Probiotics for preventing urinary tract infection in people with neuropathic bladder.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic or neurogenic bladder describes a process of dysfunctional voiding as the result of injury in the brain, spinal cord or nerves innervating the bladder. People with neuropathic bladder, such as from spinal cord injury (SCI), are at significant risk of morbidity from urinary tract infections (UTI). Effective methods to prevent UTI in people with SCI have been sought for many years. Probiotics (micro-organisms that exert beneficial health effects in the host) have been recommended for bacterial interference of the urological tract to reduce colonisation by uropathogen and to manage the dual problems of infection and antibiotic resistance. OBJECTIVES: This review looked at the benefits and harms of probiotics in preventing symptomatic UTI in people with neuropathic bladder compared with placebo, no therapy, or non-antibiotic prophylaxis (cranberry juice, methenamine hippurate, topical oestrogen). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 10 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over RCTs looking at the use of probiotics for the prophylaxis of UTI in people with neuropathic bladders was considered for inclusion. Men, women and children of all ages with neuropathic bladders from neurological injury such as suprapontine, supra sacral and sacral aetiologies was included. All bladder management types, including reflex voiding, time voiding, indwelling and intermittent catheterization were eligible for this review.Studies comparing probiotics to placebo, no treatment or other non-antibiotic prophylaxis was included. Studies comparing probiotics with antibiotics or in combination with antibiotics were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were planned for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes a total of three studies (one cross-over and two parallel RCTs) which involved 110 participants. All three studies looked at intravesical instillation of a low virulent Escherichia coli (E. coli) strain in reducing the risk of symptomatic UTI in participants with neuropathic bladder, predominantly from SCI. Two studies used the E. coli 83972 strain and one study used the E. coli HU2117 strain.We did not find any RCTs involving other probiotics or other routes of administration for preventing UTI in people with neuropathic bladder.There was consistency in definition of symptomatic UTI in all three studies. Symptoms that all studies considered were relevant to diagnose UTI were adequately defined. All three studies defined microbiological diagnosis of symptomatic UTI.Asymptomatic bacteriuria was not considered an outcome measure in any of the included studies; however it was defined in two studies to establish successful inoculation.It is uncertain if the risk of symptomatic UTI is reduced with bladder inoculation using E. coli because the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies, 110 participants: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.19; I2 = 82%).Two studies reported adverse events. One study reported one episode of autonomic dysreflexia. One study reported three symptomatic UTI occurring in two patients, and two studies mentioned the absence of septicaemia and pyelonephritis. Intravesical instillation was reported as "generally safe". One study reported high attrition rates in participants due to the need to adhere to strict instillation protocols.The overall quality of the studies was poor. All three studies had high risk of attrition bias due to failure of an intention-to-treat analysis which undermines the randomisation process and weakened the results of the studies. All three studies also had high risk of reporting bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there were no studies identified addressing oral probiotics in preventing UTI in people with neuropathic bladder. It is uncertain if the risk of symptomatic UTI is reduced in people with neuropathic bladders via intravesical instillation of non-pathogenic E. coli as data were derived from small studies with high risk of bias.Although very minimal levels of harm was reported with this procedure, due to variable success rates, the need for strict adherence to instillation protocols together with high attrition rates in these studies, it is doubtful bladder instillation will be a widely accepted intervention in its current form.It is recommended that further appropriately powered RCTs with more robust methodological reporting be carried out.

Methenamine hippurate for preventing urinary tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Methenamine salts are often used as an alternative to antibiotics for the prevention of urinary tract infection (UTI). This review was first published in Issue 1, 2002 and updated in Issue 4, 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of methenamine hippurate in preventing UTI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction. Manufacturers' of methenamine salts were contacted for unpublished studies and contact was made with known investigators.Date of last search: June 2012 SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs of methenamine hippurate used for the prevention of UTIs in all population groups were eligible. A comparison with a control/no treatment group was a prerequisite for selection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). An exploration of heterogeneity and a detailed description of results, grouped by population, was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (2032 participants) were included. Six studies (654 patients) reported symptomatic UTI and eight studies (796 patients) reported bacteriuria. Overall, study quality was mixed. The overall pooled estimates for the major outcome measures were not interpretable because of underlying heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses suggested that methenamine hippurate may have some benefit in patients without renal tract abnormalities (symptomatic UTI: RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; bacteriuria: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83), but not in patients with known renal tract abnormalities (symptomatic UTI: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 6.20; bacteriuria: RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.07). For short-term treatment duration (1 week or less) there was a significant reduction in symptomatic UTI in those without renal tract abnormalities (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38). The rate of adverse events was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methenamine hippurate may be effective for preventing UTI in patients without renal tract abnormalities, particularly when used for short-term prophylaxis. It does not appear to work in patients with neuropathic bladder or in patients who have renal tract abnormalities. The rate of adverse events was low, but poorly described.There is a need for further large well-conducted RCTs to clarify this question, particularly for longer term use for people without neuropathic bladder.

WITHDRAWN: Pharmacological interventions for treating acute heterotopic ossification.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of mature lamellar bone in soft tissue sites outside the skeleton. HO frequently complicates burns, arthroplasty, fractures, and spinal cord and brain injuries. It can impair joint function. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of medications to treat acute HO on radiological, symptomatic, functional impairment, and disability outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (1980 to August 2004), CINAHL (1982 to August 2004), other databases, reference lists of articles, and contacted trialists and drug companies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of any medication for treating acute HO (confirmed by bone scintigraphy, radiography, ultrasonography, or biopsy) and which used radiography to grade post-treatment HO severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the study quality and extracted data. We analysed two dichotomous outcomes: no progression in HO grade (versus progression) and improvement in HO grade (versus no improvement). MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised trials comparing disodium etidronate versus placebo were included (Ono 1988; Stover 1976), from which ninety-two participants with spinal cord injury had radiographically-proven HO at baseline. At the completion of the 12 week intervention, the Ono study but not the Stover study, suggested that disodium etidronate was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of successfully preventing the progression of radiographic HO grade, (relative risk (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) I 1.16 to 1.93; and RR 1.48; 95% CI 0.78 to 2.84 respectively) and a significantly greater likelihood of improvement in HO grade (RR 2.78; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.66; and RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.53 respectively). There was evidence of statistical heterogeneity for the latter outcome. Longer term radiographic, clinical or side effect outcomes were unavailable. Data was not pooled due to this heterogeneity and the inadequate duration of follow up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the absence of long term radiographic outcomes in the included studies, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of disodium etidronate or other pharmacological agents for the treatment of acute HO. It has been previously suggested that disodium etidronate acts by delaying, rather than preventing, the mineralization of HO, and that mineralization may occur after treatment cessation in many cases, thereby negating the benefit of disodium etidronate on eventual HO grade. Further studies are required to assess all pharmacological treatments for acute HO with sufficient follow-up duration.