Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  868 1030 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 868 1030 Next Page
Page Background

Two RCTs and two retrospective studies compared the

effect of antibiotic treatment with that of no treatment in

patients with renal transplants (Supplementary Table 1). A

meta-analysis of the two RCTs did not show benefit in terms

of reducing symptomatic UTIs (200 patients, RR = 0.86, 95%

CI 0.51–1.45; very low–quality evidence;

Fig. 2

E). Further-

more, there were no significant differences in the rate of

ABU clearance, graft loss, or change in renal function during

longer-term follow-up.

Two RCTs and two prospective nonrandomised studies

(Supplementary Table 1) including 167 patients compared

the effect of antibiotic treatment with that of no treatment

before transurethral resection. A meta-analysis of RCT data

showed that treatment reduced the rate of postoperative

symptomatic UTI (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.05–0.86; very low–

quality evidence;

Fig. 2

F). Similarly, the rates of postopera-

tive fever and septicaemia were significantly lower in

patients who received antibiotic treatment compared with

those receiving no treatment.

We identified one RCT (471 patients) and one multi-

centre cohort study (303 patients) comparing the treatment

of ABU with no treatment prior to hip or knee arthroplasty

(Supplementary Table 1). Neither of the studies showed

benefit for antibiotic treatment regarding prosthetic joint

infection (moderate-quality evidence). The cohort study

reported no significant difference in the rate of postopera-

tive symptomatic UTI (very low–quality evidence).

In the current era of increasing antibiotic resistance

reducing unnecessary antibiotic usage is of utmost impor-

tance and is emphasised by all antibiotic stewardship

programmes. Despite this clear message, treatment of

ABU remains common practice. The demonstration of lack

of benefit in most clinical situations shown by this thorough

and methodologically robust systematic review and meta-

analysis supports our recommendation of not to treat ABU

[3] .

ABU should only be treated prior to transurethral

resection surgery. In addition, short-course treatment of

ABU should continue to be recommended for pregnant

women, although this is challenged by the results of a recent

high-quality study finding no difference in neonatal out-

comes

[5]

.

Author contributions:

Bela Ko¨ves had full access to all the data in the

study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the

accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design:

Ko¨ves, Cai, Veeratterapillay, Pickard, Bartoletti,

Bruyere, Wagenlehner, Pilatz, Geerlings, Lam, Bonkat, Wullt, Hoffman.

Acquisition of data:

Ko¨ves, Cai, Veeratterapillay, Yuan.

Analysis and interpretation of data:

Ko¨ves, Cai, Veeratterapillay, Seisen,

Yuan, Lam, Wullt.

Drafting of the manuscript:

Ko¨ves, Cai, Veeratterapillay, Seisen, Lam,

Wullt.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:

Seisen,

Bartoletti, Bruyere, Geerlings, Wagenlehner, Pilatz, Lam, Bonkat, Wullt.

Statistical analysis:

Ko¨ves, Cai, Veeratterapillay, Pradere.

Obtaining funding:

None.

Administrative, technical, or material support:

None.

Supervision:

Wullt, Pickard.

Other:

None.

Financial disclosures:

Bela Ko¨ves certifies that all conflicts of interest,

including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations

relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript

(eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria,

stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed,

received, or pending), are the following: The conflict of interest

statements of all members of the EAU Urological Infections Guideline

Panel can be found at

http://uroweb.org/guideline/urological-infections/ ?type=panel .

All coauthors who are not members of the panel (Seisen,

Lam, Yuan, and Hofmann) do not have any conflicts of interest.

Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:

None.

Acknowledgements:

The authors thank Steven Maclennan for his

methodological help and Emma Jane Smith for her excellent assistance

during the review process.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be

found, in the online version, at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.eururo.2017.07.014 .

References

[1]

Hansson S, Jodal U, Lincoln K, Svanborg-Eden C. Untreated asymp- tomatic bacteriuria in girls: II—effect of phenoxymethylpenicillin and erythromycin given for intercurrent infections. BMJ 1989;298: 856–9.

[2]

Cai T, Verze P, Brugnolli A, et al. Adherence to European Association of Urology guidelines on prophylactic antibiotics: an important step in antimicrobial stewardship. Eur Urol 2016;69:276–83.

[3]

Bonkat G, Pickard RS, Bartoletti R, Bruyere F, Geerlings SE, Wagenlehner F, et al. Guidelines on urological infections. In: EAU guidelines. European Association of Urology 2017

.

[4]

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consen- sus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6.

[5]

Kazemier BM, Koningstein FN, Schneeberger C, et al. Maternal and neonatal consequences of treated and untreated asymptomatic bac- teriuria in pregnancy: a prospective cohort study with an embedded randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15:1324–33.

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 6 5 – 8 6 8

868