Adrian Pilatz1, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos2, Rajan Veeratterapillay3, Yuhong Yuan4, Muhammad Imran Omar5, Steven MacLennan6, Tommaso Cai7, Franck Bruyère8,9, Ricardo Bartoletti10, Bela Köves11, Florian Wagenlehner1, Gernot Bonkat12, Benjamin Pradere8,9. 1. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 3. Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 5. Guidelines Office, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 6. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Urology, Santa Chiara, Reg. Hospital, Trento, Italy. 8. Urologie, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France. 9. Université Francois Rabelais, PRES Centre Val de Loire, Tours, France. 10. Department of Translational Research and New Technologies, University of Pisa, Italy. 11. Department of Urology, South-Pest Teaching Hospital, Budapest, Hungary. 12. alta uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Infectious complications following prostate biopsy are increasing and fluoroquinolone prophylaxis has recently been banned by the European Commission. In this systematic review we summarize the evidence for different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to October 2019) assessing antimicrobial interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was infectious complications. Exclusion criteria were simultaneous interfering interventions. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: Overall 59 randomized controlled trials (14,153 participants) and 7 different antimicrobial interventions were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced infectious complications compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77, p=0.0005, I2=15%, participants 1,753, studies 11). A short-term prophylaxis (single shot to 3 days) was inferior to a long-term prophylaxis (1 to 7 days) with fluoroquinolone (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37-2.61, p=0.0001, I2=0%, participants 3,999, studies 17). Fosfomycin trometamol was an alternative to fluoroquinolone with reduced rates of infectious complications (RR 0.49, 95 CI 0.27-0.87, p=0.02, I2=54%, participants 1,239, studies 3). Empiric prophylaxis was inferior to targeted prophylaxis (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.28-2.55, p=0.0008, I2=48%, participants 1,511, studies 6). Standard prophylaxis was inferior to augmented prophylaxis (using multiple rather than single agent) using a fixed model (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53-2.88, p <0.0001, I2=71%, participants 2,597, studies 9), but not using a random model (p=0.07). No difference was observed in infectious complications based on route or timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low. CONCLUSIONS: In countries where fluoroquinolones are allowed as antibiotic prophylaxis, a minimum of a full 1-day administration as well as targeted therapy in case of fluoroquinolone resistance is recommended. In countries with a ban on fluoroquinolones, fosfomycin is a good alternative, as is augmented prophylaxis, although no established standard combination exists to date.
PURPOSE: Infectious complications following prostate biopsy are increasing and fluoroquinolone prophylaxis has recently been banned by the European Commission. In this systematic review we summarize the evidence for different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Database for randomized controlled trials (inception to October 2019) assessing antimicrobial interventions in prostate biopsy. Primary outcome was infectious complications. Exclusion criteria were simultaneous interfering interventions. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026354). RESULTS: Overall 59 randomized controlled trials (14,153 participants) and 7 different antimicrobial interventions were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduced infectious complications compared to no prophylaxis (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77, p=0.0005, I2=15%, participants 1,753, studies 11). A short-term prophylaxis (single shot to 3 days) was inferior to a long-term prophylaxis (1 to 7 days) with fluoroquinolone (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.37-2.61, p=0.0001, I2=0%, participants 3,999, studies 17). Fosfomycin trometamol was an alternative to fluoroquinolone with reduced rates of infectious complications (RR 0.49, 95 CI 0.27-0.87, p=0.02, I2=54%, participants 1,239, studies 3). Empiric prophylaxis was inferior to targeted prophylaxis (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.28-2.55, p=0.0008, I2=48%, participants 1,511, studies 6). Standard prophylaxis was inferior to augmented prophylaxis (using multiple rather than single agent) using a fixed model (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.53-2.88, p <0.0001, I2=71%, participants 2,597, studies 9), but not using a random model (p=0.07). No difference was observed in infectious complications based on route or timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The certainty of evidence was rated as low/very low. CONCLUSIONS: In countries where fluoroquinolones are allowed as antibiotic prophylaxis, a minimum of a full 1-day administration as well as targeted therapy in case of fluoroquinolone resistance is recommended. In countries with a ban on fluoroquinolones, fosfomycin is a good alternative, as is augmented prophylaxis, although no established standard combination exists to date.
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie Harmon; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jeffrey M Kubiak; Michael Hovan; Emily Davidson; Claire Douglass; Kevin Burgos; Thomas J Walsh; Lars F Westblade; Michael J Satlin Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 11.677
Authors: Rebecca S Steinberg; Lauren Kipling; K C Biebighauser Bens; Dattatraya Patil; Mark Henry; Akanksha Mehta; Christopher Filson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Sofie C M Tops; Anita M P Huis; Willeke Trompers; Anke J M Oerlemans; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Eva Kolwijck; Heiman F L Wertheim; Marlies E J L Hulscher Journal: JAC Antimicrob Resist Date: 2021-11-17
Authors: Mike Wenzel; Jost von Hardenberg; Maria N Welte; Samuel Doryumu; Benedikt Hoeh; Clarissa Wittler; Thomas Höfner; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Maurice S Michel; Felix Kh Chun; Jonas Herrmann; Philipp Mandel; Niklas Westhoff Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Bas Israël; Jos Immerzeel; Marloes van der Leest; Gerjon Hannink; Patrik Zámecnik; Joyce Bomers; Ivo G Schoots; Jean-Paul van Basten; Frans Debruyne; Inge van Oort; Michiel Sedelaar; Jelle Barentsz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 5.969