Matthew J Roberts1,2,3, Susan Scott4,5, Patrick N Harris4,6, Kurt Naber7, Florian M E Wagenlehner8, Suhail A R Doi9. 1. Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 2. Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 3. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 4. Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Department of Urology, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, Australia. 6. Department of Microbiology, Central Laboratory, Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Department of Urology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 8. Clinic for Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 9. Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyse available evidence comparing fosfomycin trometamol (FT) to fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis to prevent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) related infectious complications. METHODS: Electronic databases were queried for studies comparing FT to FQ-based TRUSPB prophylaxis. Studies were assessed for comparable outcomes and methodological quality (ROBINS-I modification). The primary outcome measure was the relative odds of overall infectious complications following TRUSPB according to FT/FQ treatment, which was evaluated with meta-analysis. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. The relative odds of infections of different severity [Grade 1, bacteriuria and afebrile urinary tract infection (UTI); Grade 2, bacteraemia, febrile UTI, and urosepsis] according to FT/FQ treatment were also estimated. RESULTS: Five studies, being three prospective randomised trials and two retrospective cohort studies, representing 3112 patients, were included. The relative odds of an infectious complication (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.54) or of a more severe (Grade 2) infection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.26) were significantly lower in those receiving FT compared to FQ prophylaxis. A low incidence of medication-related side effects was observed. There were less observed infections due to FQ-resistant pathogens in those receiving FT prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received FT prophylaxis were less likely than those who received FQ prophylaxis to develop infections overall, as well as severe and resistant infections after TRUSPB. Assessing the performance of FT in other geographic locations or in comparison to targeted prophylaxis based on risk assessment or rectal cultures is desired.
PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyse available evidence comparing fosfomycin trometamol (FT) to fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis to prevent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) related infectious complications. METHODS: Electronic databases were queried for studies comparing FT to FQ-based TRUSPB prophylaxis. Studies were assessed for comparable outcomes and methodological quality (ROBINS-I modification). The primary outcome measure was the relative odds of overall infectious complications following TRUSPB according to FT/FQ treatment, which was evaluated with meta-analysis. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. The relative odds of infections of different severity [Grade 1, bacteriuria and afebrile urinary tract infection (UTI); Grade 2, bacteraemia, febrile UTI, and urosepsis] according to FT/FQ treatment were also estimated. RESULTS: Five studies, being three prospective randomised trials and two retrospective cohort studies, representing 3112 patients, were included. The relative odds of an infectious complication (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.54) or of a more severe (Grade 2) infection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.26) were significantly lower in those receiving FT compared to FQ prophylaxis. A low incidence of medication-related side effects was observed. There were less observed infections due to FQ-resistant pathogens in those receiving FT prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who received FT prophylaxis were less likely than those who received FQ prophylaxis to develop infections overall, as well as severe and resistant infections after TRUSPB. Assessing the performance of FT in other geographic locations or in comparison to targeted prophylaxis based on risk assessment or rectal cultures is desired.
Authors: Matthew J Roberts; Alastair Macdonald; Sachinka Ranasinghe; Harrison Bennett; Patrick E Teloken; Patrick Harris; David Paterson; Geoff Coughlin; Nigel Dunglison; Rachel Esler; Robert A Gardiner; Thomas Elliott; Louisa Gordon; John Yaxley Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Susan Scott; Patrick N Harris; Deborah A Williamson; Michael A Liss; Suhail A R Doi; Matthew J Roberts Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.226