 and 8 participants were recruited to the study for Arm A and Arm B respectively. Of the 10 participants, 8 completed all 7 instillations. HA+CS commonly caused cloudy urine with urinary sediment which was mild and short-lived. In Arm B, a mean reduction in BMD and BC T-scores was observed from baseline (57.3 and 54.4 respectively), of 6.8 and 4.3 at 12 weeks and 1.6 and 2.8 at 24 weeks, respectively. Four participants with a history of frequent UTI in the prior 12 months did not have UTI in the 24 weeks of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

HA+CS was well tolerated. Recruitment was more difficult in early acute SCI; participants with chronic SCI were highly motivated to reduce UTI and manage self-administration without difficulty. Larger case-control or randomized controlled trials in patients with neurogenic bladder from SCI are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03945110.

Treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in the first 2 months after kidney transplant: A controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the first 2 months postrenal transplantation (pRT) is very high. We evaluate the efficacy of asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) screening and treatment on the incidence of UTI in the first 2 months pRT METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled clinical trial. A urine culture was obtained in all patients on the day of the bladder catheter removal, on week three, and before removal of the ureteral catheter. The intervention group received treatment for AB. The control group did not receive treatment. The primary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of UTI and/or graft pyelonephritis and the time to the first episode of UTI and/or graft pyelonephritis RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized, 40 in each group, and the median follow-up was 63 days (IQR 54-70). The average age was 29.8 years and 33.7% (n = 27) were women. The incidences of UTI (n = 10, 25 % vs. n = 4, 10%, p = .07) and pyelonephritis (n = 6, 15% vs. n = 1, 2.5%, p = .04) were greater in the intervention group, as also shown in the survival analysis: UTI (HR2.8, 95% CI 0.8-9.1, p = .07) and pyelonephritis (HR 6.5, 95% CI 0.8-54.7, p = .08), respectively. The most commonly isolated bacterium was Escherichia coli (n = 28, 59.5%), and over half were E. coli with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (n = 15). A major limitation was not obtaining the calculated sample size due to a delay in patient recruitment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic CONCLUSION: Treatment of AB in the first 2 months pRT does not decrease the incidence of UTI or graft pyelonephritis and may actually increase their frequency. Routine treatment of AB during the first months after renal transplantation should not be a standard procedure.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria and urinary tract infections in kidney transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infection in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Several elements increase the risk of UTI and/or modify its clinical presentation among KTRs (e.g. immunosuppressive therapy, kidney allograft denervation, and use of urinary catheters). Also, KTRs may have UTIs because of difficult-to-identify and/or difficult-to-treat organisms. We provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding bacterial UTIs in KTRs, with a focus on recent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is accumulating evidence from clinical trials that screening for and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria is not beneficial in most KTRs (i.e. those who are ≥1-2 months posttransplant and do not have a urinary catheter). These patients have a point-prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria of only 3% and treating asymptomatic bacteriuria probably does not improve their outcomes. There is no clinical trial evidence to guide the management of symptomatic UTI in KTRs. Several important clinical questions remain unanswered, especially regarding the management of posttransplant pyelonephritis and the prevention of UTI in KTRs.

SUMMARY

Despite its frequency and associated morbidity, UTI after kidney transplantation is an understudied infection. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance and limited resources, further research is needed to ensure optimal use of antimicrobials in KTRs with UTI.

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in transplant patients

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) are a serious public health concern and represent a major threat to immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ (SOT) and stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Transplant patients are at particular risk of developing CPE colonization and/or infection due to their frequent exposure to prolonged courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, altered immunocompetence and exposure to invasive procedures and immunosuppressive drugs. Gut colonization with CPE, in particular carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, may occur before or after SOT in 2%-27% of patients and among 2%-9% of HSCT and has been associated with increased risk of developing CPE infections. In endemic areas, CPE infections occur in up to 18% of SOT, and HSCT patients can account for 5%-18% of all patients with CPE bacteraemia. Mortality rates up to 70% have been associated with CPE infections in both patient populations. The rapid initiation of an active therapy against CPE is advocated in these infections. Therapeutic options, however, are limited by the paucity of novel compounds that are currently available and by potential antibiotic-associated toxicities. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach involving infection control and antimicrobial stewardship programmes still represents the mainstay for the management of CPE infections among transplant patients. The evidence for the use of prevention strategies such as CPE-targeted perioperative prophylaxis or gut decolonization is still scarce. Large, multicentre trials are required to better define prevention strategies and to guide the management of CPE infections in the transplant setting.

Perioperative fosfomycin disodium prophylaxis against urinary tract infection in renal transplant recipients: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infectious complication in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Fosfomycin (FOS) is an attractive alternative for prophylaxis because it does not interact with immunosuppressants; although 90% is excreted unchanged in the urine, it does not require adjustment for renal function for single dose prophylaxis.

Methods

RTRs were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive one 4 g dose of FOS disodium intravenously 3 h (FOS group) or placebo (placebo group) before placement and removal of a urinary catheter and before removal of a double-J ureteral stent. All participants received prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The main outcome was a comparison of the mean number of symptomatic UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) episodes per patient during a 7-week follow-up period. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03235947.

Results

Eighty-two participants were included (41 in the FOS group and 41 in placebo group). The mean number of AB or symptomatic UTI episodes per patient was lower in the FOS group [intention-to-treat (ITT) 0.29 versus 0.60, P = 0.04]. The incidence of symptomatic UTI was lower in the FOS group (ITT, 7.3% versus 36.6%, P = 0.001), and there was no difference in the incidence of AB between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups.

Conclusions

FOS addition is an effective and safe strategy to reduce the number of symptomatic UTIs during the first 7 weeks after renal transplant.

Effect of Fosfomycin on Cyclosporine Nephrotoxicity

Fosfomycin (Fos) has emerged as a potential treatment against multidrug-resistant organisms, however, there has been little work done on its influence on calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity (CIN). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of Fos in combination with cyclosporine (CsA) on CIN. Two sets of experiments were undertaken. In the first, Wistar rats received different doses of Fos: 0, 62.5, 125, 250, and 500 mg/kg. In the second, rats were divided into four groups: control, CsA 15 mg/kg s.c., CsA + fosfomycin 62.5 mg/kg (CsA + LF), and CsA + Fos 500 mg/kg (CsA + HF). CsA was administrated daily for 14 days, whereas Fos administration started on the ninth day followed by two more doses, delivered 48 h apart. The administration of different Fos doses did not alter renal function. In contrast, CsA induced arteriolopathy, hypoperfusion, a reduction in the glomerular filtration rate, and downregulation of eNOS, angiotensinogen, and AT1R mRNA levels. Lower doses of Fos did not modify CIN. Instead, the CsA + HF group exhibited greater hypoperfusion, arteriolopathy, and oxidative stress, and increased mRNA levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines. This study shows that Fos administered by itself at different doses did not cause renal injury, but when it was given repeatedly at high dosages (500 mg/kg) in combination with CsA, it increased CIN through the promotion of greater oxidative stress and renal inflammation.

How to Treat Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections in the Kidney Transplant Recipients?

Patients with end-stage renal functions are treated with renal transplantation. After the transplantation, kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are at the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). UTI in KTR may be symptomatic and asymptomatic. Asymptomatic UTI is the presence of the organisms without any signs and symptoms. There are various ways suggested in the published research papers to deal with UTI in the KTR. The goal of this literature review is to explore how to treat symptomatic and asymptomatic UTI in KTR. A PubMed search was conducted to identify the studies explaining the methods used to deal with UTI in KTR. A total number of 2158 articles were found while searching for regular keywords; however, we found 996 articles with the medical subject heading (Mesh) keywords. After applying the inclusion/ exclusion criteria, 56 articles with the regular keywords search and 29 articles with the Mesh keywords search were selected. These articles included 24 randomized clinical trials, 16 clinical trials, 7 review articles, 5 case reports, 2 controlled clinical trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 cross-sectional study. Our analysis has shown that the early removal of the stent after the transplantation and the use of antibiotics are beneficial in reducing the incidence of symptomatic UTI in the KTR; whereas, treating asymptomatic UTI in KTR has not been proven helpful in reducing the incidence of developing symptomatic UTI later on.

Urinary tract infections in solid organ transplant recipients: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

These updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation review the diagnosis, prevention, and management of urinary tract infections (UTI) in solid organ transplantation, focusing on kidney transplant (KT) recipients. KT recipients have unique risk factors for UTI, including indwelling stents and surgical manipulation of the genitourinary tract. KT recipients experience multi-drug antibiotic-resistant infections-UTI prevention and management strategies must consider risks of antimicrobial resistance. Non-antimicrobial prevention strategies for UTI in KT recipients are reviewed. It is important to recognize that some renal transplant recipients with UTI may primarily present with fever, malaise, leukocytosis, or a non-specific sepsis syndrome without symptoms localized to the urinary tract. However, asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) must be distinguished from UTI because AB is not necessarily a disease state. Accumulating data indicate that there are no benefits of antibiotics for treatment of AB in KT recipients more than 2 months after post-transplant. Further research is needed on management of AB in the early (<2 months) post-transplant period, prophylaxis for UTI in this era of antibiotic resistance, recurrent UTI, non-antimicrobial prevention of UTI, and uropathogens identified in donor urine and/or preservative fluid cultures.