دورية أكاديمية
Comparison of ciprofloxacin versus fosfomycin versus fosfomycin plus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for preventing infections after transrectal prostate biopsy.
| العنوان: | Comparison of ciprofloxacin versus fosfomycin versus fosfomycin plus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for preventing infections after transrectal prostate biopsy. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Bovo A; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland. alberto.bovo@ksa.ch., Kwiatkowski M; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland.; Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany., Manka L; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Braunschweig, Brunswick, Germany.; Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Potsdam, Germany., Wetterauer C; Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Danube Private University, 3500, Krems, Austria., Fux CA; Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Hygiene, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland., Cattaneo M; Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4001, Basel, Switzerland., Wyler SF; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland.; Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland., Prause L; Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Tellstrasse 25, 5001, Aarau, Switzerland. |
| المصدر: | World journal of urology [World J Urol] 2024 May 28; Vol. 42 (1), pp. 356. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 28. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article; Comparative Study |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Springer International Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 8307716 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1433-8726 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 07244983 NLM ISO Abbreviation: World J Urol Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Original Publication: [Berlin ; New York] : Springer International, 1983- |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Fosfomycin*/therapeutic use , Fosfomycin*/administration & dosage , Ciprofloxacin*/therapeutic use , Ciprofloxacin*/administration & dosage , Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination*/therapeutic use , Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination*/administration & dosage , Antibiotic Prophylaxis*/methods , Prostate*/pathology , Anti-Bacterial Agents*/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents*/administration & dosage , Drug Therapy, Combination*, Humans ; Male ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; Biopsy/methods ; Biopsy/adverse effects ; Retrospective Studies ; Rectum ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology |
| مستخلص: | Background: To evaluate antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsies due to the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA): We describe our single center experience switching from ciprofloxacin to fosfomycin trometamol (FMT) alone and to an augmented prophylaxis combining fosfomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX). Methods: Between 01/2019 and 12/2020 we compared three different regimes. The primary endpoint was the clinical diagnosis of an infection within 4 weeks after biopsy. We enrolled 822 men, 398 (48%) of whom received ciprofloxacin (group-C), 136 (16.5%) received FMT (group-F) and 288 (35%) received the combination of TMP/SMX and FMT (group-BF). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In total 37/398 (5%) postinterventional infections were detected, of which 13/398 (3%) vs 18/136 (13.2%) vs 6/288 (2.1%) were detected in group-C, group-F and group-BF respectively. The relative risk of infectious complication was 1.3 (CI 0.7-2.6) for group-C vs. group-BF and 2.8 (CI 1.4-5.7) for group-F vs. group-BF respectively. Conclusion: The replacement of ciprofloxacin by fosfomycin alone resulted in a significant increase of postinterventional infections, while the combination of FMT and TMP/SMX had a comparable infection rate to FQ without apparent adverse events. Therefore, this combined regimen of FMT and TMP/SMX is recommended. (© 2024. The Author(s).) |
| التعليقات: | Comment in: World J Urol. 2024 Jul 10;42(1):403. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05121-y. (PMID: 38985300) |
| References: | Roberts MJ, Scott S, Harris PN, Naber K, Wagenlehner FME, Suhail AR (2018) Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: an individual patient-data meta-analysis. World J Urol 36(3):323–330. (PMID: 10.1007/s00345-017-2163-929288398) Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K et al (2017) Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology 104:11–21. (PMID: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.01128007492) Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71(3):353–365. (PMID: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.00427543165) Parkin CJ, Gilbourd D, Grills R, Chapman S, Weinstein S, Joshi N et al (2022) Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy remains a safe method in confirming a prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicentre Australian analysis of infection rates. World J Urol 40(2):453–458. (PMID: 10.1007/s00345-021-03862-834674018) Tamhankar AS, El-Taji O, Vasdev N, Foley C, Popert R, Adshead J (2020) The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data 2008–2019. BJU Int 126(1):133–141. (PMID: 10.1111/bju.1506232232966) Charalabopoulos K, Karachalios G, Baltogiannis D, Charalabopoulos A, Giannakopoulos X, Sofikitis N (2003) Penetration of antimicrobial agents into the prostate. Chemotherapy 49(6):269–279. (PMID: 10.1159/00007452614671426) Wenzel M, Theissen L, Preisser F, Lauer B, Wittler C, Humke C et al (2020) Complication rates after TRUS guided transrectal systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies in a high-risk region for antibiotic resistances. Front Surg 7:7. (PMID: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00007321851807059219) EMA (2019) Disabling and potentially permanent side effects lead to suspension or restrictions of quinolone and fluoroquinolone antibiotics. EMA. Umbehr M, Eich G, Mntener M (2020) Fluorochinolone unter Beschuss: Bedeutung für die Prophylaxe bei Prostatabiopsie?. Karaiskos I, Galani L, Sakka V, Gkoufa A, Sopilidis O, Chalikopoulos D et al (2019) Oral fosfomycin for the treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis. J Antimicrob Chemother 74(5):1430–1437. (PMID: 10.1093/jac/dkz015307964426477975) Delory T, Goujon A, Masson-Lecomte A, Arias P, Laurancon-Fretar A, Bercot B et al (2021) Fosfomycin-trometamol (FT) or fluoroquinolone (FQ) as single-dose prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB): a prospective cohort study. Int J Infect Dis 102:269–274. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.10.06533129963) Cai T, Gallelli L, Cocci A, Tiscione D, Verze P, Lanciotti M et al (2017) Antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: fosfomycin trometamol, an attractive alternative. World J Urol 35(2):221–228. (PMID: 10.1007/s00345-016-1867-627246847) D’Elia C, Mian C, Hanspeter E, Ladurner C, Palermo SM, Pycha S et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of two fosfomycin regimens as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy: a randomised study. Urol Int 103(4):433–438. (PMID: 10.1159/00050285131614361) Freitas DMO, Moreira DM (2019) Fosfomycin trometamol vs ciprofloxacin for antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis of clinical studies. Arab J Urol 17(2):114–119. (PMID: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1592636312859226600070) Bjerklund Johansen TE, Kulchavenya E, Lentz GM, Livermore DM, Nickel JC, Zhanel G et al (2022) Fosfomycin trometamol for the prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy: a consensus statement by an international multidisciplinary group. Eur Urol Focus 8(5):1483–1492. (PMID: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.11.00734920977) EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V et al (2017) An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol 198(2):329–334. (PMID: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.10328363690) EAU Guidelines (2022) Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. Kisa E, Altug MU, Gurbuz OA, Ozdemir H (2017) Fosfomycin: a good alternative drug for prostate biopsy prophylaxis the results of a prospective, randomized trial with respect to risk factors. Int Braz J Urol 43(6):1068–1074. (PMID: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0619287273725734069) Gardiner BJ, Mahony AA, Ellis AG, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM, Zeglinski PT et al (2014) Is fosfomycin a potential treatment alternative for multidrug-resistant gram-negative prostatitis? Clin Infect Dis 58(4):e101–e105. (PMID: 10.1093/cid/cit70424170195) Rhodes NJ, Gardiner BJ, Neely MN, Grayson ML, Ellis AG, Lawrentschuk N et al (2015) Optimal timing of oral fosfomycin administration for pre-prostate biopsy prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 70(7):2068–2073. (PMID: 10.1093/jac/dkv06725802286) Wagenlehner FM, Thomas PM, Naber KG (2014) Fosfomycin trometamol (3000 mg) in perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis of healthcare-associated infections after endourological interventions: a narrative review. Urol Int 92(2):125–130. (PMID: 10.1159/00035510324051657) Pilatz A, Dimitropoulos K, Veeratterapillay R, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S et al (2020) Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 204(2):224–230. (PMID: 10.1097/JU.000000000000081432105195) Rubeli SL, D’Alonzo D, Mueller B, Bartlomé N, Fankhauser H, Bucheli E et al (2019) Implementation of an infection prevention bundle is associated with reduced surgical site infections in cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurg Focus 47(2):E3. (PMID: 10.3171/2019.5.FOCUS1927231370024) Weber WP, Mujagic E, Zwahlen M, Bundi M, Hoffmann H, Soysal SD et al (2017) Timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 17(6):605–614. (PMID: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30176-728385346) Porter CM, Shrestha E, Peiffer LB, Sfanos KS (2018) The microbiome in prostate inflammation and prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21(3):345–354. (PMID: 10.1038/s41391-018-0041-129795140) |
| فهرسة مساهمة: | Keywords: Antibiotic prophylaxis; Periinterventional prophylaxis; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer |
| المشرفين على المادة: | 2N81MY12TE (Fosfomycin) 5E8K9I0O4U (Ciprofloxacin) 8064-90-2 (Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination) 0 (Anti-Bacterial Agents) |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20240528 Date Completed: 20240528 Latest Revision: 20240710 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240710 |
| مُعرف محوري في PubMed: | PMC11133158 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00345-024-05048-4 |
| PMID: | 38806739 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. 
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 1433-8726 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1007/s00345-024-05048-4 |