Microbiology of UTIs in 2010
Transcript of Microbiology of UTIs in 2010
![Page 1: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Old bugs - new tricksMicrobiology of UTIs
in 2010
Dr Tim Collyns
Consultant Microbiologist
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
![Page 2: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Microbiological aetiology of UTIs
“Collateral” damage associated with antibiotics
Available therapeutic options in an era of
increasing resistance
![Page 3: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Urinary tract infections (UTI):
“Simple” vs “complicated”
Lower vs upper
Community acquired vs hospital acquired
Healthcare associated.
Initial episode vs recurrent
Species distribution not changed
(antimicrobial resistance pattern increasing)
Symptomatic UTI vs asymptomatic bacteriuria
Urinary catheters WILL become colonised
![Page 4: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Uncomplicated UTIs (cystitis)
ARESC Study:
Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiological
Survey on Cystitis.
Female patients, 18 – 64
Nine European countries and Brazil,
2003 – 2006.
> 4200 enrolled.
Schito 2009.
![Page 5: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Organism %
Escherichia coli 76.7
Klebsiella pneumoniae 3.5
Proteus mirabilis 3.4
Staphylococcus saprophyticus 3.6
Other uropathogens 7.6
Enterobacteriaceae
(Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Serratia, Klebsiella, Pantoea, Salmonella spp, M morganii)
Other Gram negatives (incl. Pseudomonas aeruginosa 0.2%)
Enterococci
Others 5.1
S aureus, coagulase negative staphylococci, streptococci
![Page 6: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Pathogen distribution by country (W Europe)
after Schito 2009
Country Total (%) E coli K pneu P mira S sapr Uropath Others
France 488 (16.2) 409
(83.8)
5 (1.0) 15 (3.1) 21 (4.3) 21 (4.3) 17 (3.5)
N/lands 36 (1.2) 29
(80.6)
1 (2.8) 0 (0) 2 (5.6) 2 (5.6) 2 (5.6)
Spain 650 (21.5) 515
(79.2)
15 (2.3) 28 (4.3) 29 (4.5) 38 (5.9) 25 (3.8)
Germany 317 (10.5) 243
(76.7)
8 (2.5) 15 (4.7) 9 (2.8) 19 (6.0) 23 (7.3)
Italy 329 (10.9) 239
(72.6)
18 (5.5) 10 (3.0) 0 (0) 44 (13.4) 18 (5.5)
Austria 91 (3.0) 62
(68.1)
5 (5.5) 3 (3.3) 2 (2.2) 12 (13.2) 7 (7.7)
Western
Europe
1911 1497
(78.3)
52
(2.7)
71
(3.7)
63
(3.3)
136
(7.1)
92
(4.8)
![Page 7: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
E coli.....Know thine enemy
![Page 8: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
E coli
![Page 9: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
E coli, Blood Agar plate
![Page 10: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
E coli, MacConkey plate (Lactose fermenter)
![Page 11: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
E coli
Certain serogroups predominate
O1, O2, O4, O6, O7, O8, O75, O150, O18ab
Uropathogenic E coli clones
Certain serotypes more virulent
Cystitis or pyelonephritis
Adhesins – epithelial cell receptors
P fimbriae: globoseries glycosphingolipids
type I fimbriae
S/FIC fimbriae
G, M fimbriae
Sobel, Kaye 2010
![Page 12: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Recurrent / structural abnormalities
Hospital / longterm healthcare facilties:
Increased proportion due to
Proteus, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Enterobacter
Enterococci, staphylococci (non S saprophyticus)
Historically – greater antibiotic resistance
Intrinsic (enterococci, staphylococci, Pseudomonas)
Cross-infections with resistant isolates
(catheter associated)
![Page 13: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Treatment
Usually only if symptomatic
(Nonspecific therapy – hydration)
Antimicrobials:
Serum / tissue / urine concentration of agent
Site of infection
Lower (cystitis) – upper (pyelonephritis) - bacteraemia
(Renal insufficiency – urine concentration)
Organism in vitro susceptibility
![Page 14: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Available classes (for Gram negative bacteria)
β-lactams:
Penicillins (e.g. ampicillin, amoxicillin, piperacillin;
+/- β-lactamase inhibitor)
Cephalosporins (oral / intravenous)
Monobactam - aztreonam
Carbapenems (intravenous, currently)
Quinolones
Aminoglycosides (intravenous / intramuscular)
Trimethoprim / co-trimoxazole
Nitrofurantoin
Tetracyclines
![Page 15: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Susceptibilities of E coli isolates
Schito 2009
Antimicrobial % Sensitive (No.) Intermediate Resistant
Ampicillin 45.1 (1045) 6.6 (153) 48.3 (1117)
Co-amoxiclav 82.5 (1910) 13.7 (316) 3.8 (89)
Mecillinam 95.8 (2215) 1.5 (34) 2.8 (6.4)
Cefuroxime 82.4 (1907) 15.2 (353) 2.4 (55)
Ciprofloxacin 91.7 (2120) 0.2 (5) 8.1 (187)
Co-trimoxazole 70.6 (1633) 3.1 (72) 1.6 (38)
Nitrofurantoin 98.1 (2272) 1.3 (30) 0.6 (13)
![Page 17: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Susceptibilities of E coli isolates
Schito 2009
Country AMP CO-A MEC CXM CIP COT NIT
Austria 43.5 93.5 100 77.4 98.4 71.0 100
France 60.9 90.9 97.1 89.3 98.4 87.8 97.3
Germany 59.2 88.6 97.6 93.0 96.3 74.1 92.5
Italy 43.1 71.5 94.1 77.7 87.5 71.2 97.5
Spain 35.3 80.9 94.1 78.6 89.3 66.2 94.1
N/lands 65.5 82.8 96.6 89.7 96.6 79.3 100
Brazil 37.7 79.8 94.8 74.5 89.2 54.5 94.3
![Page 18: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
E coli bacteraemias, 2008,
United Kingdom
Health Protection Agency
Agent Susceptible
%
Intermediate Resistant 95% CI
Non-sus
95% CI
Amoxicillin 30.9 0 69.1 64.4 73.4
Co-amoxiclav 66.0 0 34.0 29.5 38.7
Ciprofloxacin 81.7 0.5 17.8 14.8 22.3
Cefotaxime 89.9 0.5 9.6 7.5 13.4
Gentamicin 91.8 1.9 6.3 5.9 11.3
Meropenem 100 0 0 0 1.1
Piperacillin-
Tazobactam
89.2 6.3 4.4 8.1 14.2
![Page 19: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Figure 3 Antibiotic susceptibility for E. coli bacteraemia reports, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2002-
2006*
![Page 20: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Table 2. Antibiotic susceptibility data for reports of E. coli bacteraemia, England, Wales and Northern
Ireland: 20052009*
E. coli 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total reports:
18,593 19,987 22,128 23,971 25,532
% Nonsusceptible
Cefotaxime
9% 11% 12% 11% 10%
Ceftazidime
% Nonsusceptible
9% 12% 12% 11% 10%
Ciprofloxacin
% Nonsusceptible
19% 23% 23% 21% 20%
Gentamicin
% Nonsusceptible
8% 9% 9% 8% 8%
Imipenem
% Nonsusceptible
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Meropenem
% Nonsusceptible
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
![Page 21: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
β-lactam resistance in Enterobacteriaceae:
Enzyme mediated: β-lactamases
(Ancient heritage: > 2 billion years old)
Serine residue active site; or metalloenzymes (Zinc ion)
Inherent – gene carried on bacterial chromosome
“De-repressed”: e.g. Enterobacter, Citrobacter species
Acquired – transmissible genetic elements: plasmids
E.g. Klebsiella pneumoniae, E coli
Vary in ability to hydrolyse different β-lactams:
Some drug structures more resilient than others.
Some blocked by β-lactamase inhibitors
clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav), tazobactam (with piperacillin)
Various classifications / name derivations
![Page 22: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
3 letter monikers for families:
SHV (>50): Variable response to sulfhydryl
inhibitors
TEM (>130): After patient (Temoneira)
CTX-M (>40), OXA, IMP:
Ability to hydrolyse cefotaxime, oxacillin, imipenem
VIM: Verona integron encoded metallo-β-lactamase
KPC: Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase
NDM: New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase
Jacoby 2005;
![Page 23: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
NDM-1:
First detected United Kingdom January 2008.
Now predominant carbapenem-hydrolysing enzyme
in Enterobacteriaceae in UK (44% 2009)
2008 – 2009: 37 isolates
K pneumoniae (21), E coli (7), Enterobacter spp (5), Citrobacter
freundii (2), Morganella (1), Providencia (1)
29 patients – 15 in urine
ESBLs widespread in India,
NDM-1 also in isolates in north & south India
Links between many of the UK patients and India
Kumaraswamy 2010; HPA
![Page 24: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
37 isolates; % susceptible
Imipenem 0
Meropenem 3
Piperacillin-tazobactam 0
Cefotaxime 0
Aztreonam 11
Ciprofloxacin 8
Gentamicin 3
Amikacin 0
Minocycline 0
Tigecycline 64
Colistin 89 (Morganella, Providencia: Intrinsic R)
![Page 25: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Antibiotics – downsides include
Allergic reactions – “penicillin”
Intolerance / GI side-effects.
Other adverse effects:
Aminoglycosides: nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity
Administration – e.g. if intravenous only.
Cost
“Collateral damage”
Secondary infections
Meticillin resistant S aureus, C difficile, GREs, Candida
“Induction” of resistance
Individual infecting organism
Circulating bacterial flora
![Page 26: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
MRSA
Fluoroquinolones (e.g. Ciprofloxacin).
MRSA usually resistant to fluoroquinolones
Good skin tissue penetration / excreted in human
sweat:
Loss of colonisation resistance by normal skin flora
In vitro:
Induction of fibronectin – binding proteins
Increased adhesion by quinolone resistant S aureus
Bisognano 2000, Paterson 2004,
![Page 27: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Univariate analysis, antimicrobials pre MRSA / MSSA
infection
Graffunder 2002
Preceding
Antimicrobial
MRSA (%) MSSA (%) OR (95% CI) P value
β-l / β-LI 37.2 16.3 2.3 (1.4, 3.6) <0.001
Levofloxacin 41.3 5.7 7.3 (3.4, 15.4) <0.001
Aminoglycoside 19 2.4 7.8 (2.4, 25.3) <0.001
1st gen ceph 40.5 33.3 1.2 (0.87,1.7) 0.29
3rd gen ceph 6.6 3.3 2.0 (0.63,6.6) 0.25
Carbapenems 5.8 0.8 7.1 (0.89,5.7) 0.04
Co-trimoxazole 10.7 2.4 4.4 (1.3, 15.1) 0.01
![Page 28: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Multiple logistic regression analysis, factors associated with
MRSA infection
Graffunder 2002
Risk factor OR 95% CIs P value
Levofloxacin 8.01 3.15, 20.3 <0.001
Macrolides 4.06 1.15, 14.4 0.03
Enteral feeding 2.55 1.37, 4.72 0.003
Surgery 2.24 1.19, 4.22 0.01
Previous
hospitalisation
1.95 1.02, 3.76 0.04
LOS before culture 1.03 1.0, 1.07 0.05
![Page 29: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Clostridium difficile
Antibacterials: Loss of normal colonic microflora
“colonisation resistance”:
C difficile spore germination, multiplication, toxin
production – diarrhoea / worse sequelae
2nd & 3rd generation cephalosporins
(cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime)
Clindamycin
Fluoroquinolones:
Certain strains: e.g. PCR ribotype 027.
![Page 30: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Choice of treatment
Paradox
Severe sepsis: “Getting it right first time”
Preserving antimicrobial efficacy
“De-escalation”
![Page 31: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Improve diagnostic speed
Aetiology; in vitro susceptibilities
Bacteriological methods long-standing, but:
Direct to specimens: PCR / NAAT
blood, sterile sites
Organism identification: MALDI-TOF
Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionisation Time
of Flight Mass Spectroscopy: bacteria / yeasts
Rapid automated sensitivity testing (< 12 hours)
![Page 32: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Less familiar agents (...in United Kingdom)
![Page 33: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Mecillinam
Beta lactam (6-β-amidinopenicillanic acid)
Pivmecillinam Pivaloyloxymethyl ester:
Much more active vs Gram negatives (binds to PBP2) (Enterococci resistant, S saprophyticus may be inhibited)
Enterobacteriaceae
Usual suspects more tricky:
P aeruginosa, Acinetobacter spp, anaerobes: resistant
Serratia marcescens: usually resistant
M morganii, Providencia spp may be sensitive
(Paradoxical effect with P stuartii)
P mirabilis, P vulgaris: usually sensitive
![Page 34: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Uses: Urinary tract infections
Lower
(Upper – step down oral therapy).
((Other MDR coliforms: e.g. Biliary))
Advantages:
High % still susceptible (> 90% global)
Widely used in Scandinavia, >20 years, still high susceptibility
Low C difficile propensity
(Baines 2009: low risk in in vitro human gut model)
“Avoid” if penicillin allergy
(tho’ hypersensitivity reactions uncommon)Kahlmeter 2003, Wootton 2010
![Page 35: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
E coli, 3rd generation cephalosporin resistant:
% susceptible (Wootton 2010)
Mecillinam 100 (93.5% local CPD R)
Meropenem 100
Cefotaxime 13.3
Amoxicillin 0
Co-amoxiclav 0
Piperacillin-tazobactam 53.3
Ciprofloxacin 40
Nitrofurantoin 76.7
Trimethoprim 30
Gentamicin 53.3
![Page 36: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Mastascan plate evaluation (LTHT)
Breakpoint plate, 8 mg/l [BSAC cut-off].
+/- testing by current disc method:
All if resistant, subset of those sensitive.
1192 Gram negative isolates tested.
Overall susceptible: 1147 (96%)
Norris (unpubd)
![Page 37: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Temocillin
6-α-methoxy derivative of ticarcillin
Active vs Gram negative bacilli (excl P aeruginosa)
Stable vs many β-lactamases: SHV, TEM, CTX-M
families, also AmpC
Stable to some carbapenemases
Carbapenem-sparing agent, intravenous:
UTIs due to ESBL producing Enterobacteriaceae
“Ecologically benign”: Low propensity for C difficile
Livermore 2009.
![Page 38: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
E coli, Gram negative
![Page 39: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Other “old” drugs:
Colistin
Iv fosfomycin
![Page 40: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Conclusions:
E coli remains predominant UTI pathogen.
Increasing problems of resistance, globally
Recognition of collateral damage of antibiotics
Fluoroquinolones & MRSA
Severe sepsis: “Getting it right first time”...but de-
escalation
Carbapenem sparing agents
“Old” drugs being revived / re-visited
Mecillinam, temocillin.
Shortage of new antibiotics for Gram-negatives:
....avoid antibiotics unless clear clinical indication
![Page 41: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Microbiology of UTIs in 2010](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070623/62c39509fe1a1778185f8db3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)