ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Fosfomycin versus ciprofloxacin for febrile neutropenia prophylaxis in high-risk haematological patients (FOVOCIP): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05311254 (A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Fosfomycin vs Ciprofloxacin for Febrile Neutropenia in Hematological Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Fosfomycin vs Ciprofloxacin for Febrile Neutropenia in Hematological Patients: Efficacy and Microbiological Safety
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antibacterial prophylaxis in neutropenic fever: beyond fluoroquinolones.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones in high-risk neutropenic patients is currently under scrutiny. The FOVOCIP study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fosfomycin compared to ciprofloxacin in this population. Methods: This was a multicentre, randomised, phase-3, non-inferiority, open-label trial performed in 11 centres in Spain. Adults diagnosed with acute leukaemia or recipients of a Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant were randomised to receive oral fosfomycin or oral ciprofloxacin as prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was rate of febrile neutropenia. Intention-To-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses were done for the primary endpoint, with a non-inferiority margin of -5%. Findings: A total of 174 patients were screened and 166 randomized (83 per arm, 50% female). In the ITT population, febrile neutropenia occurred in 74.7% (62 of 83 patients) and 73.49% (61 of 83 patients) in the fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin group, respectively. The corresponding success rates (patients without febrile neutropenia) were 25.3% in the fosfomycin group and 26.51% int the ciprofloxacin group, risk difference -1.2%, (95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.5 to 12.12, lower boundary of the 90% CI -12.3). In the PP population, febrile neutropenia occurred in 82.19% (60 of 73 patients) and 76.25% (61 of 80 patients) in the fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin group respectively. The corresponding success rates were 17.81% in the fosfomycin group and 23.75% in the ciprofloxacin group, risk difference -5.94%, (95% CI: -18.75 to 6.86, lower boundary of the 90% CI -16.7). Gram negative bacteria were responsible for 90% and 10% of the bacteraemias in the fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin group, respectively. Two patients (3%) in the experimental group became colonized by multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacteria, compared with nine patients (11%) in the control group (P = 0.04). There were no differences in other safety endpoints. Interpretation: Fosfomycin did not demonstrate non-inferiority to ciprofloxacin in the prevention of febrile neutropenia in high-risk haematological patients. The higher incidence of Gram-negative bacteraemia also discourages its use. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05311254) and EUDRACT (2021-000354-25) and is complete. Funding: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI21/1590 AES 2021, co-funded by European Union), Agencia SEKUENS (IDE/2024/000797), Instituto de Investigación del Principado de Asturias (ITM25-INT).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.