Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health
Home About us Ahead Of Print Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Editorial Board Login 
Users Online:173
  Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 181-184
Etiology and sensitivity of uropathogens in outpatients and inpatients with urinary tract infection: Implications on empiric therapy


Department of Microbiology, Yenepoya Medical College, Nithyanandanagar, Deralakatte, Mangalore, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication17-Jul-2012
 

   Abstract 

Background and Objectives: Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) are the second most common infections after the respiratory tract infections and constitute a great proportion of prescription of antibiotics. The present study was designed to determine the etiology of uropathogens and their susceptibility pattern in outpatients and inpatients of our hospital so as to arrive at an empirical treatment for patients with UTI. Materials and Methods : A total of 924 urine samples were obtained from inpatients and outpatients with a clinical diagnosis of UTI. The samples were cultured and antibiotic susceptibility of isolates determined by disc diffusion method. Results: Of 924 urine samples processed (828 from inpatients and 96 from outpatients), 262 (28.35%) yielded bacterial isolates. About 216 (26.08%) samples from inpatients and 46 (47.9%) from outpatients showed significant bacteriuria. Escherichia coli predominated in both groups, followed by Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Enterobacter spp., which were isolated from only the inpatient samples. Sensitivity to nitrofurantoin varied from 73% to 94% and fluoroquinolone resistance was documented as 11%-80%. Resistance to amikacin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone was less than 25%. Imipenem resistance was found in <5% of the bacterial isolates. Conclusion: E. coli and Klebsiella spp. are the major uropathogens. Resistant strains are prevalent in the community, as evident by the fact that there is not much difference in resistance patterns of isolates from inpatients and outpatients. Taking into account the resistant pattern, nitrofurantoin represents the option of first choice for empirical therapy of uncomplicated UTI.

Keywords: Antibiotic, empirical, urinary tract infections

How to cite this article:
Pai V, Nair B. Etiology and sensitivity of uropathogens in outpatients and inpatients with urinary tract infection: Implications on empiric therapy. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2012;5:181-4

How to cite this URL:
Pai V, Nair B. Etiology and sensitivity of uropathogens in outpatients and inpatients with urinary tract infection: Implications on empiric therapy. Ann Trop Med Public Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2018 May 22];5:181-4. Available from: http://www.atmph.org/text.asp?2012/5/3/181/98610

   Introduction Top


Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) are the second most common infections after respiratory tract infections and constitute a great proportion of prescription of antibiotics. With the advent of novel antibiotics, though a significant reduction in the prevalence of infectious diseases was seen worldwide in the initial years, eventually a new form of infectious diseases caused by drug-resistant bacteria has evolved. The use of an antibiotic has been correlated with the subsequent development of resistance to it. [1],[2] The organisms causing UIT are often the intestinal flora. [3] Antibiotic resistance is common in intestinal bacteria due to therapy for infections other than UTI. [4] Antibiotic resistance among uropathogens has increased over the past 30 years. [5],[6],[7] Resistance to ampicillin increased from 12% to 43% in Britain between 1971 and 1992. The resistance rates were 56% to ampicillin, 24% to ampicillin/sulbactam, 15% to ciprofloxacin, 36% to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and 75% to cefuroxime according to a study from Turkey. [8] According to a recent study from India, resistance rates among uropathogens were very high, with 76% strains resistant to third-generation cephalosporins. [9] The empirical therapy should be based on the local data about the prevalent uropathogens and their antimicrobial resistance. The present study was, therefore, designed to determine the etiology of uropathogens and their susceptibility pattern in outpatients and inpatients of our hospital so as to arrive at an empirical treatment for patients with UTI.


   Materials and Methods Top


This prospective study was conducted in the department of microbiology from June 2010 to October 2010 over a period of five months. The urine samples were obtained from inpatients and outpatients of our teaching hospital with a clinical diagnosis of suspected UTI.

The samples included midstream urine specimen, catheterized urine samples, supra-pubic aspirates collected in sterile universal bottles (approximately 15 ml). A total of 924 samples were processed during the study period. The uncentrifuged samples were inoculated with a calibrated loop delivering 0.001 ml of urine sample onto Cystine Lactose Electrolyte Deficient medium (CLED) agar and blood agar plates. The inoculated culture plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 hr. A significant bacterial count was taken as any count equal to or more than 10 5 /ml of urine for Gram-negative bacteria and 10 3 -10 4 /ml of urine for Gram-positive bacteria. The isolates were identified by biochemical tests as per standard methods. [10]

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on Mueller-Hinton Agar (MHA) plates (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai) by disc diffusion method. Each strain was inoculated onto MHA plate and antibiotic discs were placed on the inoculated MHA plates, which were then incubated at 37°C for 24 hr. The following antimicrobial discs were tested for Gram-negative isolates: ampicillin (10 μg), nalidixic acid (30 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), nitrofurantoin (300 μg), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (1.25/23.75 μg), cefuroxime (30μg), ceftriaxone (30 μg), ceftazidime (30 μg), imipenem (10 μg), and amikacin (30 μg). The antimicrobials tested for Gram-positive isolates were the following: ampicillin (10 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), trimethoprim-sulphamethoxozole (1.25/23.75 μg), nitrofurantoin (300 μg), cefuroxime (30 μg), ceftriaxone (30 μg), oxacillin (1 μg), and vancomycin (30 μg). The results were interpreted according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria. [11] Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 were used as the standard control strains.


   Results Top


A total of 924 urine samples were processed (828 from inpatients and 96 from outpatients). Of these samples, 262 (28.35%) specimens yielded bacterial isolates. About 216 (26.08%) samples from inpatients and 46 (47.9%) from outpatients showed significant bacteriuria.

E. coli predominated in both groups followed by Klebsiella spp. and Citrobacter spp. [Table 1]. Proteus spp. and Staph. aureus were isolated from both groups, whereas Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Enterobacter spp. were isolated from only the inpatient samples.
Table 1: Distribution of organisms in outpatients and inpatients

Click here to view


The antibiotic sensitivity pattern of Gram-negative isolates is shown in [Table 2]. A majority of isolates were resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nalidixic acid, cefuroxime, and ampicillin. Sensitivity to nitrofurantoin varied from 73% to 94% with E. coli being the most sensitive and Proteus spp. as least sensitive. Fluoroquinolone resistance was documented as 11%-80%. Resistance to amikacin, ceftazidime, and ceftriaxone was less than 25%. Imipenem resistance was found in <5% of the bacterial isolates.
Table 2: Sensitivity of organisms to antimicrobials (numbers sensitive)

Click here to view


Among nine strains of Staph. aureus obtained, three were oxacillin resistant. All Staph. aureus strains were sensitive to vancomycin.


   Discussion Top


E. coli was the most common pathogen causing UTI in both inpatients and outpatients. Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. were isolated from hospitalized patients only. Similar results have been reported by other investigators. [12],[13] Pseudomonas spp. is noted to survive and thrive well in soaps and disinfectants used for urethral catheterization. Gram-negative organisms were more prevalent than Gram-positive organisms in our set-up, which is similar to reports from other hospitals. [14] Staph. aureus was the only Gram-positive bacteria obtained in both groups.

The degree of resistance to routinely used antibiotics in both groups was almost similar. This is in contrast to some previous studies, which showed that resistance is more in isolates from hospitalized patients than the outpatients. [13],[15] Recent studies have shown results similar to the present study. [12] This indicates that the drug-resistant strains have spread in the community.

A high degree of resistance to ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, nalidixic acid, and cefuroxime was found. These antibiotics have been used for many years to treat UTI. The fluoroquinolones with their broad-spectrum activity are still being used as one of the best treatment options for UTI. [16] In our study, the resistance to ciprofloxacin was variable among different species of isolates, with 89% of Enterobacter spp. strains and 20% of Proteus spp. being resistant. The overall susceptibility to this drug was 45%, which indicates that it may no more be advocated for empirical therapy of UTI.

Nitrofurantoin is a urinary antibiotic, hence not used for infections outside the urinary tract. This may be the reason that resistance to this agent has not occurred much. We found the average susceptibility to this drug to be 85%. As Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. have intrinsic resistance to this drug, we did not test our strains for this antibiotic. As nitrofurantoin has shown good effect on uropathogens (E. coli, Klebsiella spp., Proteus spp., Staph. aureus) that are responsible for community-acquired UTI, we recommend this drug for empirical therapy of UTI.

Third-generation cephalosporins, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime showed good activity against the bacterial strains. Resistance to ceftriaxone and ceftazidime was <25% and <24%, respectively. This shows that the majority of bacterial strains in our community and hospital are not Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) producers. This result is interesting and different from other studies, which have reported >76% of uropathogens as ESBL producers. [17] Hence, third-generation cephalosporin may be considered as the first line of therapy for UTI.

Resistance to Imipenem was very low (<5%). It was also noticed that resistance to this drug was seen only with Enterobacter spp., Citrobacter spp. and E. coli, whereas all strains of Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp., and Proteus spp. were sensitive. Carbapenem is the final therapeutic option for any infection, and hence cannot be given for empirical therapy.

The aminoglycoside, amikacin was effective on >80% of bacterial isolates as also reported from other studies. [17],[18] The activity of amikacin on Pseudomonas spp. (92%) and Acinetobacter spp. (100%) was good. Keeping in mind the toxicity of an aminoglycoside, it is suggested to keep this drug for second line therapy for UTI.


   Conclusion Top


Our data report that E. coli and Klebsiella spp. are the major uropathogens. These reveal that the resistance to antimicrobials is increasing and such strains are prevalent in the community, as evident by the fact that there is not much difference in resistance patterns of isolates from inpatients and outpatients. Keeping the emerging antimicrobial resistance in mind, it is suggested to start antimicrobial therapy only after the sensitivity report from the microbiology laboratory. Taking into account the resistance pattern, nitrofurantoin represents the option of first choice for empirical therapy of uncomplicated UTI.

 
   References Top

1.Kunin CM, Johansen KS, Worning AM, Daschner FD. Report of a symposium on use and abuse of antibiotics worldwide. Rev Infect Dis 1990;12:12-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Lambert HP. Clinical impact on drug resistance. J Hosp Infect II 1988;SupplA:135-41. Cited in Senewiratne B, Senewiratne K, Hettiarachchi J. Bacteriology and antibiotic sensitivity in acute urinary tract infection in Ceylon. Lancet 1973;1:222-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Cattell WR, McSherry MA, NorthEast A, Powell E, Brooks HJ, O'Grady F. Periurethral enterobacterial carriage in pathogenesis of recurrent urinary infection. Br Med J 1974;4:248-52.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
4.Senewiratne B, Senewiratne K, Hettiarachchi J. Bacteriology and antibiotic sensitivity in acute urinary tract infection in Ceylon. Lancet 1973;1:222-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Gruneberg RN. Changes in urinary pathogens and their antibiotic sensitivities, 1971-1992. J Antimcrob Chemother 1994;333 (Suppl A):1-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Gupta K, Scholes D, Stamm WE. Increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens causing acute uncomplicated cystitis in women. JAMA 1999;281:736-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
7.Zhanel GG, Karlowsky JA, Harding GK, Carrie A, Mazzulli T, Low DE, et al. A Canadian national surveillance study of urinary tract isolates from outpatients: Comparison of the activities of trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole, ampicillin, mecillinam, nitrofurantoin and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000;44:1089-92.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
8.Eryilmaz M, Bozkurt ME, Yildiz MM, Akin A. Antimicrobial resistance of urinary Escherichia coli isolates. Trop J Pharm Res 2010;9:205-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Rajesh KR, Mathavi S, Indra Priyadarsini R. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in uropathogens and determining empirical therapy for urinary tract infections. Int J Basic Med Sci 2010;1 in press.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Crichton PB. Enterobacteriaceae: In: Collee JG, Fraser AG, Marmion BP, Siminous A, editors. Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 14 th ed. New York: Churchill Livingston; 1996. p. 361-4.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Performance standards for Antimicrobial Disc Susceptibility Tests, CLSI Vol.29 No.3, Jan 2009.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Inwadioha S, Nwokedi EE, Jombo GT, Kashibu E, Alao OO. Antibiotics susceptibility pattern of uropathogenic bacterial isolates from community and hospital acquired urinary tract infections in a Nigerian Tertiary Hospital. Int J Infect Dis 2010;8:1.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Khamenah ZR, Afshar A.T. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of urinary tract pathogens. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2009;20:251-3.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Gupta V, Yadav A, Joshi RM. Antibiotic resistance pattern in uropathogens. Indian J Med Microbiol 2002;2:96-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
15.Biswas D, Gupta P, Prasad R, Singh V, Arya M, Kumar A. Choice of antibiotic for empirical therapy of acute cystitis in a setting of high antimicrobial resistance. Indian J Med Sci 2006;60;53-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Chakupurakal R, Ahmed M, Sobithadevi DN, Chinnappan S, Reynolds T. Urinary tract pathogens and resistance pattern. Clin Pathol 2010;63:652-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
17.Ram S, Gupta R, Gaheer M. Emerging antibiotic resistance among the uropathogens. Indian J Med Sci 2000;54:388-94.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
18.Mohanty S, Kapil A, Das BK, Dhawan B. Antimicrobial resistance profile of nosocomial uropathogens in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Med Sci 2003;57:148-54.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Vidya Pai
Department of Microbiology, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya University, Nithyanandanagar, Deralakatte, Mangalore-575018
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1755-6783.98610

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Urinary tract infection–A tale of 50 years
Srishti Goel,Sharmila B. Mukherjee
Indian Pediatrics. 2016; 53(1): 57
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Profil et sensibilité aux antibiotiques de 1879 bactéries urinaires pathogènes isolées chez l’enfant (2012–2013)
M. Marzouk,A. Ferjani,M. Haj Ali,J. Boukadida
Archives de Pédiatrie. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Prevalence and antibiotic resistance pattern of urinary tract bacterial infections in Dessie area, North-East Ethiopia
Asrat Abejew,Ayele A Denboba,Alemayehu Mekonnen
BMC Research Notes. 2014; 7(1): 687
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2518    
    Printed106    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded12    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal