The Efficacy of Fosfomycin as Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptom After Biopsy: A Prospective Study.
Andreia Cardoso, Jorge Ribeiro, Rafael Araújo, João Pimentel Torres, Paulo Mota
{"title":"The Efficacy of Fosfomycin as Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and Impact on Lower Urinary Tract Symptom After Biopsy: A Prospective Study.","authors":"Andreia Cardoso, Jorge Ribeiro, Rafael Araújo, João Pimentel Torres, Paulo Mota","doi":"10.5152/tud.2023.23030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Due to fluoroquinolone resistances worldwide, valid alternatives for anti- biotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are needed, thus, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of prophylactic fosfomycin versus other oral prolonged antibiotic regimens, in preventing complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective study, patients submitted to transrectal ultrasound- guided prostate biopsy were divided into 2 groups according to the prophylactic antibiotic scheme performed: \"short\" (2 fosfomycin doses) versus \"long\" (antibiotic ≥ 8 days). One week and 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, we assessed complications' occurrence (lower urinary tract symptoms, fever, sepsis, hemorrhage) and adverse drug reactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 244 patients (fosfomycin n=178, \"long\" antibiotic n=66). The only significant difference between groups was higher lower urinary tract symptom incidence 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in fosfomy- cin patients (16.85% vs. 6.06%, P=.031). However, after 1 week, lower urinary tract symptoms were tendentially frequenter on \"long\" antibiotic group (31.81% vs. 25.84%, P = .059). Infectious and hemorrhagic complications rate, adverse drug reactions, and recurrence to health services were similar between groups, and significantly decreased between the first week and first month.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Antibiotic prophylaxis seems to impact lower urinary tract symptoms after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Fosfomycin may provide slightly better outcome on the immediate period, while \"long\" antibiotic courses lead to significantly less lower urinary tract symptoms 1 month post-transrectal ultrasound-guided pros- tate biopsy, perhaps by preventing incipient prostatitis phenomena. Future directed studies should clarify these findings. Still, it seems feasible to ally fosfomycin advan- tages with noninferior safety, efficacy, and tolerability, allowing to reserve \"long\" regimens to other contexts. This is especially relevant in centers where transperineal biopsies are still not possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"49 4","pages":"259-265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10544358/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.23030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Due to fluoroquinolone resistances worldwide, valid alternatives for anti- biotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are needed, thus, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of prophylactic fosfomycin versus other oral prolonged antibiotic regimens, in preventing complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.
Methods: In this prospective study, patients submitted to transrectal ultrasound- guided prostate biopsy were divided into 2 groups according to the prophylactic antibiotic scheme performed: "short" (2 fosfomycin doses) versus "long" (antibiotic ≥ 8 days). One week and 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, we assessed complications' occurrence (lower urinary tract symptoms, fever, sepsis, hemorrhage) and adverse drug reactions.
Results: We included 244 patients (fosfomycin n=178, "long" antibiotic n=66). The only significant difference between groups was higher lower urinary tract symptom incidence 1 month after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in fosfomy- cin patients (16.85% vs. 6.06%, P=.031). However, after 1 week, lower urinary tract symptoms were tendentially frequenter on "long" antibiotic group (31.81% vs. 25.84%, P = .059). Infectious and hemorrhagic complications rate, adverse drug reactions, and recurrence to health services were similar between groups, and significantly decreased between the first week and first month.
Conclusion: Antibiotic prophylaxis seems to impact lower urinary tract symptoms after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Fosfomycin may provide slightly better outcome on the immediate period, while "long" antibiotic courses lead to significantly less lower urinary tract symptoms 1 month post-transrectal ultrasound-guided pros- tate biopsy, perhaps by preventing incipient prostatitis phenomena. Future directed studies should clarify these findings. Still, it seems feasible to ally fosfomycin advan- tages with noninferior safety, efficacy, and tolerability, allowing to reserve "long" regimens to other contexts. This is especially relevant in centers where transperineal biopsies are still not possible.