Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine prophylaxis in preventing infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: Results from a large Canadian cohort

Carignan A, Sabbagh R, Masse V, Gagnon N, Montpetit LP, Smith MA, Raymond M, Allard C et al.

Journal of global antimicrobial resistance, 2019

9,391 participants · 22 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Rates of infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) are increasing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine (FMT) prophylaxis in preventing post-TRUSPB infectious complications.

METHODS

This nested case-control study included patients undergoing TRUSPB in a Canadian tertiary-care hospital who developed post-TRUSPB bacteraemia or urinary tract infection. Four prophylaxis periods were defined: (i) ciprofloxacin, low-resistance period (CIPRO-LOW), 2002-2009; (ii) ciprofloxacin, high-resistance period (CIPRO-HIGH), 2010-October 2013; (iii) oral FMT, one dose (FOSFO1), December 2013-September 2015; and (iv) oral FMT, two doses (FOSFO2), November 2015-June 2016. Incidence rates of the infection were calculated.

RESULTS

TRUSPB (n=9391) resulted in 138 cases of urinary sepsis (58% with bacteraemia). The incidence rates were 1.8% (CIPRO-HIGH), 3.5% (FOSFO1; P=0.004 vs. CIPRO-HIGH) and 2.7% (FOSFO2; P=0.19 vs. CIPRO-HIGH). Although Escherichia coli remained the predominant pathogen with fosfomycin-based regimens, the proportion of infections caused by Klebsiella spp. was higher (20/66; 30.3%) than with ciprofloxacin-based regimens (2/77; 2.6%; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Independent risk factors for infection were the prophylactic regimen administered, presence of urological co-morbidities and diabetes. FMT was therefore not an effective alternative to ciprofloxacin for preventing post-TRUSPB urinary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 9,391 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free