Oral fosfomycin for treatment of urinary tract infection: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Fosfomycin 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: There 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). CONCLUSIONS: We 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

Does the number of implants have any relation with peri-implant disease?

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the number of pillar implants of implant-supported fixed prostheses and the prevalence of periimplant disease. Material and Methods: Clinical and radiographic data were obtained for the evaluation. The sample consisted of 32 patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses in function for at least one year. A total of 161 implants were evaluated. Two groups were formed according to the number of implants: G1) ≤5 implants and G2) >5 implants. Data collection included modified plaque index (MPi), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized mucosa (KM) and radiographic bone loss (BL). Clinical and radiographic data were grouped for each implant in order to conduct the diagnosis of mucositis or peri-implantitis. Results: Clinical parameters were compared between groups using Student’s t test for numeric variables (KM, PD and BL) and Mann-Whitney test for categorical variables (MPi and BOP). KM and BL showed statistically significant differences between both groups (p<0.001). Implants from G1 – 19 (20.43%) – compared with G2 – 26 (38.24%) – showed statistically significant differences regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis (p=0.0210). Conclusion: It seems that more than 5 implants in total fixed rehabilitations increase bone loss and consequently the prevalence of implants with periimplantitis. Notwithstanding, the number of implants does not have any influence on the prevalence of mucositis

Surgical Management of Peri-implantitis

&lt;jats:title&gt;Abstract&lt;/jats:title&gt;&lt;jats:sec&gt;&lt;jats:title&gt;Purpose of Review&lt;/jats:title&gt;&lt;jats:p&gt;To provide an overview of current surgical peri-implantitis treatment options.&lt;/jats:p&gt;&lt;/jats:sec&gt;&lt;jats:sec&gt;&lt;jats:title&gt;Recent Findings&lt;/jats:title&gt;&lt;jats:p&gt;Surgical procedures for peri-implantitis treatment include two main approaches: non-augmentative and augmentative therapy. Open flap debridement (OFD) and resective treatment are non-augmentative techniques that are indicated in the presence of horizontal bone loss in aesthetically nondemanding areas. Implantoplasty performed adjunctively at supracrestally and buccally exposed rough implant surfaces has been shown to efficiently attenuate soft tissue inflammation compared to control sites. However, this was followed by more pronounced soft tissue recession. Adjunctive augmentative measures are recommended at peri-implantitis sites exhibiting intrabony defects with a minimum depth of 3 mm and in the presence of keratinized mucosa. In more advanced cases with combined defect configurations, a combination of augmentative therapy and implantoplasty at exposed rough implant surfaces beyond the bony envelope is feasible.&lt;/jats:p&gt;&lt;/jats:sec&gt;&lt;jats:sec&gt;&lt;jats:title&gt;Summary&lt;/jats:title&gt;&lt;jats:p&gt;For the time being, no particular surgical protocol or material can be considered as superior in terms of long-term peri-implant tissue stability.&lt;/jats:p&gt;&lt;/jats:sec&gt