World journal of urology · 2017
Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: an individual patient-data meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roberts Matthew J, Scott Susan, Harris Patrick N, Naber Kurt, Wagenlehner Florian M E, Doi Suhail A R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyse available evidence comparing fosfomycin trometamol (FT) to fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis to prevent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) related infectious complications.
METHODS: Electronic databases were queried for studies comparing FT to FQ-based TRUSPB prophylaxis. Studies were assessed for comparable outcomes and methodological quality (ROBINS-I modification). The primary outcome measure was the relative odds of overall infectious complications following TRUSPB according to FT/FQ treatment, which was evaluated with meta-analysis. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. The relative odds of infections of different severity [Grade 1, bacteriuria and afebrile urinary tract infection (UTI); Grade 2, bacteraemia, febrile UTI, and urosepsis] according to FT/FQ treatment were also estimated.
RESULTS: Five studies, being three prospective randomised trials and two retrospective cohort studies, representing 3112 patients, were included. The relative odds of an infectious complication (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.54) or of a more severe (Grade 2) infection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.26) were significantly lower in those receiving FT compared to FQ prophylaxis. A low incidence of medication-related side effects was observed. There were less observed infections due to FQ-resistant pathogens in those receiving FT prophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received FT prophylaxis were less likely than those who received FQ prophylaxis to develop infections overall, as well as severe and resistant infections after TRUSPB. Assessing the performance of FT in other geographic locations or in comparison to targeted prophylaxis based on risk assessment or rectal cultures is desired.
METHODS: Electronic databases were queried for studies comparing FT to FQ-based TRUSPB prophylaxis. Studies were assessed for comparable outcomes and methodological quality (ROBINS-I modification). The primary outcome measure was the relative odds of overall infectious complications following TRUSPB according to FT/FQ treatment, which was evaluated with meta-analysis. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. The relative odds of infections of different severity [Grade 1, bacteriuria and afebrile urinary tract infection (UTI); Grade 2, bacteraemia, febrile UTI, and urosepsis] according to FT/FQ treatment were also estimated.
RESULTS: Five studies, being three prospective randomised trials and two retrospective cohort studies, representing 3112 patients, were included. The relative odds of an infectious complication (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.54) or of a more severe (Grade 2) infection (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.26) were significantly lower in those receiving FT compared to FQ prophylaxis. A low incidence of medication-related side effects was observed. There were less observed infections due to FQ-resistant pathogens in those receiving FT prophylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received FT prophylaxis were less likely than those who received FQ prophylaxis to develop infections overall, as well as severe and resistant infections after TRUSPB. Assessing the performance of FT in other geographic locations or in comparison to targeted prophylaxis based on risk assessment or rectal cultures is desired.