Daniel Anderson, PharmD

The alarming increase in rates of antibiotic resistance has necessitated the exploration of alternative treatment strategies, among them reevaluation of previously approved agents like fosfomycin. Fosfomycin is recommended as a frontline agent for uncomplicated urinary tract infection

 in current Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines,

 but it also demonstrates efficacy for multidrug-resistant urinary tract infections (UTIs).

 With the continued rise of drug resistance, along with limited availability of novel antimicrobial agents, there is interest in reappraising IV fosfomycin for the treatment of systemic MDR infections.

Fosfomycin is available in 2 oral formulations, fosfomycin tromethamine and fosfomycin calcium, and one IV formulation, fosfomycin disodium.

 It exerts its bactericidal effects through the irreversible inactivation of uridine diphosphate N-acetylglucosamine-GlcNAc enolpyruvyl transferase, an essential first step in bacterial cell wall synthesis.

 Fosfomycin has a wide spectrum of activity, including both Gram-positive organisms—ie, 

—and Gram-negative organisms&mdash;ie, 

 Due to its unique mechanism of action, cross-resistance is uncommon; therefore, fosfomycin retains in vitro activity against many MDR organisms including methicillin-resistant 

 (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing and carbapenemase-producing 

Despite its broad spectrum of activity, some notable pathogens, including 

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia cepacia, Bacteriodes 

Vibrio fischeria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Staphylococcus capitis, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, 

 are intrinsically resistant to fosfomycin.

 Intrinsic resistance has been linked to mutations in the 

gene, recycling of peptidoglycan, and chromosomal expression of 

, leading to decreased membrane permeability.

 Additionally, acquired resistance has been noted through decreased fosfomycin absorption, enzymatic inactivation, and target site modification.

Despite these concerns, susceptibility testing is not routinely performed by clinical microbiology laboratories. This is largely driven by the fact that agar dilution, the reference testing method, is a laborious process requiring Mueller&#8208;Hinton agar plates supplemented with glucose-6-phospate.

 In addition, complicating matters is the poor performance of automated and routine manual susceptibility testing methods, compared with standard agar dilution methods, in predicting resistance among MDR 

. Such methods proved to perform poorly, with high major error (ie, false susceptible) rates.

 Furthermore, in the United States, breakpoints exist only for urinary 

 isolates using disk diffusion and agar dilution methods.

Fosfomycin is a concentration-dependent, bactericidal antibiotic with a prolonged post antibiotic effect in vitro. A small compound with a low molecular weight, it is hydrophobic and has negligible protein binding, leading to excellent penetration in bladder tissue.

 The IV formulation has also been proven to penetrate lung tissue, pleural fluid, cerebral spinal fluid, and aqueous humor.

 The volume of distribution for IV fosfomycin is 0.3 L/kg, but it increases significantly in critically ill patients.

 Fosfomycin is nearly entirely cleared through glomerular filtration and is excreted largely unchanged in the urine. It has a favorable safety profile with primarily mild and self-limiting adverse effects (AEs). The most common AEs include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in less than 10% of patients. Additional AEs with the IV formulations include transient increase in transaminases and  hypernatremia and/or hypokalaemia.

In countries where IV fosfomycin is readily available, it has frequently been used in combination,

 usually as part of salvage treatment, for susceptible MDR organisms. 

 In the treatment of MRSA, fosfomycin, in combination with daptomycin or imipenem, has been of great interest due to evidence of synergy in vitro.

 and prospective studies, but these have been limited by sample size

 A multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study (NCT01898338) evaluating the addition of fosfomycin to daptomycin for MRSA bacteremia is currently underway.

 For MDR Gram-negative isolates, fosfomycin has been evaluated in vitro

in combination with several agents. Synergy has been demonstrated with colistimethate,

 Similarly, clinical data on the efficacy of IV fosfomycin for MDR Gram-negative infections (

) stem from observational studies without comparative control arms in which fosfomycin was administered mainly in combination with other agents.

Phase 1 and 2/3 clinical trials have been completed as part of the new drug application to the FDA for the approval of Contepo (fosfomycin for injection).

 In the recent ZEUS trial, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, noninferiority study, fosfomycin was found to be noninferior to piperacillin—tazobactam in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and acute pyelonephritis.

 isolates (73%) were phenotypically determined to be producers of ESBL, more robust trials are needed in the setting of MDR infections. The FOREST study (NCT02142751), a phase 3, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label trial, aims to compare IV fosfomycin with meropenem or ceftriaxone in patients with bacteremia secondary to UTIs caused by MDR 

One major uncertainty about IV fosfomycin and its role in the anti-infective armamentarium is concern for the potential emergence of resistance during therapy, in particular among 

 Given the high spontaneous mutation rate for fosfomycin resistance in vitro, its use as part of combination therapy maybe be prudent to reduce the risk of development of fosfomycin resistance during therapy while maximizing treatment outcomes among MDR infections. Recently, the addition of ceftazidime—avibactam to IV fosfomycin has shown promise in the prevention of the emergence of resistance among those patients with high bacterial burdens.

Fosfomycin’s unique mechanism of action, which makes cross-resistance uncommon and allows for synergy with other antibiotics, coupled with its excellent capacity for diffusion to various tissues and its well-tolerated safety profile, grants it considerable versatility as a therapeutic option for systemic MDR therapies. However, its efficacy and utility as a stand-alone agent (as opposed to its use in combination with other agents) in the treatment of MDR infections remains unclear and will need to be elucidated through careful investigation. Moreover, issues such as the emergence of resistance and susceptibility testing standards will need to be concurrently addressed. Given the above limitations of IV fosfomycin, its logical niche in our MDR therapeutic arsenal will likely be exclusively as a synergetic agent in combination rather than a stand-alone therapy.

CR, carbapenem resistant; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases; KPC, 

carbapenemase; MDR, multidrug resistant; MRSA, methicillin-resistant 

; NDM, New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase; OXA, oxacillinase; VRE, vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Ahmed Babiker, MBBS, is an assistant professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Disease, Emory University School of Medicine, with a secondary appointment in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. Dr. Babiker sees patients on the Infectious Diseases inpatient consult at Emory University Hospital and serves as the associate director of the Investigational Clinical Microbiology Laboratory and a medical director of the Emory University Molecular Laboratory.

Daniel Anderson, PharmD, is an internal medicine and infectious diseases pharmacist at Augusta University Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia.

1.         Arana DM, Ortega A, González-Barberá E, et al; Spanish Antibiotic Resistance Surveillance Programme Collaborating Group. Carbapenem-resistant

 spp. isolated in Spain from 2013 to 2015 produced a variety of carbapenemases including VIM-1, OXA-48, KPC-2, NDM-1 and VIM-2. 

2017;72(12):3283-3287. doi:10.1093/jac/dkx325

2.         Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, et al; Infectious Diseases Society of America;  European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 

2011;52(5):e103-e120. doi:10.1093/cid/ciq257

3.         Babiker A, Clarke L, Doi Y, Shields RK. Fosfomycin for treatment of multidrug-resistant pathogens causing urinary tract infection: a real-world perspective and review of the literature. 

2019;95(3):114856. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2019.06.008

4.         Bhalodi A. Intravenous fosfomycin in development for United States.

ContagionLive. October 25, 2018. Accessed June 3, 2020. https://www.contagionlive.com/news/intravenous-fosfomycin-in-development-for-united-states

5.         Seroy JT, Grim SA, Reid GE, et al. Treatment of MDR urinary tract infections with oral fosfomycin: a retrospective analysis. 

2016;71(9):2563-2568. doi:10.1093/jac/dkw178

6.         Falagas ME, Vouloumanou EK, Samonis G, Vardakas KZ. Fosfomycin. 

2016;29(2):321-347. doi:10.1128/CMR.00068-15

7.         Flamm RK, Rhomberg PR, Watters AA, et al. Activity of fosfomycin when tested against US contemporary bacterial isolates. 

2019;93(2):143-146. doi:10.1016/j.diagnicrobio.2018.08.010

8.         Falagas ME, Maraki S, Karageorgopoulos DE, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Enterobacteriaceae isolates to fosfomycin. 

2010;35(3):240-243. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.10.019

9.         Kaase M, Szabados F, Anders A, Gatermann SG. Fosfomycin susceptibility in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from Germany. 

2014;52(6):1893-1897. doi:10.1128/JCM.03484

10.       Weinstein MP, Patel JB, Bobenchik AM, et al.

 M100: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2019. Accessed June 4, 2020. https://clsi.org/media/2663/m100ed29_sample.pdf

11.       Rizek C, Ferraz JR, van der Heijden IM, et al. In vitro activity of potential old and new drugs against multidrug-resistant gram-negatives. 

2015;21(2):114-117. doi:10.1016/j.jiac.2014.10.009

12.       Falagas ME, Athanasaki F, Voulgaris GL, et al. Resistance to fosfomycin: mechanisms, frequency and clinical consequences. 

2019;53(1):22-28. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.09.013

13.       Grimm H. In vitro investigations with fosfomycin on Mueller-Hinton agar with and without glucose-6-phosphate. 

1979;7(5):256-259. doi:10.1007/BF01648937

14.       van den Bijllaardt W, Schijffelen MJ, Bosboom RW, et al. Susceptibility of ESBL Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to fosfomycin in the Netherlands and comparison of several testing methods including Etest, MIC test strip, Vitek2, Phoenix and disc diffusion. 

2018;73(9):2380-2387. doi:10.1093/jac/dky214

15.       Rodríguez-Gascón A, Canut-Blasco A. Deciphering pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of fosfomycin. 

16.       Grabein B, Graninger W, Rodríguez Baño J, et al. Intravenous fosfomycin—back to the future. systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical literature. 

2017;23(6):363-372. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.12.005

17.       Putensen C, Ellger B, Sakka SG, et al. Current clinical use of intravenous fosfomycin in ICU patients in two European countries. 

2019;47(5):827-836. doi:10.1007/s15010-019-01323-4

18.       Hawkey PM, Warren RE, Livermore DM, et al. Treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: report of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy/Healthcare Infection Society/British Infection Association Joint Working Party. 

2018;73(suppl_3):iii2-iii78. doi:10.1093/jac/dky027

19.       Pontikis K, Karaiskos I, Bastani S, et al. Outcomes of critically ill intensive care unit patients treated with fosfomycin for infections due to pandrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. 

2014;43(1):52-59. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.09.010

20.       Utsui Y, Ohya S, Magaribuchi T, et al. Antibacterial activity of cefmetazole alone and in combination with fosfomycin against methicillin- and cephem-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. 

21.       Miró JM, Entenza JM, Del Río A, et al; Hospital Clinic Experimental Endocarditis Study Group. High-dose daptomycin plus fosfomycin is safe and effective in treating methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. 

2012;56(8):4511-4515. doi:10.1128/AAC.06449-11

22.       del Río A, Gasch O, Moreno A, et al; FOSIMI Investigators. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin plus imipenem as rescue therapy for complicated bacteremia and endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a multicenter clinical trial. 

2014;59(8):1105-1112. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu580

23.       Pericàs JM, Moreno A, Almela M, et al; FOSIMI Investigators. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin for complicated bacteraemia and endocarditis due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a randomized clinical trial. 

2018;24(6):673-676. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.010

24.       Shaw E, Miró JM, Puig-Asensio M, et al; Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD12/0015); Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain; GEIH (Hospital Infection Study Group). Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin monotherapy in treating MRSA: protocol of a multicentre, randomised, phase III trial. 

2015;5(3):e006723. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006723

25.       Santimaleeworagun W, Wongpoowarak P, Chayakul P, et al. In vitro activity of colistin or sulbactam in combination with fosfomycin or imipenem against clinical isolates of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii producing OXA-23 carbapenemases. 

Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 

26.       Cai Y, Fan Y, Wang R, et al. Synergistic effects of aminoglycosides and fosfomycin on Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and biofilm infections in a rat model. 

2009;64(3):563-566. doi:10.1093/jac/dkp224

27.       Michalopoulos A, Virtzili S, Rafailidis P, et al. Intravenous fosfomycin for the treatment of nosocomial infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in critically ill patients: a prospective evaluation. 

2010;16(2):184-186. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.02921.x

28.       Apisarnthanarak A, Mundy LM. Use of high-dose 4-hour infusion of doripenem, in combination with fosfomycin, for treatment of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. 

2010;51(11):1352-1354. doi:10.1086/657249

29.       Wenzler E, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Rodvold KA. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single-dose intravenous (ZTI-01) and oral fosfomycin in healthy volunteers. 

2017;61(9):e00775-17. doi:10.1128/AAC.00775-17

30.       Kaye KS, Rice LB, Dane AL, et al. Fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) versus piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infection including acute pyelonephritis: ZEUS, a phase 2/3 randomized trial. 

2019;69(12):2045-2056. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz181

31.       Rosso-Fernández C, Sojo-Dorado J, Barriga A, et al; FOREST Study Group. Fosfomycin versus meropenem in bacteraemic urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (FOREST): study protocol for an investigator-driven randomised controlled trial. 

2015;5(3):e007363. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-00736310

32.       Karageorgopoulos DE, Wang R, Yu X-H, Falagas ME. Fosfomycin: evaluation of the published evidence on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative pathogens. 

2012;67(2):255-268. doi:10.1093/jac/dkr466

Articles

Intravenous (IV) fosfomycin offers a novel therapeutic option in the treatment of systemic multi-drug resistant (MDR) infections. Unanswered questions remain regarding its efficacy and specific role in our therapeutic arsenal.
 