Therapeutic recommendations of the multidisciplinary group

There are specific indications in urological procedures [transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), endoscopic procedures, and all interventions classified as contaminated or dirty] requiring antibiotic prophylaxis. Most postoperative infections are caused by enterococci of the Gram-positive strains and Enterobacteriaceae of the Gram-negative ones. As reported by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), there are increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Most Enterococcus faecium strains are ampicillin-resistant and the Enterobacteriaceae have a high prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers, for which the cephalosporins and penicillins are not drugs of choice. In recent years, there are also increasing numbers of Gram-negative strains that are able to produce carbapenemases and for which the only therapeutic options are gentamicin, tigecycline and colistin. An alternative to these drugs, from a prophylactic point of view, is fosfomycin, an old antibiotic that maintains bactericidal activity against both enterococci and multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Available in an oral formulation as trometamol salt, fosfomycin reaches high plasma and urine concentrations, and is therefore a possible alternative to other drugs both for therapy and urological prophylaxis. In this paper there will be an update about antibiotic prophylaxis in urological procedures, considering also new antibiotic resistance patterns of uropathogens

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Preliminary Data of The Italian Oncologic Pain Multisetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)

Introduction: An ongoing national multicenter survey [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] is evaluating the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) in different clinical settings. Preliminary data from the first 1500 cancer patients with BTP enrolled in this study are presented here. Methods: Thirty-two clinical centers are involved in the survey. A diagnosis of BTP was performed by a standard algorithm. Epidemiological data, Karnofsky index, stage of disease, presence and sites of metastases, ongoing oncologic treatment, and characteristics of background pain and BTP and their treatments were recorded. Background pain and BTP intensity were measured. Patients were also questioned about BTP predictability, BTP onset (≤10 or >10 min), BTP duration, background and BTP medications and their doses, time to meaningful pain relief after BTP medication, and satisfaction with BTP medication. The occurrence of adverse reactions was also assessed, as well as mucosal toxicity. Results: Background pain was well controlled with opioid treatment (numerical rating scale 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients reported 2.5 ± 1.6 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.5 ± 1.4 and duration of 43 ± 40 min; 977 patients (65.1%) reported non-predictable BTP, and 1076 patients (71.7%) reported a rapid onset of BTP (≤10 min). Higher patient satisfaction was reported by patients treated with fast onset opioids. Conclusions: These preliminary data underline that the standard algorithm used is a valid tool for a proper diagnosis of BTP in cancer patients. Moreover, rapid relief of pain is crucial for patients’ satisfaction. The final IOPS-MS data are necessary to understand relationships between BTP characteristics and other clinical variables in oncologic patients. Funding: Molteni Farmaceutici, Italy