Update of the EAU/ESPU guidelines on urinary tract infections in children.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are common in children and require appropriate diagnostic evaluation, management and follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To provide a summary of the updated European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on Pediatric Urology, which were first published in 2015 in European Urology. STUDY DESIGN: A structured literature review was performed of new publications between 2015 and 2020 for UTIs in children. The guideline was updated accordingly with relevant new literature. RESULTS: The occurrence of a UTI can be the first indication of anatomical abnormalities in the urinary tract, especially in patients with a febrile UTI. The basic diagnostic evaluation should include sufficient investigations to exclude urinary tract abnormalities, but should also be as minimally invasive as possible. In recent years, more risk factors have been identified to predict the presence of these anatomical anomalies, such as a non-E. Coli infection, high grade fever and ultrasound abnormalities. When these risk factors are factored into the diagnostic work-up, some invasive investigations can be omitted in a larger group of children. In addition to the treatment of active UTIs, it is also essential to prevent recurrent UTIs and consequent renal scarring. With the increase of antimicrobial resistance good antibiotic stewardship is needed. In addition, alternative preventative measures such as dietary supplements, bladder and bowel management and antibiotic prophylaxis could decrease the incidence of recurrent UTI. CONCLUSION: This paper is a summary of the updated 2021 EAU guidelines on Pediatric Urology. It provides practical considerations and flowcharts for the management and diagnostic evaluation of UTIs in children.

Contemporary use of phytotherapy in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: results from the EVOLUTION European registry.

BACKGROUND: To use the European Association of Urology Research Foundation (EAURF) registry data to determine the proportion of contemporary Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms associated with Benign Prostatic Enlargement (LUTS/BPE) patients prescribed phytotherapy, and to determine their subjective quality of life and clinical progression responses. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter multinational observational registry study, conducted over 2 years. Men ≥ 50 years seeking LUTS/BPE were divided at baseline into two cohorts, presently/recently untreated patients (PUP) commencing pharmacotherapy at baseline and presently/recently treated patients (c-PTP) continuing previously received pharmacotherapy, with 24-month follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Overall, 2175 patients were enrolled with 1838 analyzed. Of the PUP cohort (n = 575), 92 (16%) received phytotherapy and 65 (71%, n = 65/92) completed 24-month FU, with France prescribing 34% (n = 30/89) the highest proportion of phytotherapy among all LUTS/BPE medications. In the c-PTP group (n = 1263), only 69 (5%) patients were using phytotherapy, falling to n = 35/69 (51%) at 24-month FU (highest in France 20% (n = 43/210)). Though defined disease progression occurred in ≤ 20%, with only 1% proceeding to surgical intervention, in both groups, clinically meaningful improvement was lower and symptom persistence was higher in PUP but similar in the treated (c-PTP) patients on phytotherapy compared to the other LUTS/BPE medication. CONCLUSION: Low heterogeneous prescribing rates for phytotherapy were reported in both PUP and c-PTP cohorts over the 24-month FU. Although phytotherapy led to subjective improvements, healthcare practitioners should prescribe them with caution until higher quality evidence and guideline recommendations supporting its use are available.