Abstract
Background Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a recognized complication of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for urolithiasis. Evidence guiding antibiotic prophylaxis remains of low certainty, contributing to substantial practice variation and conflicting guidelines. A well-powered, blinded randomized trial is essential to provide trustworthy evidence for clinical practice.
Study Design An international, multicentre, randomized controlled trial (the APPEAL trial) assessing the benefits and harms of a single dose of ciprofloxacin versus placebo before SWL in reducing post-procedure UTI. Patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators and statisticians blinded to treatment assignment.
Endpoints Appeal’s primary outcome is bacteriuria or symptomatic UTI (symptomatic UTI defined as symptomatic cystitis, pyelonephritis, or urosepsis) within approximately 7-14 days post-SWL. Other outcomes include pyelonephritis or urosepsis, and serious adverse events.
Patients and Methods Over 1,500 patients from high- and middle-income countries undergoing SWL for nephrolithiasis or ureterolithiasis. Exclusion criteria include a positive pre-SWL urine analysis for nitrites or urine culture, ongoing or planned antibiotic use, suspected struvite stones, urinary catheters or diversion, or a history of urosepsis.
Imminent report of APPEAL will provide high-quality evidence on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in SWL and identify subgroups that may benefit most.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov identifier (ID): NCT03692715.
Background
Urolithiasis is a common urological condition that is associated with considerable morbidity and significant economic burden [1,2]. Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), a less invasive treatment than ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and other surgical treatments for renal and ureteral calculi, carries a risk of complications, notably infection [3–8]. In patients undergoing SWL, potential risk factors for urinary tract infections (UTI) or bacteriuria include having ureteral stent, large stone size, high stone density, kidney/upper ureteral (vs distal ureteral) stones, older age, female (vs male) sex, and diabetes mellitus [5–8].
Clinical practice
A 2016 survey comparing practice patterns between Canadian (n=94) and American (n=187) urologists found that routine pre-SWL antibiotic use was much more common in the United States (78%) than in Canada (2%) [9]. In a UK retrospective study (data collection starting September 2013) most patients did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis pre-SWL. However, clinicians from two (out of seven) centers routinely administered 3-5 day post-treatment prophylaxis [10].
As there is paucity of studies on practice patterns, we surveyed each of the 12 trial centers in 9 countries before they initiated recruitment. Investigators in 3 (25%) centers reported typically not prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis for patients. In 4 (33%) centers, investigators prescribed prophylaxis only for patients with a ureteral stent, while in 5 (42%) centers, investigators typically prescribed prophylaxis regardless of the presence of a stent. Appendix 1 provides details on our survey methods and results. The practice variation identified by previous studies [9,10], along with findings from our own survey, underscore the need for conducting our randomized trial.
Guidelines and evidence
The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on Urological Infections gives a strong recommendation as “Do not use antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce the rate of symptomatic urinary infection following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy” [11]. The EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis states that “No standard antibiotic prophylaxis before SWL is recommended. However, prophylaxis is recommended in the case of internal stent placement ahead of anticipated treatments and in the presence of increased bacterial burden” [12]. The Canadian Urological Association (CUA) gives a moderate recommendation that states: “Pre-procedural antibiotics do not significantly reduce the risk of UTI and fever in patients undergoing ESWL, but should be considered in patients at high risk of infectious complications” [13]. The American Urological Association (AUA) 2020 Best Practice Statement states that “non-invasive procedures such as shock wave lithotripsy do not require antimicrobial prophylaxis if the pre-procedural urine microscopy is negative for infection”, without making any specific recommendations for any potential higher risk groups [14].
The EAU urolithiasis and urological infections guidelines [11,12] base their recommendations primarily on two systematic reviews and meta-analyses [13,15], one published in 2012 (9 RCTs with 1364 patients included in the meta-analysis on UTI) and the other in 2015 (7 RCTs with 820 patients included in the meta-analysis on UTI). Although these meta-analyses concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis did not reduce UTI or fever, the 2012 meta-analysis that reported 41 events for UTI, demonstrated a relative risk reduction of 46% (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.01), and the 2015 meta-analysis that reported 42 events for fever, demonstrated a relative risk reduction of 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.06-1.1). This low certainty evidence (due to imprecision and other factors) may actually suggest benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing UTI or fever. The AUA guideline classified its recommendation as clinical principle without providing supporting evidence [16].
The most recent systematic review examining this topic [17], published in 2021, included a meta-analysis of 1,482 patients who experienced 43 symptomatic UTI events. Authors rated the evidence certainty as very low and reported a RR of 0.55 (95% CI 0.22–1.36). The authors concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis is not necessary for patients with sterile urine prior to ESWL [17]. However, due to the very low certainty of evidence, high risk of bias, and a low number of events resulting in a wide confidence interval, whether antibiotic prophylaxis confers important benefits remains uncertain. Resolving this uncertainty and establishing clear evidence-based practices that strike a balance between minimizing antibiotic prophylaxis use and preserving antimicrobial effectiveness without increasing postoperative complications requires a large, randomized trial. In this context, the APPEAL trial will compare the efficacy of single-dose ciprofloxacin antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo in preventing postoperative bacteriuria and urinary tract infections (cystitis, pyelonephritis, and urosepsis) post SWL for urolithiasis.
Study Design
Design and management
The APPEAL trial (Table 1) is a phase IV placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, international, multicentre, randomized controlled trial comparing preoperative single-dose ciprofloxacin to placebo in patients undergoing SWL for urolithiasis. A clinical trial update article provides information on study progress [18]. The present manuscript focuses on the methods of the APPEAL trial and provides the statistical analysis plan.
The Clinical Urology and Epidemiology (CLUE) Working Group at the University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital leads and coordinates the APPEAL trial (as a coordinating centre). The CLUE Working Group is responsible for overseeing the trial, including study database and data consistency, statistical expertise and analysis, and the coordination of participating centres.
Grants from the Competitive Research Funding of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District, Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Research Council of Finland, and Vyborg Tuberculosis Foundation support the APPEAL trial. The sponsors have no role in the study design or the manuscript preparation, review, or approval. The coordinating centre and the APPEAL trial Steering Committee are solely responsible for the design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and decision to submit for publication of this trial. The APPEAL trial is conducted in compliance with the study protocol, the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Table 1). At each site, before the start of the recruitment, the institutional ethics boards approved the protocol that follows national legal and regulatory requirements. Appendix 2 provides information on decisions/approvals of the local institutional review boards.
Recruitment
APPEAL is a multinational trial with centres representing four WHO regions (Americas, South-East Asia, Europe, and Eastern Mediterranean) (Figure 1). The 12 participating centres are from 9 countries including Finland (Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki; as the coordinating centre), Canada (Western University Hospital, London, Ontario; and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec), Iran (Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz), Qatar (Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha), Russia (State Pavlov Medical University, Saint Petersburg; Aleksandrovskaya Hospital, Saint Petersburg; and Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow), Switzerland (University Hospital Basel, Basel), Saudi Arabia (King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah), Brazil (Hospital E Maternidade São Luis, Sao Paolo), and Indonesia (Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta). These centres represent urologic departments with vast experience in SWL treatment of kidney and ureteral stones. Before starting the trial, eligible trial sites provided reassurance that ciprofloxacin resistance is not substantial in their patient population.
Randomization and blinding
On day of the operation, randomized patients receive either a single dose of antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or a single dose of placebo pre-SWL (1:1 ratio with stratification by study site). Block randomization using blocks of 10, carried out by a central randomization organization (www.randomize.net, Ottawa, Canada) using a computerized algorithm is accessible via a standard browser on any internet-connected device. Patients are assigned a randomization number that corresponds to their treatment arm. The study treatment pack is assigned to the patient. Un-blinding will occur only after the completion of the statistical analysis. Patients, healthcare providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators are blind to active-ciprofloxacin or placebo-ciprofloxacin treatment assignment.
Endpoints
We defined the primary outcome as a composite of positive urine culture, symptomatic cystitis, pyelonephritis or urosepsis at approximately 7-14 days (Table 2). We defined secondary outcome as any symptomatic urinary tract infection (composite of symptomatic cystitis, pyelonephritis or urosepsis), and tertiary outcomes as all individual components of the primary composite outcome as well as serious adverse events (SAEs). Table 2 presents a detailed description of the components and definitions of the primary, secondary, and tertiary outcomes.
Eligibility Criteria
Eligible patients are aged 18 years or older, have urolithiasis (i.e., nephrolithiasis, ureterolithiasis, or both), and undergo SWL. Table 3 lists the complete inclusion and exclusion criteria. All study participants provide written informed consent before randomization.
Methods
Pre-SWL patients are randomized to either antibiotic prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or a single dose of placebo. Patients randomized to the ciprofloxacin group are administered a single dose either orally 500 mg (Finland, Switzerland) or intravenously 400 mg (Canada, Iran, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Indonesia). Depending on the administration route chosen, the placebo group receives either a single tablet identical to ciprofloxacin or intravenous saline without any added active pharmaceutical. Patients receive oral intervention approximately one hour prior to the beginning of the SWL and the intravenous intervention immediately prior to SWL.
We exclude patients with known allergy for ciprofloxacin or quinolones (Table 3). We discuss risks and benefits of receiving either the trial intervention or placebo with patients and inform them of the low risk of allergic reaction, colonization with antibiotic resistant organisms, and the very low risk of developing of C. Difficile related diarrhoea, or tendon injury.
Sample Size Calculation
To estimate the expected incidence of the primary outcome, we used the incidence of bacteriuria reported in the AUA Best Practice Statement on antibiotic prophylaxis: patients undergoing SWL in the placebo arm of trials assessing antibiotic prophylaxis had a 5.7% rate of bacteriuria as compared to 2.1% among those who received prophylaxis [19]. This represents an absolute difference of 3.6% (a 60% relative risk reduction). Therefore, to achieve a power of 90% (1 – β = 0.9) and to find an absolute difference of 3.6% in the occurrence of bacteriuria, with a significance level of α = 5% two-sided, we need to recruit 661 patients in each arm for a total of 1,322 patients.
Accounting for 10% loss to follow-up, the total required will be 1,454, or approximately 1,500 patients.
Methods of Data Collection
Prior to SWL, we collect data through a pre-procedural study questionnaire, a modified IPSS questionnaire (Appendix 3), and obtain a urine sample (Table 4). A pre-procedural questionnaire, recorded at the time of SWL at the participating centre addresses clinical issues such as the presence or absence of a double J stent, stone characteristics, and renal insufficiency. At approximately 7-14 days post-SWL, the participants complete a modified IPSS questionnaire and provide urine for culture. Data acquisition and the occurrence of outcomes are monitored continuously through scheduled audits (Table 4).
Analysis Plan
We will perform all outcome analyses using the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle, that is, we will analyse patients in the treatment group into which they were allocated (ciprofloxacin versus placebo), regardless of the intervention received.
Main Analyses
We will report baseline characteristics using medians (with interquartile ranges, IQR), mean values (with standard deviations), or frequencies (percentages). We will present all binary outcomes as crude numbers and proportions of participants in each group with the event (Table 5). We will conduct the primary analysis using a complete case approach, with participants having missing data excluded from the analysis. For the primary and secondary outcomes, we will use multivariable robust Poisson regression models controlling for study site, and presence (vs. absence) of ureteral stent. We will also conduct the same analysis for tertiary outcomes, provided there is an adequate number of events. The robust Poisson regression model uses the classical sandwich estimator under the generalized estimation equation (GEE) framework to provide accurate standard errors for the elements [20,21]. We will report results as relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction with corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated p values. We will infer statistical significance if the computed 2-sided p-value is <0.05. We will conduct blinded interpretation of study results: i) we will first conduct blinded review of primary outcome data to develop two interpretations, one assuming A as the experimental treatment (ciprofloxacin) and another as the control (placebo). After finalizing and signing decisions, we will break the randomization, and the correct interpretation is selected. We will perform analysis using Stata version 18 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA, 2023) and R version 4.4.2 (R Core Team, 2024; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Subgroup Analysis
To address possible effect modification, we will use the same analytical approach as specified for the primary and secondary outcomes but include a treatment by subgroup interaction term in the model. Previous research found presence of ureteral stent(s) as a potential risk factor for UTI in patients undergoing SWL [4]. We will therefore explore how ciprofloxacin versus placebo impacts patients with and without ureteral stents. We expect ciprofloxacin to have larger relative (and absolute) benefit in patients having ureteral stents. We will report results using a forest plot illustrating risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and in accordance with best practices and guidelines for subgroup analyses [22–24]. We will use the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to guide inferences about the credibility of our subgroup analyses [22].
Sensitivity Analyses
If the primary analysis yields a significant result for the primary outcome, we will conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the findings regarding the impact of missing data [25,26]. We will assume that participants in the placebo group (control arm) with missing data have the same event rate as those who completed follow-up in the placebo group.
We will first assume that participants in the ciprofloxacin group (intervention arm) with missing data have double the event rate of those who completed follow-up in the ciprofloxacin group. If the result remains significant, we will proceed stepwise, increasing the assumed event rate to triple, then four times, and finally five times – but only if each preceding analysis remains significant. If an assumption fails to yield a significant result, we will not proceed further.
Interim Analysis
A blinded (pooled data from both treatment groups) re-estimation of the sample size will be conducted when at approximately 66% (n=1000) of patients have been recruited if the observed event rate is lower than the expected event rate.
Dissemination of the results
After the end of the study, the coordinating centre undertakes to publish the results, remaining the sole owner of the data. All publications will undergo a review by the Steering Committee before submission. We will present the trial results according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for RCTs [27]. The results of the APPEAL will provide the highest quality evidence available to inform future clinical practice. APPEAL also created a large trial network that will facilitate future studies and therefore represented a crucial step to establish CLUE Working Group as trial unit of excellence focused on global, pragmatic RCTs [28].
Discussion
Large discrepancies exist between guidelines and clinical practice patterns regarding antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing SWL. Given the low frequency of severe infectious complications following SWL, a large pragmatic RCT is necessary to determine the need for prophylaxis and identify the specific patient populations that may benefit.
This trial commenced recruitment in London (Ontario, Canada) in 2013 as a single-centre trial. Recruitment challenges are common in randomized surgical trials: slow recruitment is the most common reason for discontinuation [29]. This trial faced similar challenges. Owing to slow recruitment, we expanded the trial globally and renamed as APPEAL.
In 2019, the European Commission issued a legally binding decision restricting the use of quinolone antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin, across all EU countries, primarily because of adverse effects associated with prolonged use [30]. This decision has influenced opinions on suitable antibiotic prophylaxis strategies, particularly in the context of urinary procedures for which quinolones were commonly used. Despite this, we believed that continuation of recruitment for APPEAL was ethical because i) evidence has shown that the adverse effects of quinolones are overwhelmingly associated with long-term use, and ii) ciprofloxacin remains one of the prophylactic antibiotics most often used in urology.
The results of our RCT, whether positive or negative, will significantly contribute to the existing literature by providing high-certainty evidence with the largest patient population to date for future meta-analyses and guideline development. If the study demonstrates a benefit from antibiotic use, it will reduce the rates of infectious complications in patient care. Additionally, our study may enable a more selective use of antibiotics in line with recent guidelines by identifying key predictors of infection. Conversely, a negative result will offer the strongest evidence to date against routine prophylaxis, potentially decreasing the unnecessary use of antibiotics among SWL patients. This could lead to cost savings for the healthcare system and reduce the risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Furthermore, we propose evaluating a straightforward antibiotic protocol that any institution can easily adopt. Therefore, the results of this study will have a significant impact on recommendations for the use of pre-SWL antibiotics.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
Funding
Funded by the Competitive Research Fund of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District (TYH2017114, TYH2018120; TYH2019321, TYH2020248, TYH2022330, TYH2023236), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Research Council of Finland (309387), Vyborg Tuberculosis Foundation, Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation, Lawson Health Research Institute, Quebec Urological Association Scholarship Fund and Dr H. Olding and Mrs J. Hildigar Foucar Memorial Fund. The sponsors had no role in the study design or in manuscript preparation, review or approval.
Disclosure of Interests
Le Mai Tu has received speaker honoraria from Abbvie, Astellas and Fotona. Thomas Tailly is company consultant for Ambu GmbH, Cook Medical, Storz Medical AG, Photocure, Dornier Med Tech GmbH, BD; received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific; and is panel member of the EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Patrick O Richard is company consultant for Novartis and has received speaker honoraria from Astellas, Abbvie, Bayer, Knight, Novartis and Tolmar. Murilo de Almeida Luz is company consultant for Astellas, Janssen and ProScan; received speaker honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen and Sanofi; has received research grants from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Ferring and ProScan; participates in trials for Active Biotech, Bayer, Ferring, GSK and Janssen; and has received travel grants from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Janssen and Pfizer. Samuel Lagabrielle is company consultant for Alnylam and Boston Scientific; and has received speaker honoraria from Alnylam and Boston Scientific. John Denstedt has received royalties from Cook Medical, speaker honoraria from Becton Dickenson and Boston Scientific; and research grants from Vathin Medical. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix 1. Details on our survey methods and results
Appendix 2. Ethics decisions/approvals of the local institutional review boards
Appendix 3. A modified IPSS questionnaire
Footnotes
Collaborator authors (APPEAL Trial Investigators): Alex L. E. Halme, Niko K. Nordlund, Paula Saari, Linda Nott, Elsie Morneau, Behzad Lotfi, Mohsen Amjadi, Kamaleddin Hassanzadeh Nokashti, Nima Naghdi, Etham Jahantabi, Ehsan Sepehran, Fatimeh Kazemi Rashed, Zeenah Abdulmajid, Khalid Al-Rumaihi, Helge Seifert, Maeve Dreher, Aiman Al-Solumany, Espie Quiroz, Mustafa Taeyb, Wissam Kamal, Ahmad Bugis, Alexandra Mischenko, Dmitry Lebedev, Vadim Rudenko, Nataliya Antsupova, Dmitry Enikeev, Felipe A Loprete, Carlos A Guedes Negrão, Yasmina Zahra Syadza, Widi Atmoko, Bayu Hernawan, Ervita Mediana, Annisa Vigilanty Pratiwi, Rustom P Manecksha, Lorraine Scanlon, Andreia Bilé Silva
References
