Advertisement

Infection

pp 1–8 | Cite as

Pregnancy outcome after first-trimester exposure to fosfomycin for the treatment of urinary tract infection: an observational cohort study

  • Wayan Philipps
  • Anne-Katrin Fietz
  • Katja Meixner
  • Tobias Bluhmki
  • Reinhard Meister
  • Christof Schaefer
  • Stephanie PadbergEmail author
Original Paper
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The primary aim of our study was to assess pregnancy outcome after first-trimester exposure to fosfomycin.

Methods

We performed an observational cohort study analysing prospectively ascertained pregnancies including 152 women exposed to fosfomycin in the first trimester of pregnancy in comparison with a randomly selected cohort comprising 456 pregnancies not exposed to fosfomycin. All pregnancies were identified through risk consultations using structured questionnaires between January 2000 and December 2016 by the German Embryotox pharmacovigilance institute in Berlin. Primary objectives were the risks of major birth defects and spontaneous abortion.

Results

Only 1 out of 146 exposed infants was affected by a major birth defect (0.7%, 95% CI 0.04–4.33%) in comparison to 15/399 in the non-exposed cohort (3.8%, 95% CI 2.2–6.26%). Spontaneous abortions were observed in 5/152 cases in the fosfomycin cohort vs. 53/456 cases in the comparison cohort (cumulative incidence 6.2% vs. 23.1%; HR adjusted 0.35, 95% CI 0.14–0.90).

Conclusion

This is the first study specifically examining the teratogenic risk of fosfomycin. The study results do not indicate an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome after fosfomycin exposure during early pregnancy. However, larger studies are needed to confirm the safety of fosfomycin during the first trimester.

Keywords

Fosfomycin Pregnancy Urinary tract infection Birth defects Spontaneous abortion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Regina Stegherr for her valuable statistical advice and support throughout the statistical analysis. We especially thank all patients and medical health care professionals for reporting pregnancies to our institute and our colleagues from the German Embryotox pharmacovigilance institute for diligent counseling and documenting cases.

Author contributions

The study was designed by WP (with contribution from SP, CS, AKF, TB and RM). KM acted as study assistant who was responsible for the observance of documentation standards. AKF, TB and RM analyzed the data. All the authors were involved in the interpretation of the data. WP drafted the article and all the authors participated in the revision and have approved the final version.

Funding

This work was partially funded by the Grants BE 4500/3-1, ME 910/2-1 and SCHA 1749/3-1 of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA4/119/17) and registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013159).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Szweda H, Jozwik M. Urinary tract infections during pregnancy—an updated overview. Dev Period Med. 2016;20:263–72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalinderi K, Delkos D, Kalinderis M, Athanasiadis A, Kalogiannidis I. Urinary tract infection during pregnancy: current concepts on a common multifaceted problem. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38:448–53.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1370579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le J, Briggs GG, McKeown A, Bustillo G. Urinary tract infections during pregnancy. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1692–701.  https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1D630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mittal P, Wing DA. Urinary tract infections in pregnancy. Clin Perinatol. 2005;32:749–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2005.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glaser AP, Schaeffer AJ. Urinary tract infection and bacteriuria in pregnancy. Urol Clin N Am. 2015;42:547–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kranz J, Helbig S, Mandraka F, Schmidt S, Naber KG. The revival of old antibiotics for treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections in the era of antibiotic stewardship. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:127–32.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keating GM. Fosfomycin trometamol: a review of its use as a single-dose oral treatment for patients with acute lower urinary tract infections and pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria. Drugs. 2013;73:1951–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-013-0143-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie e. V. (DGU). Interdisziplinäre S3 Leitlinie Leitlinie unkomplizierter Epidemiologie, Diagnostik, Therapie, Management ambulant Epidemiologie, Diagnostik, Therapie Prävention und Management, bakterieller, ambulant erworbener Harnwegsinfektionen bei Patienten erworbener Harnwegsinfektionen bei erwachsenen Patienten Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie; 2017. pp. 1–254.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Usta TA, Dogan O, Ates U, Yucel B, Onar Z, Kaya E. Comparison of single-dose and multiple-dose antibiotics for lower urinary tract infection in pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;114:229–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Estebanez A, Pascual R, Gil V, Ortiz F, Santibanez M, Perez BC. Fosfomycin in a single dose versus a 7-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria during pregnancy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009;28:1457–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-009-0805-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bayrak O, Cimentepe E, Inegoel I, Atmaca AF, Duvan CI, Koc A, et al. Is single-dose fosfomycin trometamol a good alternative for asymptomatic bacteriuria in the second trimester of pregnancy? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:525–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0190-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krcmery S, Hromec J, Demesova D. Treatment of lower urinary tract infection in pregnancy. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001;17:279–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-8579(00)00351-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferreres L, Paz M, Martin G, Gobernado M. New studies on placental transfer of fosfomycin. Chemotherapy. 1977;23:175–9.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000222044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirby WM. Pharmacokinetics of fosfomycin. Chemotherapy. 1977;23:141–51.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000222040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dathe K, Schaefer C. Drug safety in pregnancy: the German Embryotox institute. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74:171–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2351-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EUROCAT—European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies. EUROCAT Guide 1.4: Instruction for the registration of congenital anomalies. EUROCAT Central Registry, University of Ulster; 2018.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaefer C, Ornoy A, Clementi M, Meister R, Weber-Schoendorfer C. Using observational cohort data for studying drug effects on pregnancy outcome—methodological considerations. Reprod Toxicol. 2008;26:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.05.064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meister R, Schaefer C. Statistical methods for estimating the probability of spontaneous abortion in observational studies—analyzing pregnancies exposed to coumarin derivatives. Reprod Toxicol. 2008;26:31–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2008.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bluhmki T, Fietz A-K, Stegherr R, Beck E, Padberg S, Beyersmann J, et al. Multistate methodology improves risk assessment under time-varying drug intake—a new view on pregnancy outcomes following coumarin exposure. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4710.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:241–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beyersmann J, Allignol A, Schumacher M. Competing risks and multistate models with R. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Voigt M, Rochow N, Hesse V, Olbertz D, Schneider KT, Jorch G. Short communication about percentile values of body measures of newborn babies. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2010;214:24–9.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1241833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3661–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:403–25.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allignol A, Schumacher M, Beyersmann J. Empirical transition matrix of multi-state models: the etm package. J Stat Softw. 2011;38(4):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in S. version 2.44-1.1. 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/package=survival. Accessed 05 July 2019.
  29. 29.
    Koeda T, Moriguchi M. Effect of fosfomycin-Na on reproductive performance of rats. II. Fertility test (author’s transl). Jpn J Antibiot. 1979;32:164–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chu CM, Lowder JL. Diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections across age groups. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219:40–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michelim L, Bosi GR, Comparsi E. Urinary tract infection in pregnancy: review of clinical management. J Clin Nephrol Res. 2016;3:1–7.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raz R. Fosfomycin: an old—new antibiotic. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:4–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03636.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reeves DS. Treatment of bacteriuria in pregnancy with single dose fosfomycin trometamol: a review. Infection. 1992;20:313–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01710022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Cecco L, Ragni N. Urinary tract infections in pregnancy: monuril single-dose treatment versus traditional therapy. Eur Urol. 1987;13:108–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zinner S. Fosfomycin trometamol versus pipemidic acid in the treatment of bacteriuria in pregnancy. Chemotherapy. 1990;36:50–2.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000238818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilton LV, Pearce GL, Martin RM, Mackay FJ, Mann RD. The outcomes of pregnancy in women exposed to newly marketed drugs in general practice in England. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:882–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10234.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bookstaver PB, Bland CM, Griffin B, Stover KR, Eiland LS, McLaughlin M. A review of antibiotic use in pregnancy. Pharmacotherapy. 2015;35:1052–62.  https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Pharmakovigilanzzentrum Embryonaltoxikologie, Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie und ToxikologieBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute of StatisticsUlm UniversityUlmGermany
  3. 3.Beuth Hochschule für Technik Berlin, University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations