Fosfomycin for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Men Undergoing a Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antibiotic Prophylaxis of Transrectal Biopsy of the Prostate: A Plea for Fosfomycin

INTRODUCTION

According to guidelines, transrectal random biopsy of the prostate (TRBP) is performed under antibiotic prophylaxis (AP). Fosfomycin-trometamol (FOS) is not approved in Germany, but TRBP as indication was listed in the product information falsely. The aim was to investigate infectious complications of TRBP under FOS as a single dose.

METHODS

All TRBPs under FOS 3,000 mg as a single dose between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, at a university institution were recorded. 357 patients (41-85 years old, median 66) were included. 243 received first TRBP, 321 TRBP were MRI-fusionated. 10-22 cores were taken (median 14). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 0.1-1224 ng/mL (median 7.7 ng/mL), prostate volume 5-263 mL (median 50 mL). Analysis was performed using Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and t test.

RESULTS

Four patients suffered an infection (1.1%), without significant difference according to age (p = 0.849), PSA (p = 0.957), number of cores (p = 0.905), and increase in volume (p = 0.456). Limiting is the retrospective character.

CONCLUSION

The complication rate was 1.1%, and FOS single dose therefore represents sufficient AP for TRBP in this collective. FOS as a single dose should be reevaluated in a prospective study to obtain approval in Germany for this indication.

Comparison of different regimens of short-term antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common malignant solid tumour in men aged >70 years and is the second most common cause of death from oncological circumstances.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of different short-term prophylactic antibiotic regimens in transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) on the incidence of infectious complications.

METHODS

Patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided PB between January 2021 and December 2022 were included in the prospective randomized study. According to the regimen of prophylaxis, patients were randomized into three groups: (1) fosfomycin trometamol 3 g, 3 h before the procedure + ciprofloxacin 500 mg, 2 h before the procedure; (2) fosfomycin trometamol 3 g, 3 h before and 24 h after the procedure; (3) ciprofloxacin 500 mg 12, 2 h before the procedure, and 12 h after the procedure. A rectal swab was performed 1-2 weeks before PB to evaluate the culture findings. Complications were evaluated during follow-up visits within one month after PB.

FINDINGS

In the monitored period, 605 PBs were performed, and 544 patients met the inclusion criteria (184, 161, and 199 in groups 1, 2, and 3). Infectious complications occurred in 10 cases (1.83%), namely 3, 4, and 3 according to patient groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the individual groups. None of the patients required hospitalization and all were free of symptoms of sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Short-term antibiotic prophylaxis in PB using fosfomycin trometamol, ciprofloxacin, or their combination appears to be effective. Fosfomycin trometamol is a suitable alternative to fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

Martin E, Broomfield S, Martín AM, Fung C, Kinnaird A. Complication rates of ciprofloxacin alone vs. ciprofloxacin plus fosfomycin for transrectal prostate biopsy

INTRODUCTION

Infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy have been increasing, driven in large part, by rates of antibiotic resistance to conventional prophylaxis, such as ciprofloxacin. This study was designed to compare conventional antibiotic prophylaxis (oral ciprofloxacin) with ciprofloxacin and fosfomycin combination therapy prior to biopsy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study looking at men between September 2021 and April 2023, who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy at several institutions in Alberta. The primary outcome was infectious complications within 30 days of prostate biopsy. Secondary outcomes included Clostridium difficile infections, urinary retention, gross hematuria, diarrhea, emergency room (ER ) visits, hospital admissions, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Data was collected on resistance patterns and pathogens isolated in culture.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2168 men underwent transrectal prostate biopsy. A total of 1216 men received ciprofloxacin alone and 877 received fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin. Infectious complications were significantly higher in the ciprofloxacin alone group (5.8% vs. 0.5%, p<0.0001). Thirty-day complications (7.2% vs. 2.1%, p<0.0001), 30-day ER visits (7.1% vs. 1.8%, p<0.0001), and 30-day hospitalizations (2.7% vs. 0.7%, p<0.001) were all higher in the ciprofloxacin alone group. The most isolated pathogen was E. coli in 54/60 (90%). Ciprofloxacin resistance in the isolated pathogens was high, with 52/60 (87%) showing resistance to ciprofloxacin and 51/54 (94%) E. coli strains resistant. No difference was seen in retention, C. difficile infections, bleeding, or diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of fosfomycin for antibiotic prophylaxis prior to transrectal prostate biopsy was associated with significant improvement in infectious complications and healthcare utilization.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic interventions: Who, when, where?

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural prophylaxis in medicine encompasses the set of measures (physical, chemical, and pharmacological) used to reduce the risk of infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) refers to the administration of a short-term regimen of antibiotics shortly before a medical procedure to reduce the risk of infectious complications that can result from diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The outspreading growth of multidrug-resistant bacterial species and changes in the bacterial local ecosystem have impeded the development of a unique scheme of AP in urology.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature and current guidelines regarding AP for urological diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to define agents, timing, and occasions when administering pharmacological prophylaxis. Secondly, according to current literature, to open new scenarios where AP can be useful or useless.

RESULTS

Major gaps in evidence still exist in this field. AP appears useful in many invasive procedures and some sub-populations at risk of infectious complications. AP is not routinely recommended for urodynamic exams, diagnostic cystoscopy, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. The available data regarding the use of AP during the transperineal prostate biopsy are still unclear; conversely, in the case of the transrectal approach AP is mandatory. AP is still considered the gold standard for the prevention of postoperative infective complications in the case of ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, endoscopic resection of bladder tumor, endoscopic resection of the prostate, and prosthetic or major surgery.

CONCLUSION

The review highlights the complexity of determining the appropriate candidates for AP, emphasizing the importance of considering patient-specific factors such as comorbidities, immunocompetence, and the nature of the urologic intervention. The evidence suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable, and a tailored strategy based on the specific procedure and patient characteristics is essential.