Current antibiotic resistance patterns of rare uropathogens: survey from Central European Urology Department 2011-2019.
Acinetobacter
Anti-infective agents
Bacterial
Citrobacter
Drug resistance
Enterobacter
Morganella
Providencia
Serratia
Stenotrophomonas
Urinary
Urinary tract infections
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Apr 2021
13 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
28
09
2020
accepted:
24
03
2021
entrez:
14
4
2021
pubmed:
15
4
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While the resistance rates of commonly detected uropathogens are well described, those of less frequent Gram-negative uropathogenic bacteria have seldom been reported. The aim of this study was to examine the resistance rates of less frequent uropathogenic Gram-negatives in a population of patients treated in a Department of Urology of a tertiary referral centre in Central Europe over a period of 9 years. Data on all positive urine samples from urological in- and out-patients were extracted form the Department of Clinical Microbiology database from 2011 to 2019. Numbers of susceptible and resistant isolates per year were calculated for these uropathogens: Acinetobacter spp. (n = 74), Citrobacter spp. (n = 60), Enterobacter spp. (n = 250), Morganella morganii (n = 194), Providencia spp. (n = 53), Serratia spp. (n = 82) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 27). Antimicrobial agents selected for the survey included: ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam; cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime and cefepime; ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin; gentamicin and amikacin; ertapenem, meropenem and imipenem; trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole), nitrofurantoin and colistin. Penicillin derivatives have generally poor effect except piperacillin/tazobactam. Cefuroxime is not efficient unlike cefotaxime (except against Acinetobacter spp. and S. maltophilia). Susceptibility to fluoroquinolones is limited. Amikacin is somewhat more efficient than gentamicine but susceptibilities for both safely exceed 80%. Nitrofurantoin shows virtually no efficiency. Cotrimoxazole acts well against Citrobacter spp., Serratia spp. and it is the treatment of choice for S. maltophilia UTIs. Among carbapenems, ertapenem was less efficient than meropenem and imipenem except for S. maltophilia whose isolates were mostly not suceptible to any carbapenems. Uropathogenic microorganisms covered in this report are noteworthy for their frequently multi-drug resistant phenotypes. Knowledge of resistance patterns helps clinicians choose the right empirical antibiotic treatment when the taxonomical assignment of the isolate is known but sensitivity results are pending.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While the resistance rates of commonly detected uropathogens are well described, those of less frequent Gram-negative uropathogenic bacteria have seldom been reported. The aim of this study was to examine the resistance rates of less frequent uropathogenic Gram-negatives in a population of patients treated in a Department of Urology of a tertiary referral centre in Central Europe over a period of 9 years.
METHODS
METHODS
Data on all positive urine samples from urological in- and out-patients were extracted form the Department of Clinical Microbiology database from 2011 to 2019. Numbers of susceptible and resistant isolates per year were calculated for these uropathogens: Acinetobacter spp. (n = 74), Citrobacter spp. (n = 60), Enterobacter spp. (n = 250), Morganella morganii (n = 194), Providencia spp. (n = 53), Serratia spp. (n = 82) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (n = 27). Antimicrobial agents selected for the survey included: ampicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam; cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime and cefepime; ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin; gentamicin and amikacin; ertapenem, meropenem and imipenem; trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole), nitrofurantoin and colistin.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Penicillin derivatives have generally poor effect except piperacillin/tazobactam. Cefuroxime is not efficient unlike cefotaxime (except against Acinetobacter spp. and S. maltophilia). Susceptibility to fluoroquinolones is limited. Amikacin is somewhat more efficient than gentamicine but susceptibilities for both safely exceed 80%. Nitrofurantoin shows virtually no efficiency. Cotrimoxazole acts well against Citrobacter spp., Serratia spp. and it is the treatment of choice for S. maltophilia UTIs. Among carbapenems, ertapenem was less efficient than meropenem and imipenem except for S. maltophilia whose isolates were mostly not suceptible to any carbapenems.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Uropathogenic microorganisms covered in this report are noteworthy for their frequently multi-drug resistant phenotypes. Knowledge of resistance patterns helps clinicians choose the right empirical antibiotic treatment when the taxonomical assignment of the isolate is known but sensitivity results are pending.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33849512
doi: 10.1186/s12894-021-00821-8
pii: 10.1186/s12894-021-00821-8
pmc: PMC8042353
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
61Subventions
Organisme : Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky (CZ)
ID : Thomayer Hospital - TH, 00064190
Références
Ir J Med Sci. 2017 Aug;186(3):733-741
pubmed: 28054236
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Oct;2(4):363-373
pubmed: 28723468
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 12;8(4):e020251
pubmed: 29654026
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 6;11(10):e0164306
pubmed: 27711250
Korean J Intern Med. 2018 May;33(3):595-603
pubmed: 29117671
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 09;16(a):365
pubmed: 27507292
Korean J Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30(2):219-25
pubmed: 25750564
Antibiotics (Basel). 2020 Sep 22;9(9):
pubmed: 32971752
Nat Rev Urol. 2015 Oct;12(10):570-84
pubmed: 26334085
Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Jun 18;55(6):
pubmed: 31216725
N Engl J Med. 2008 Mar 20;358(12):1271-81
pubmed: 18354105
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct;13(4):534-46
pubmed: 11023955
BMC Urol. 2017 Apr 26;17(1):33
pubmed: 28446177
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Feb;71(2):296-306
pubmed: 26542304
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Oct;24(4):755-91
pubmed: 21976608
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Oct;41(10):4726-32
pubmed: 14532211
Antibiotics (Basel). 2019 Jul 11;8(3):
pubmed: 31373311
J Med Microbiol. 2018 Jun;67(6):790-797
pubmed: 29693543
BJU Int. 2012 Apr;109(8):1198-206
pubmed: 21883861
Cir Cir. 2019;87(2):176-182
pubmed: 30768071
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Apr 10;115(15):E3463-E3470
pubmed: 29581252
Virulence. 2017 May 19;8(4):403-416
pubmed: 27384881
BMC Microbiol. 2016 Jun 24;16(1):121
pubmed: 27342199
Euro Surveill. 2019 Jan;24(5):
pubmed: 30722813
J Med Microbiol. 2017 Jan;66(1):61-69
pubmed: 28051952
Clin Ther. 2017 Jan;39(1):170-176
pubmed: 28034519
Front Microbiol. 2015 May 18;6:392
pubmed: 26042091
JAMA. 2016 May 3;315(17):1864-73
pubmed: 27139059
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2010 May;55(3):286-94
pubmed: 20526844
Lancet Infect Dis. 2005 Aug;5(8):481-93
pubmed: 16048717
Rev Med Chil. 2014 Nov;142(11):1482-4
pubmed: 25694296
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2020 Apr;38(4):166-169
pubmed: 31606242
J Hosp Infect. 2013 Oct;85(2):118-24
pubmed: 23954065
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996 Apr;9(2):148-65
pubmed: 8964033
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012 Jan;25(1):2-41
pubmed: 22232370
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016 Aug;85(4):459-65
pubmed: 27306116
West J Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 13;21(3):633-639
pubmed: 32421512