Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: an individual patient-data meta-analysis.
Roberts, Matthew J; Scott, Susan; Harris, Patrick N; Naber, Kurt; Wagenlehner, Florian M E; Doi, Suhail A R.
Afiliação
  • Roberts MJ; Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au.
  • Scott S; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au.
  • Harris PN; Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au.
  • Naber K; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  • Wagenlehner FME; Department of Urology, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, Australia.
  • Doi SAR; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
World J Urol ; 36(3): 323-330, 2018 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29288398
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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próstata / Infecções Urinárias / Ciprofloxacina / Bacteriemia / Antibioticoprofilaxia / Levofloxacino / Fosfomicina / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próstata / Infecções Urinárias / Ciprofloxacina / Bacteriemia / Antibioticoprofilaxia / Levofloxacino / Fosfomicina / Antibacterianos Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article