No abstract

BackgroundFosfomycin is increasingly called upon for the treatment of multi drug-resistant (MDR) organisms causing urinary tract infection (UTI). We reviewed oral fosfomycin use for UTI treatment in a large UK hospital. The primary goal was to audit our clinical practice against current national guidelines. Secondary aims were to identify factors associated with treatment failure, and to investigate the potential for using fosfomycin in patients with co-morbidities.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 75 adult patients with UTI who received 151 episodes of treatment with fosfomycin from March 2013 to June 2015. We collected clinical data from our electronic patient record, and microbiology data pre- and post- fosfomycin treatment. We recorded additional data for patients receiving prolonged courses in order to make a preliminary assessment of safety and efficacy. We also reviewed >18,000 urinary tract isolates of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. processed by our laboratory over the final year of our study period to determine the prevalence of fosfomycin resistance.ResultsThere was a significant increase in fosfomycin treatment episodes over the course of the study period. Co-morbidities were present in 71 % of patients. The majority had E. coli infection (69 %), of which 59 % were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producers. Klebsiella infections were more likely than E. coli to fail treatment, and more likely to be reported as fosfomycin resistant in cases of relapse following treatment. There were no adverse events in five patients treated with prolonged fosfomycin. Among all urinary isolates collected over a year, fosfomycin resistance was documented in 1 % of E. coli vs. 19 % of Klebsiella spp. (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsWe report an important role for oral fosfomycin for MDR UTI treatment in a UK hospital population, and based on the findings from this study, we present our own local guidelines for its use. We present preliminary data suggesting that fosfomycin is safe and effective for use in patients with complex comorbidities and over prolonged time periods, but may be less effective against Klebsiella than E. coli.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-016-1888-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Compared to higher income couples, those with low incomes experience a host of challenges and disparities in their intimate relationships, including lower levels of relationship satisfaction, higher rates of breakup of cohabiting relationships, and higher rates of divorce. In recognition of these disparities, a number of interventions targeting couples with low incomes have been developed. These interventions historically focused primarily on improving relationship skills through relationship education, but in recent years a new approach that integrates economic‐focused interventions alongside relationship education has emerged. This integrated approach is intended to better address the challenges facing couples with low incomes, but the theory‐driven, top‐down approach to intervention development leaves open the question of whether couples with low incomes are interested in participating in a program that combines these two disparate components. The current study draws from a large randomized controlled trial of one such program (N = 879 couples) to provide descriptive information about the recruitment and retention of couples with low incomes in a study of relationship education with integrated economic services. Results indicate that it is possible to recruit a large, linguistically, and racially diverse sample of couples living with low income to participate in an integrated intervention, but the uptake of relationship‐focused services was higher than the uptake of economic‐focused services. Additionally, attrition over a 1‐year follow‐up data collection period was low but required labor‐intensive efforts to reach participants for the survey. We highlight successful strategies for the recruitment and retention of diverse couples and discuss implications for future intervention efforts.

No abstract