Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

Leitner, Lorenz, Ujmajuridze, Aleksandre, Chanishvili, Nina, Goderdzishvili, Marina, Chkonia, Irina, Rigvava, Sophia, Chkhotua, Archil, Changashvili, Giorgi, McCallin, Shawna, Schneider, Marc P, Liechti, Martina D, Mehnert, Ulrich, Bachmann, Lucas M, Sybesma, Wilbert, Kessler, Thomas M·2021·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most prevalent microbial diseases and their financial burden on society is substantial. In the context of increasing antibiotic resistance, finding alternative treatments for UTIs is a top priority. We aimed to determine whether intravesical bacteriophage therapy with a commercial bacteriophage cocktail is effective in treating UTI. METHODS We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, at the Alexander Tsulukidze National Centre of Urology, Tbilisi, Georgia. Men older than 18 years of age, who were scheduled for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), with complicated UTI or recurrent uncomplicated UTI but no signs of systemic infection, were allocated by block randomisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravesical Pyo bacteriophage (Pyophage; 20 mL) or intravesical placebo solution (20 mL) in a double-blind manner twice daily for 7 days, or systemically applied antibiotics (according to sensitivities) as an open-label standard-of-care comparator. Urine culture was taken via urinary catheter at the end of treatment (ie, day 7) or at withdrawal from the trial. The primary outcome was microbiological treatment response after 7 days of treatment, measured by urine culture; secondary outcomes included clinical and safety parameters during the treatment period. Analyses were done in a modified intention-to-treat population of patients having received at least one dose of the allocated treatment regimen. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03140085. FINDINGS Between June 2, 2017, and Dec 14, 2018, 474 patients were screened for eligibility and 113 (24%) patients were randomly assigned to treatment (37 to Pyophage, 38 to placebo, and 38 to antibiotic treatment). 97 patients (28 Pyophage, 32 placebo, 37 antibiotics) received at least one dose of their allocated treatment and were included in the primary analysis. Treatment success rates did not differ between groups. Normalisation of urine culture was achieved in five (18%) of 28 patients in the Pyophage group compared with nine (28%) of 32 patients in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·60 [95% CI 0·45-5·71]; p=0·47) and 13 (35%) of 37 patients in the antibiotic group (2·66 [0·79-8·82]; p=0·11). Adverse events occurred in six (21%) of 28 patients in the Pyophage group compared with 13 (41%) of 32 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·36 [95% CI 0·11-1·17]; p=0·089) and 11 (30%) of 37 patients in the antibiotic group (0·66 [0·21-2·07]; p=0·47). INTERPRETATION Intravesical bacteriophage therapy was non-inferior to standard-of-care antibiotic treatment, but was not superior to placebo bladder irrigation, in terms of efficacy or safety in treating UTIs in patients undergoing TURP. Moreover, the bacteriophage safety profile seems to be favourable. Although bacteriophages are not yet a recognised or approved treatment option for UTIs, this trial provides new insight to optimise the design of further large-scale clinical studies to define the role of bacteriophages in UTI treatment. FUNDING Swiss Continence Foundation, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. TRANSLATIONS For the Georgian and German translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30330-3

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
Leitner, L., Ujmajuridze, A., Chanishvili, N., Goderdzishvili, M., Chkonia, I., Rigvava, S., Chkhotua, A., Changashvili, G., McCallin, S., Schneider, M. P., Liechti, M. D., Mehnert, U., Bachmann, L. M., Sybesma, W., & Kessler, T. M.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
427-436
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3086081693
Cited by
322
References
25
FWCI
22.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30330-3
The paper
Leitner, L., Ujmajuridze, A., Chanishvili, N., Goderdzishvili, M., Chkonia, I., Rigvava, S., Chkhotua, A., Changashvili, G., McCallin, S., Schneider, M. P., Liechti, M. D., Mehnert, U., Bachmann, L. M., Sybesma, W., & Kessler, T. M. (2021). Intravesical bacteriophages for treating urinary tract infections in patients undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30330-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.