Current routines for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal prostate biopsy: a national survey to all urology clinics in Sweden

Cotrimoxazole and targeted antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy: a single-center study

PURPOSE

The recent restriction on the use of fluoroquinolones for prophylaxis by the European Commission has left a gap in clear recommendations for practical antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) for transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB). This analysis investigated the viability of cotrimoxazole for PAP in TRPB.

METHODS

This analysis included n = 697 patients who underwent TRPB for suspected prostate cancer (PCa). All patients received either empiric PAP with four doses of cotrimoxazole 960 mg or targeted antibiotic prophylaxis in case of a positive rectal or urine screening for multiresistant gram-negatives. Infectious complications after TRPB, microbiological findings, and clinical characteristics were evaluated. A multivariable logistic regression model was calculated to identify variables associated with infectious complications.

RESULTS

Of the cohort, 86% (600/697) received PAP with cotrimoxazole, 1% (8/697) received cotrimoxazole plus an additional antibiotic, 4% (28/697) received amoxicillin + clavulanic acid, 4% (28/697) received fluoroquinolones, and 5% (33/697) received a single shot intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis with meropenem or piperacillin + tazobactam due to multiresistant microbiological findings in either pre-interventional urine culture or rectal swab. Infectious complications occurred in 2.6% (18/697) of patients. Fever was noted in 89% (16/18) of cases. Inpatient treatment was given to 67% (12/18) of affected patients, with 38% (7/18) having positive blood cultures, identifying cotrimoxazole-resistant E. coli strains in six out of seven cases. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed no clinically significant variables, including PAP with cotrimoxazole, as independent risk factors for an infectious complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Using cotrimoxazole as PAP for TRPB in cases without multiresistant gram-negatives in pre-interventional urine cultures or rectal swabs seems feasible and practical.

The impact of pre-biopsy MRI and additional testing on prostate cancer screening outcomes: A rapid review

Objective

This work aims to examine the latest evidence on the impact of pre-biopsy MRI, in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, on health outcomes and quality of life.

Methods

We conducted a literature search including PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, with a limited scan of (i) guidelines and (ii) references from trial reports, from January 2005 to 25th January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria.

Results

One hundred thirty-seven articles were identified, and seven trial articles were selected. Trial interventions were as follows: (i) PSA blood test, (ii) additional tests such as pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), and (iii) MRI targeted biopsy and standard biopsy. Compared with standard biopsy, MRI-based interventions led to increased detection of clinically significant cancers in three studies and decreased detection of clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason grade 3 + 3) in four studies. However, PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) and Stockholm3 with MRI (STHLM3-MRI) studies reported different trends depending on the scenario studied in PROMIS (MRI triage and MRI directed biopsy vs. MRI triage and standard biopsy) and thresholds used in STHLM3-MRI (≥0·11 and ≥0·15). MRI also helped 8%-49% of men avoid biopsy, in six out of seven studies, but not in STHLM3-MRI at ≥0.11. Interestingly, the proportion of men who experienced sepsis and UTI was low across studies.

Conclusion

This review found that a combination of approaches, centred on the use of pre-biopsy MRI, may improve the detection of clinically significant cancers and reduce (i) the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancers and (ii) unnecessary biopsies, compared with PSA testing and standard biopsy alone. However, the impact of such interventions on longer term outcomes such as prostate cancer-specific mortality has not yet been assessed.

Occurrence and significance of fluoroquinolone-resistant and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae complex of the rectal flora in Ghanaian patients undergoing prostate biopsy

Background

Reports suggest that fluoroquinolone (FQ)-resistant and ESBL-producing rectal flora are associated with infectious complications in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS-B)

Objectives

We investigated the relationship between carriage of FQ-resistant and ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae complex of the rectal flora, and the 30 day incidence rate of post-TRUS-B infectious complications.

Methods

From 1 January 2018 to 30 April 2019, rectal swabs of 361 patients were cultured pre-TRUS-B for FQ-resistant and ESBL-producing flora. Patients were followed up for 30 days for infectious complications post-biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors.

Results

Overall, 86.4% (n = 312/361) and 62.6% (n = 226/361) of patients carried FQ-resistant and ESBL-producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae complex, respectively. Approximately 60% (n = 289/483) of the FQ-resistant and 66.0% (n = 202/306) of the ESBL-positive isolates exhibited in vitro resistance to the pre-biopsy prophylactic antibiotic regimen of levofloxacin and gentamicin. Amikacin and meropenem were the most effective antibiotics against the MDR rectal E. coli and K. pneumoniae complex (78.7% and 84.3%, respectively). The 30 day incidence rate for post-biopsy infections was 3.1% (n = 11/361), with an overall high probability (96.9%) of staying free of infections within the 30 day period post-TRUS-B. Antibiotic use in the previous 3 months was a risk factor for rectal carriage of FQ-resistant and ESBL-positive isolates. Rectal colonization by ESBL-positive E. coli and K. pneumoniae complex comprised an independent risk factor for post-biopsy infectious complications.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that a change in prophylactic antibiotics to a more targeted regimen may be warranted in our institution.

Comparison of Fluoroquinolones and Other Antibiotic Prophylaxis Regimens for Preventing Complications in Patients Undergoing Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

Our study aimed to compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) when adopting different antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens. A multi-institutional cohort of 1150 patients who underwent TRUSBx was retrospectively analyzed. Procedures were performed between 2017 and 2019 (before and after the EMA warning about the use of fluoroquinolones for the antibiotic prophylaxis of patient candidates to TRUSBx). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of infective complications, including sepsis and/or fever. The population was stratified according to the antibiotic prophylaxis adopted: fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, prulifloxacin), cephalosporins (cefixime, ceftriaxone) or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Univariable and multivariable binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) testing of the risk of infective complication after adjusting for each prebiopsy covariate. In total, 478 (41.6%) patients received fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis. Among these, 443 (38.5%), 25 (2.2%) and 10 (0.9%) patients received levofloxacin prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin and prulifloxacin, respectively while 14.6% received cefixime, 20.7% received the comedication of ceftriaxone/fosfomycin and 23.1% received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and fluoroquinolone regimens were significantly associated with a lower risk of infective complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03−0.48, p = 0.003 and OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06−0.43, p < 0.001, respectively). The ceftriaxone/fosfomycin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04−0.92, p = 0.04) and fluoroquinolone (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00−0.70, p = 0.048) prophylaxis were associated with a lower risk of infective sequelae. Fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of infective complications after TRUSBx compared to other prophylaxis regimens although its clinical application was recently forbidden by European Medical Agency restrictions.

Recent Trends in Prostate Biopsy Complication Rates and the Role of Aztreonam in Periprocedural Antimicrobial Prophylaxis—A Nationwide Population-Based Study from Korea

An increase in the rate of complications after prostate biopsy (PB) due to increased antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a global issue. We report the safety of aztreonam as a prophylactic antibiotic in patients undergoing PB. We investigated the complication rates according to several antibiotic regimens, including aztreonam. We hypothesized that PB complications increased following a rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. We examined the annual rates of complications among patients in our hospital (clinical cohort) and the Korea Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) cohort. Data regarding complications, hospitalization, emergency room (ER) visits, and febrile urinary tract infections occurring within 2 weeks after PB were recorded. The rate of complications was significantly lower in patients who received oral quinolone and intravenous aztreonam than in those who received oral quinolone. The complication rates did not increase throughout the study period. Additionally, 1754 patients from the HIRA cohort were included. The rates of complications, hospitalizations, and ER visits did not increase among these patients. Oral quinolone combined with intravenous aztreonam reduced the rate of febrile complications compared to quinolone alone and was safe to use after PB. Therefore, we recommend intravenous aztreonam with oral quinolone as a prophylactic antibiotic regimen before PB.

Short-term ciprofloxacin prophylaxis for prostate biopsy and risk of aortic aneurysm. Nationwide, population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The use of quinolones has recently been questioned due to reports on side effects including an increased risk of aortic aneurysm. The aim of the study was to examine the risk of aortic aneurysm (AA) after short-term ciprofloxacin as prophylaxis for prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden and investigated 192,024 prostate biopsy exposures vs. 554,974 non-exposures for risk of AA.Prostate biopsy was used as a proxy for quinolone use as short-term ciprofloxacin is the recommended and documented prophylaxis in Sweden for this procedure.The outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) of AA in men who underwent a biopsy vs. those that did not.

RESULTS

The absolute risk of AA was small, 39/10,000 person years for all AÁs and for ruptured AÁs 3.5/10,000 person years. In multivariate analyses, there were small, non-significant increases in risk of all AA's (adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.39) and ruptured AÁs (adjusted HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.15) in men who underwent biopsy. A significantly increased risk of AA was observed in men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer on biopsy (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.15-2.21). The use of prostate biopsy as a proxy for exposure to ciprofloxacin was a limitation of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term ciprofloxacin was not associated with an increased risk of aortic aneurysm and the increased risk in men with high-risk prostate cancer was likely due detection bias caused by imaging more commonly performed in these men.

Current routines for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal prostate biopsy: a national survey to all urology clinics in Sweden

Background: The risk of infection after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies is increasing. The aim of the study was to assess the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsy in Sweden. Methods: All public and private urology clinics reporting to the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden received a survey on TRUS-biopsy prophylaxis. Results: Of the 84 clinics surveyed, 76 replied (90%). If no risk factors for infection were present, a single dose of ciprofloxacin 750 mg was used by 50 clinics (66%). Multiple doses of ciprofloxacin 500 or 750 mg (n=14; 18%) or a single dose of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 160/800 mg (n=7; 9%) were other common prophylaxes. Most clinics gave the prophylaxes immediately before the biopsy (n=41; 54%). Urine dipstick was used by 30 clinics (39%) and rectal enema by six (8%). In patients with high risk of infection, the survey mirrors a large variety of regiments used. Conclusions: The preference to use a single dose of ciprofloxacin 750 mg is in accordance with the Swedish national guidelines for patients with a low risk of infection. Better compliance to the guideline recommendation to use a urine dipstick would probably increase the number of patients classified as having an increased risk of infection. Being classified as a high-risk patient should lead to an extended duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, however, the variety of regimens used in the high-risk group reflects an inability to treat these patients in a standardized fashion and also highlights a need for more clear-cut guidelines. Pre-biopsy identification of high-risk patients is an important issue to tackle for the urologic clinics in order to reduce the number of infections.