Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Jun 19.
doi: 10.1007/s11255-025-04615-x. Online ahead of print.

Comparing fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin for uncomplicated UTI treatment in adults: better bacterial eradication but non-significant clinical remission-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Comparing fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin for uncomplicated UTI treatment in adults: better bacterial eradication but non-significant clinical remission-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Muhammad Usman Hashmi et al. Int Urol Nephrol. .

Abstract

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in young children and women and even more so in pregnant women. Ciprofloxacin has been a long-used regime to treat UTIs, although recently the paradigm has shifted towards Fosfomycin. This shift is driven by rising antibiotic resistance, safety concerns with fluoroquinolones, and the need for alternative treatments with broader efficacy and fewer adverse effects. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the effectiveness and safety of Fosfomycin compared to Ciprofloxacin for treating urinary tract infections in adults.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus using search strings combining "Fosfomycin," "Ciprofloxacin," and "urinary tract infections." Study selection and screening were managed using Covidence, with duplicates removed. Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria following primary and secondary screening. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), with results presented as forest plots. A random-effects model was applied in cases of significant heterogeneity. The outcomes assessed included clinical remission, bacterial eradication, and adverse effects, based on data from three of the included studies.

Results: Four studies matched our inclusion criteria and were processed further for analysis. For bacterial eradication, the total number of patients was 334 patients, bacterial eradication during 10 days was achieved in 143 participants in the fosfomycin group and 110 participants in the ciprofloxacin group. Bacterial eradication was significantly higher in the fosfomycin group compared to the ciprofloxacin group (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.22-3.36, p = 0.006). For clinical remission, no significant difference was found in 3 studies in a total of 278 patients (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.72-2.21, p = 0.42). Out of a total of 356 patients, 74 experienced adverse effects in the fosfomycin group and 46 in the ciprofloxacin group. The appearance of adverse effects was significantly higher in the fosfomycin group (OR 2.66, CI 1.53-4.62, p = 0.0005).

Conclusion: The results of our meta-analysis show that bacterial eradication was significantly higher in the Fosfomycin group compared to the Ciprofloxacin group. There was no difference between the two drugs in terms of clinical remission. The appearance of adverse effects was significantly higher in the Fosfomycin group. Despite a higher incidence of adverse effects, Fosfomycin demonstrated superior bacterial eradication, suggesting its potential role as an effective empirical option, particularly in regions with elevated fluoroquinolone resistance. Hence, it was deduced that Fosfomycin is more effective than Ciprofloxacin for bacterial eradication in the treatment of urinary tract infections. These findings are influenced by significant heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcome definitions, which should be considered when interpreting the pooled estimates.

Keywords: Anti-bacterial agents; Ciprofloxacin; Drug resistance; Fosfomycin; Urinary tract infections.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Similar articles

References

    1. Wang T, Wu G, Wang J, Cui Y, Ma J, Zhu Z et al (2020) Comparison of single-dose fosfomycin tromethamine and other antibiotics for lower uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women and asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 56(1):106018 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abou Heidar NF, Degheili JA, Yacoubian AA, Khauli RB (2019) Management of urinary tract infection in women: a practical approach for everyday practice. Urol Ann 11(4):339–346 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Jakobsen L, Lundberg CV, Frimodt-Møller N (2020) Ciprofloxacin pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics against susceptible and low-level resistant Escherichia coli isolates in an experimental ascending urinary tract infection model in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 65(1):e01804–e01820 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Stapleton PJ, Lundon DJ, McWade R, Scanlon N, Hannan MM, O’Kelly F et al (2017) Antibiotic resistance patterns of Escherichia coli urinary isolates and comparison with antibiotic consumption data over 10 years, 2005–2014. Ir J Med Sci 186(3):733–741 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farfour E, Dortet L, Guillard T, Chatelain N, Poisson A, Mizrahi A et al (2022) Antimicrobial resistance in Enterobacterales recovered from urinary tract infections in France. Pathogens 11(3):356 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources