Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Epidemiology and Surveillance

In Vitro Antimicrobial Resistance of Urinary Escherichia coli Isolates among U.S. Outpatients from 2000 to 2010

Guillermo V. Sanchez, Ronald N. Master, James A. Karlowsky, Jose M. Bordon
Guillermo V. Sanchez
aSchool of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ronald N. Master
bQuest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Chantilly, Virginia, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James A. Karlowsky
cDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jose M. Bordon
dSection of Infectious Disease, Providence Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06060-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

This study examines in vitro antimicrobial resistance data from Escherichia coli isolates obtained from urine samples of U.S. outpatients between 2000 and 2010 using The Surveillance Network (TSN). Antimicrobial susceptibility results (n = 12,253,679) showed the greatest increases in E. coli resistance from 2000 to 2010 for ciprofloxacin (3% to 17.1%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) (17.9% to 24.2%), whereas nitrofurantoin (0.8% to 1.6%) and ceftriaxone (0.2% to 2.3%) showed minimal change. From 2000 to 2010, the antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates to ciprofloxacin and TMP-SMX among outpatients increased substantially.

TEXT

Antimicrobial resistance significantly increases patient morbidity, costs of treatment, rates of hospitalization, and use of broad-spectrum agents (7). Resistant Escherichia coli isolates are associated with decreases in clinical cure rates and higher risk of recurrence (17, 20).

Several studies have described the in vitro susceptibility of E. coli isolates among outpatients in the United States, and most of these studies have focused on women. The most-recent published data available for U.S. outpatients were collected from April 2003 to June 2004 and suggested the levels of antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates to be 39.3% for ampicillin, 22.6% for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), 6.8% for ciprofloxacin, and 1.4% for nitrofurantoin (22). Other, smaller regional studies suggested a continued trend of rising resistance in the outpatient setting (8, 13, 16).

Limited data are available to describe long-term trends in antimicrobial resistance of E. coli isolates among outpatients in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine trends of antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates among outpatients in the United States from 2000 to 2010.

Antimicrobial susceptibility test results were obtained from The Surveillance Network (TSN) Database—USA (Eurofins Medinet, Chantilly, VA). This surveillance database collects data from over 200 institutions in the United States, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing is performed on-site by each laboratory in accordance with FDA-approved testing methods and interpreted using Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)-recommended breakpoints. TSN data have been used before to evaluate trends in antimicrobial resistance, and further details of quality control have been described previously (5, 9, 18, 19).

The present study included antimicrobial susceptibility data for urinary E. coli isolates obtained from U.S. outpatients between 2000 and 2010. Outpatients are defined as individuals who visited emergency departments, hospital-based outpatient clinics, and physicians' offices. E. coli isolates with intermediate susceptibility were not classified as being resistant. The outcomes of interest in this study were the changes in and most-recent prevalence of antimicrobial resistance to commonly prescribed oral agents used to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs). Cephalothin and ceftriaxone, both intravenously administered agents, were selected as narrow- and broad-spectrum cephalosporin surrogates, respectively, for their orally administered formulations.

A chi-square test was performed for each antimicrobial agent to determine whether a significant difference existed between resistance rates observed in 2000 and those observed in 2010. An alpha level of 0.05 was used. Analyses were performed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.1.

Antimicrobial susceptibility results (n = 12,253,679) for urinary E. coli isolates obtained from outpatients in the United States from 2000 to 2010 were examined (Table 1). The greatest increases in resistance among isolates obtained from all outpatients from 2000 to 2010 were observed for ciprofloxacin (from 3% in 2000 to 17.1% in 2010) and TMP-SMX (17.9% to 24.2%) (Fig. 1). Conversely, over the same time period, nitrofurantoin (0.8% to 1.6%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (5% to 5.3%), and ceftriaxone (0.2% to 2.3%) demonstrated only small changes in resistance. In 2010, ampicillin, tetracycline, cephalothin, and cefuroxime showed antimicrobial resistance rates of 43.4%, 24.9%, 18.1%, and 5.0%, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Annual rates of resistance of urinary Escherichia coli isolates to select antimicrobials among all outpatients from 2000 to 2010a

Fig 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1

Cumulative annual change in E. coli antimicrobial resistance in outpatient urinary E. coli isolates from 2001 to 2010. Amox/Clav, amoxicillin-clavulanate.

Emerging antimicrobial resistance of E. coli in the outpatient setting is well documented (2, 3, 7, 12, 14). In the early 2000s, quinolones surpassed sulfa drugs as the most common class of antimicrobials prescribed by clinicians to treat uncomplicated UTIs (10). This increase in provider use of fluoroquinolones may account for the rapid rise in antimicrobial resistance of E. coli to ciprofloxacin, as resistance to this agent has been shown to correlate with the level of use (8, 15, 21). Due to the propensity of E. coli to acquire resistance to this agent, use of ciprofloxacin for empirical treatment of UTIs in outpatients should be used sparingly and only where local antimicrobial resistance rates remain low (4).

Antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates to TMP-SMX continued to increase from 2000 to 2010, a trend that has continued for decades (1, 6, 11). In the 2010 IDSA guidelines for treating acute uncomplicated cystitis in women, TMP-SMX is recommended as the second-line antimicrobial agent (4). Our data are consistent with previous reports regarding increases in antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates to TMP-SMX and potential subsequent decreases in its efficacy as empirical therapy among U.S. outpatients.

Levels of antimicrobial resistance of E. coli to cephalothin, the narrow-spectrum oral cephalosporin surrogate, were higher than those for expanded-spectrum (cefuroxime) and broad-spectrum (ceftriaxone) cephalosporins. It is important to note that while the absolute change in antimicrobial resistance to ceftriaxone was small (0.2% in 2000 to 2.3% in 2010), there was a 10-fold increase in resistance of E. coli to this agent over the study time period. Though these changes do not bear immediate clinical significance, future surveillance of antimicrobial resistance to this agent is warranted.

The in vitro antimicrobial resistance rates among E. coli isolates in our investigation were consistent with those reported previously (6, 11, 22). For example, antimicrobial resistance of E. coli to nitrofurantoin demonstrated little change over our study time period, a finding that is consistent with the resistance prevalence reported in the NAUTICA study (22).

It is important to note the strengths and limitations of our data. The strengths of our study include the large number of isolates, the variety of antimicrobial agents studied, the large number of reporting institutions within the United States, the long time period for which data were reported, and the geographically representative distribution of isolates from TSN. The limitations of our study include a lack of central laboratory testing, the use of multiple susceptibility test methods, and an assumed underrepresentation of isolates from those for whom empirical treatment was successful. These data should be interpreted with caution. Although traditional in vitro surveillance systems are well designed to provide insight into overall trends and prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, they are not meant to guide antimicrobial therapy in the management of individual clinical cases.

In summary, our study shows that from 2000 to 2010, antimicrobial resistance of urinary E. coli isolates to ciprofloxacin and TMP-SMX increased substantially but that resistance to nitrofurantoin and ceftriaxone remained low. Given the frequency with which UTIs are treated empirically, compounded with the speed that E. coli acquires resistance, prudent use of antimicrobial agents remains crucial.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 7 November 2011.
    • Returned for modification 6 December 2011.
    • Accepted 3 January 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 17 January 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Diekema DJ,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Antimicrobial resistance trends and outbreak frequency in United States hospitals. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38:78–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gordon KA,
    2. Jones RN
    . 2003. Susceptibility patterns of orally administered antimicrobials among urinary tract infection pathogens from hospitalized patients in North America: comparison report to Europe and Latin America. Results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program (2000). Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 45:295–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gupta K,
    2. Hooton TM,
    3. Stamm WE
    . 2001. Increasing antimicrobial resistance and the management of uncomplicated community-acquired urinary tract infections. Ann. Intern. Med. 135:41–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Gupta K,
    2. et al
    . 2011. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: a 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin. Infect. Dis. 52:e103–e120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gupta K,
    2. Sahm DF,
    3. Mayfield D,
    4. Stamm WE
    . 2001. Antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens that cause community-acquired urinary tract infections in women: a nationwide analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 33:89–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hooton TM
    . 2003. The current management strategies for community-acquired urinary tract infection. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 17:303–332.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hooton TM,
    2. Besser R,
    3. Foxman B,
    4. Fritsche TR,
    5. Nicolle LE
    . 2004. Acute uncomplicated cystitis in an era of increasing antibiotic resistance: a proposed approach to empirical therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 39:75–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Johnson L,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in outpatient urinary Escherichia coli isolates. Am. J. Med. 121:876–884.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jones ME,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria most commonly isolated from bone related infections: the role of cephalosporins in antimicrobial therapy. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 23:240–246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kallen AJ,
    2. Welch HG,
    3. Sirovich BE
    . 2006. Current antibiotic therapy for isolated urinary tract infections in women. Arch. Intern. Med. 166:635–639.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Karlowsky JA,
    2. Kelly LJ,
    3. Thornsberry C,
    4. Jones ME,
    5. Sahm DF
    . 2002. Trends in antimicrobial resistance among urinary tract infection isolates of Escherichia coli from female outpatients in the United States. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:2540–2545.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kashanian J,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Nitrofurantoin: the return of an old friend in the wake of growing resistance. BJU Int. 102:1634–1637.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Khawcharoenporn T,
    2. Vasoo S,
    3. Ward E,
    4. Singh K
    . 2010. High rates of quinolone resistance among urinary tract infections in the ED. Am. J. Emerg. Med. [Epub ahead of print.] doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2010.09.030.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lautenbach E,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Longitudinal trends in fluoroquinolone resistance among Enterobacteriaceae isolates from inpatients and outpatients, 1989–2000: differences in the emergence and epidemiology of resistance across organisms. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38:655–662.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. MacDougall C,
    2. Powell JP,
    3. Johnson CK,
    4. Edmond MB,
    5. Polk RE
    . 2005. Hospital and community fluoroquinolone use and resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli in 17 US hospitals. Clin. Infect. Dis. 41:435–440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    1. Olson RP,
    2. Harrell LJ,
    3. Kaye KS
    . 2009. Antibiotic resistance in urinary isolates of Escherichia coli from college women with urinary tract infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:1285–1286.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Raz R,
    2. et al
    . 2002. Empiric use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) in the treatment of women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections, in a geographical area with a high prevalence of TMP-SMX-resistant uropathogens. Clin. Infect. Dis. 34:1165–1169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sahm DF,
    2. Marsilio MK,
    3. Piazza G
    . 1999. Antimicrobial resistance in key bloodstream bacterial isolates: electronic surveillance with the Surveillance Network Database—U. S. A. Clin. Infect. Dis. 29:259–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sahm DF,
    2. Brown NP,
    3. Yee YC,
    4. Evangelista AT
    . 2008. Stratified analysis of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli in US health care institutions. Postgrad. Med. 120:53–59.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Talan DA,
    2. et al
    . 2000. Comparison of ciprofloxacin (7 days) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (14 days) for acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis pyelonephritis in women: a randomized trial. JAMA 283:1583–1590.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Zervos MJ,
    2. et al
    . 2003. Relationship between fluoroquinolone use and changes in susceptibility to fluoroquinolones of selected pathogens in 10 United States teaching hospitals, 1991–2000. Clin. Infect. Dis. 37:1643–1648.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Zhanel GG,
    2. et al
    . 2006. Antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli outpatient urinary isolates: final results from the North American Urinary Tract Infection Collaborative Alliance (NAUTICA). Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 27:468–475.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Antimicrobial Resistance of Urinary Escherichia coli Isolates among U.S. Outpatients from 2000 to 2010
Guillermo V. Sanchez, Ronald N. Master, James A. Karlowsky, Jose M. Bordon
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2012, 56 (4) 2181-2183; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06060-11

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro Antimicrobial Resistance of Urinary Escherichia coli Isolates among U.S. Outpatients from 2000 to 2010
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
In Vitro Antimicrobial Resistance of Urinary Escherichia coli Isolates among U.S. Outpatients from 2000 to 2010
Guillermo V. Sanchez, Ronald N. Master, James A. Karlowsky, Jose M. Bordon
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2012, 56 (4) 2181-2183; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.06060-11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596