Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Fosfomycin vs. quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Infection-related complications secondary to quinolone resistance have been on the rise following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate (TRUSBP). The aim of this review was to compare the efficacy of fosfomycin with quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for TRUSBP.

Methods

A systematic review in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines was conducted. All studies comparing fosfomycin vs. non-fosfomycin antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUSBP were considered. The main outcomes were number of urinary tract infections (UTIs) (overall, afebrile, febrile, and urosepsis) and fluoroqinolone resistance. Secondary outcomes were positive urine and blood cultures, and adverse effects of drugs.

Results

Five studies comparing fosfomycin and non-fosfomycin antimicrobials were included in the review. In all, 1447 and 1665 patients were included in the fosfomycin and non-fosfomycin cohorts, respectively. The systematic review report significantly lower UTIs in the fosfomycin cohort (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI), 0.20 (0.13, 0.30), p < 0.00001. Urine cultures from patients given fosfomycin showed significantly lower resistance rates (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 0.27 (0.15, 0.50), p < 0.0001. The adverse effect profile between the two cohorts were similar (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI) 1.13 (0.51, 2.50), p = 0.33. On Grade Pro evaluation, overall UTI, afebrile UTI, febrile UTI, and urosepsis were rates as moderate, low, very low, and moderate quality evidence, respectively. Positive blood and urine culture were rated as moderate and very low-quality evidence, respectively. Fluoroquinolone resistance was rated as low-quality evidence. Adverse effects was rated as very low-quality evidence.

Conclusions

This review suggests that fosfomycin has significantly lower septic complications with an equivalent side effect profile in comparison with quinolone-based prophylaxis regimen for TRUSBP. There is an urgent need for appropriate antibiotic stewardship and it is paramount that studies with robust methodology are developed to establish the role of fosfomycin over existing antibiotic regimens for TRUSBP.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer#heading-Zero.

  2. 2.

    Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pepin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012;62:453–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bootsma AM, Laguna Pes MP, Geerlings SE, Goossens A. Antibiotic prophylaxis in urologic procedures: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1270–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Yang M, Zhao X, Wu Z, Xiao N, Lu C. Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis use in transrectal prostatic biopsy. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2009;34:115–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kapoor DA, Klimberg IW, Malek GH, Wegenke JD, Cox CE, Patterson AL, et al. Single-dose oral ciprofloxacin versus placebo for prophylaxis during transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 1998;52:552–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:353–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wagenlehner FME, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a Prospective Multinational Multicentre Prostate Biopsy Study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:521–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):S12–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2013;189:867–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol. 2015;22:181–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cai T, Gallelli L, Cocci A, Tiscione D, Verze P, Lanciotti M, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: fosfomycin trometamol, an attractive alternative. World J Urol. 2017;35:221–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fahmy AM, Kotb A, Youssif TA, Abdeldiam H, Algebaly O, Elabbady A. Fosfomycin antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a prospective randomised study. Arab J Urol. 2016;14:228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lista F, Redondo C, Meilan E, Garcia-Tello A, Ramon de Fata F, Angulo JC. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin-trometamol in the prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Prospective randomized comparison with ciprofloxacin. Actas Urol Esp. 2014;38:391–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ongun S, Aslan G, Avkan-Oguz V. The effectiveness of single-dose fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Urol Int. 2012;89:439–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sen V, Aydogdu O, Bozkurt IH, Yonguc T, Sen P, Polat S, et al. The use of prophylactic single-dose fosfomycin in patients who undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E863–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schito GC, Naber KG, Botto H, Palou J, Mazzei T, Gualco L, et al. The ARESC study: an international survey on the antimicrobial resistance of pathogens involved in uncomplicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2009;34:407–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed March 2017.

  19. 19.

    Reeves, B, Shea, B, Wells, G. Classifying non-randomised studies (NRS) and the assessing the risk of bias for a systematic review. Paper presented at: Workshop at 18th Cochrane Colloquium; 2010; Keystone, CO, USA.: Cochrane Colloquium; 2010.

  20. 20.

    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Nicasio AM, Kuti JL, Nicolau DP. The current state of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli in North America. Pharmacother J Human Pharmacol Drug Ther. 2008;28:235–49.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Yigit H, Queenan AM, Anderson GJ, Domenech-Sanchez A, Biddle JW, Steward CD, et al. Novel carbapenem-hydrolyzing beta-lactamase, KPC-1, from a carbapenem-resistant strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:1151–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gardiner BJ, Mahony AA, Ellis AG, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM, Zeglinski PT, et al. Is fosfomycin a potential treatment alternative for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative prostatitis? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58:e101–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Nilsson AI, Berg OG, Aspevall O, Kahlmeter G, Andersson DI. Biological costs and mechanisms of fosfomycin resistance in Escherichia coli. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47:2850–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    NICE Guidelines. Multidrug resistant urinary tract infections: fosfomycin trometamol. 2013. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/esuom17/chapter/key-points-from-the-evidence. Accessed 27 August 2017

  26. 26.

    Batura D, Gopal Rao G. The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68:247–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhavan Prasad Rai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noreikaite, J., Jones, P., Fitzpatrick, J. et al. Fosfomycin vs. quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 153–160 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0032-2

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links