10 potential, with most of the epidemic strains reported as having more than seven repeats. The spread of MRSA strains between hospitals has been recognized in several studies, perhaps as a consequence of the prolonged carrier status and the increased mobility of the population [1]. In the present study, all but one spa gene positive MRSA isolates had more than 7 repeats (>168 bp), and all isolates were disseminated in different ICU wards in the hospital. HaeII was the restriction enzyme used to digest spa PCR products in the present study, showing 5 distinct spa banding RFLP patterns (A, B, C, and D & E) and 12 minor patterns. The middle sized band (240 bp) remained the same in 67/75 isolates (89.3%). Closer results were reported by Mehndiratta et al. [28], who reported 5 types of spa gene PCR-RFLP patterns of 1150– 1420 bp fragments. However, their smallest fragment that remained the same in all patterns was of size 243 bp. In Wichelhaus et al. study [4], the discriminatory power of PCR-RFLP of coa and spa genes using HaeII enzyme was found to be sufficiently high and corresponded reasonably well with PFGE. Wilailuckana et al. [29] also reported that typing results of MRSA isolates using combinations of different molecular methods provided a considerably usable tool for discrimination. In the present study, the combination of both coa and spa genes PCR-RFLP patterns was able to identify 22 combined R types (R1–R22), where types R2 and R1 were the most frequent, including 27 and 13 MRSA isolates, respectively. A similarly designed study by Mitani et al. [30] reported 8 spa and 6 coa types using HaeII restriction enzyme for coa and spa genes PCR-RFLP. Combination of these 2 techniques revealed 10 R types, where types R1–R4 were relatively frequent. In the present study, typing using both coa PCR and coa PCR-RFLP had the same DI value (0.64), which is comparable to DI value of typing using both spa PCR and spa PCR-RFLP (0.68). Moreover, the combined grouping of coa PCR-RFLP and spa PCR-RFLP increased the discriminatory index of the typing procedure to 0.836 which is higher when compared to the highest DI of the individual typing technique. So it is desirable that RFLP of both genes should be used for better and reliable discrimination. The DI value of the antibiotyping in the current study was the highest among all techniques used (0.94). The antibiotic abuse and the lack of antibiotic stewardship in our hospitals could explain the lack of correlation between antibiotypes and genotypes of our MRSA isolates. This study demonstrates that, although PFGE remains the gold standard for MRSA typing, the typeability of PCR-RFLP products in the genotyping of MRSA strains was an attractive tool for routine epidemiological surveillance and infection control. We therefore recommend this method as a reliable and rapid system in epidemiological investigations similar to this study. Our study revealed that no single gene analysis is efficient in distinguishing strains within a heterogeneous species and testing for multiple gene polymorphisms is more useful for local epidemiologic or outbreak investigation purposes. The polymorphisms of the spa and coa genes are not independently discriminative, and the combined use of
International Journal of Microbiology both was found to be a valid instrument for epidemiological studies. The variability in genes that are built from repetitive moieties might go along with enhanced speed of evolution. This typing system, therefore, is intended mainly for routine epidemiological surveillance, where isolates obtained within a narrow time frame are subject for typing analysis.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
References [1] I. Montesinos, E. Salido, T. Delgado, M. Cuervo, and A. Sierra, “Epidemiologic genotyping of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis at a University Hospital and comparison with antibiotyping and protein A and coagulase gene polymorphisms,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 2119–2125, 2002. [2] R. Valaperta, M. R. Tejada, M. Frigerio et al., “Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial infections: the role of a rapid and low-cost characterization for the establishment of a surveillance system,” New Microbiologica, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223–232, 2010. [3] J. V. Hookey, J. F. Richardson, and B. D. Cookson, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus based on PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism and DNA sequence analysis of the coagulase gene,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1083–1089, 1998. [4] T. A. Wichelhaus, K.-P. Hunfeld, B. B¨oddinghaus, P. Kraiczy, V. Sch¨afer, and V. Brade, “Rapid molecular typing of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus by PCR-RFLP,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 294–298, 2001. [5] M. Himabindu, D. S. Muthamilselvan, D. K. Bishi, and R. S. Verma, “Molecular analysis of coagulase gene polymorphism in clinical isolates of methicilin resistant Staphylococcus aureus by restriction fragment length polymorphism based genotyping,” American Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 163– 169, 2009. [6] F. Shakeri, A. Shojai, M. Golalipour, S. R. Alang, H. Vaez, and E. A. Ghaemi, “Spa diversity among MRSA and MSSA strains of Staphylococcus aureus in north of Iran,” International Journal of Microbiology, vol. 2010, Article ID 351397, 5 pages, 2010. [7] D. Baird, “Staphylococcus: cluster-forming gram-positive cocci,” in Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, J. G. Collee, A. G. Fraser, B. P. Marmion, and A. Simmons, Eds., pp. 245–258, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, USA, 14th edition, 1996. [8] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, “Performance standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 21th informational supplement,” CLSI document M100-S21 Vol 31 No.1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pa, USA, 2011. [9] A.-P. Magiorakos, A. Srinivasan, R. B. Carey et al., “Multidrugresistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 268–281, 2012. [10] P. Vannuffel, J. Gigi, H. Ezzedine et al., “Specific detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species by multiplex PCR,”
International Journal of Microbiology Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2864–2867, 1995. [11] P. R. Hunter and M. A. Gaston, “Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing systems: an application of Simpson’s index of diversity,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2465–2466, 1988. [12] S. L. Davis, M. B. Perri, S. M. Donabedian et al., “Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1705–1711, 2007. [13] F.-J. Schmitz, M. Steiert, H.-V. Tichy et al., “Typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Dusseldorf by six genotypic methods,” Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 341–351, 1998. [14] M. M. Baddour, M. M. Abuelkheir, and A. J. Fatani, “Trends in antibiotic susceptibility patterns and epidemiology of MRSA isolates from several hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, vol. 5, article 30, pp. 1–11, 2006. [15] P. L. Mehndiratta and P. Bhalla, “Typing of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a technical review,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 16–23, 2012. [16] J. Merlino, J. Watson, B. Rose et al., “Detection and expression of methicillin/oxacillin resistance in multidrug-resistant and nonmultidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Central Sydney, Australia,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 793–801, 2002. [17] H. I. Awadalla, I. A. Khalil, H. H. Bassim, M. N. Ahmed, and L. M. Wahba, “Molecular typing of methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates at Ain Shams University Hospital, Egypt,” African Journal of Microbiology Research, vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 1639–1646, 2010. [18] I. Janwithayanuchit, S. Ngam-ululert, P. Paungmoung, and W. Rangsipanuratn, “Epidemiologic study of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by coagulase gene polymorphism,” ScienceAsia, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 127–132, 2006. [19] B. Shopsin, M. Gomez, M. Waddington, M. Riehman, and B. N. Kreiswirth, “Use of coagulase gene (coa) repeat region nucleotide sequences for typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 3453–3456, 2000. [20] H. K. Tiwari, D. Sapkota, A. Gaur, J. P. Mathuria, A. Singh, and M. R. Sen, “Molecular typing of clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Northern India using coagulase gene PCR-RFLP,” Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 467–473, 2008. [21] S.-H. Goh, S. K. Byrne, J. L. Zhang, and A. W. Chow, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus on the basis of coagulase gene polymorphisms,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1642–1645, 1992. [22] H. D. Saei, M. Ahmadi, K. Mardani, and R. A. Batavani, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis based on polymorphism of the coagulase gene in the north west of Iran,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 137, no. 1-2, pp. 202–206, 2009. [23] C. Lange, M. Cardoso, D. Senczek, and S. Schwarz, “Molecular subtyping of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cases of bovine mastitis in Brazil,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 127–141, 1999.
11 [24] C. Lawrence, M. Cosseron, O. Mimoz et al., “Use of coagulase gene typing method for detection of carrier of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 37, pp. 687–696, 1996. [25] H. D. Saei and M. Ahmadi, “Discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus isolates on the basis of gene coding protein A using PCRrestriction enzyme analysis,” Comparative Clinical Pathology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 645–652, 2011. [26] H. M. E. Frenay, J. P. G. Theelen, L. M. Schouls et al., “Discrimination of epidemic and nonepidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains on the basis of protein A gene polymorphism,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 846–847, 1994. [27] S. A. Adesida, Y. Likhoshvay, W. Eisner et al., “Repeats in the 3 region of the protein A gene is unique in a strain of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from wound infections in Lagos, Nigeria,” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 5, no. 20, pp. 1858–1863, 2006. [28] P. Mehndiratta, P. Bhalla, A. Ahmed, and Y. Sharma, “Molecular typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains by PCR-RFLP of SPA gene: a reference laboratory perspective,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 116– 122, 2009. [29] C. Wilailuckana, C. Tribuddharat, C. Tiensasitorn et al., “Discriminatory powers of molecular typing techniques for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a University Hospital, Thailand,” Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 327–334, 2006. [30] N. Mitani, A. Koizumi, R. Sano et al., “Molecular typing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by PCR-RFLP and its usefulness in an epidemiological study of an outbreak,” Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 250– 252, 2005.
Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Microbiology Volume 2014, Article ID 682304, 6 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/682304
Research Article Microbiologic Spectrum and Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern among Patients with Urinary and Respiratory Tract Infection Maryam Sotoudeh Anvari,1 Mohammad Naderan,1,2 Mohammad Ali Boroumand,1 Saeed Shoar,1,2 Robab Bakhshi,2 and Morteza Naderan2 1
Department of Surgical and Clinical Pathology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1411713138, Iran 2 Department of Research, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, North Karegar Avenue, Tehran 1411713138, Iran Correspondence should be addressed to Mohammad Naderan; [email protected] Received 4 January 2014; Revised 10 June 2014; Accepted 11 June 2014; Published 29 June 2014 Academic Editor: Todd R. Callaway Copyright © 2014 Maryam Sotoudeh Anvari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Aim. To demonstrate the prevalence of isolated organisms in urinary/respiratory tract infections and their antibiotic susceptibilities in a tertiary care center. Methods and Material. Between January 2008 and January 2010, patients referring to the clinic of cardiology or those admitted to the cardiac wards were enrolled in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Urine and sputum sampling was done for all the patients and the specimens underwent microbiologic examination and, in case of isolation of microorganism, antibiotic disk diffusion test was performed. Results. Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most prevalent isolated organism in-hospital and community-acquired UTIs and was highly resistant to cephalothin in all the samples followed by cotrimoxazole, and ceftriaxone. It revealed high sensitivity to imipenem, amikacin, and nitrofurantoin. Acinetobacter constituted the most prevalent organism isolated from respiratory secretions and represented the highest resistance to ceftriaxone and the greatest sensitivity to imipenem. Conclusions. E. coli and Acinetobacter remain the most common uropathogenic and respiratory organisms, respectively. However, their increasing resistance to wide-spectrum imipenem, meropenem, and vancomycin is a major concern.
1. Introduction With the increasing utility of invasive procedures in inpatient settings, nosocomial infections are encountered with more prevalence among the hospitalized population. Hospital/noncommunity acquired infections (HAI) not only lengthen the duration of hospital stay with increased demand for additional health care resources but also are potential sources for acquisition of microorganisms by the health care providers, burdens health care system itself, and sets up the transmission into shorter cycle [1, 2]. In essence, the most common pathogens responsible for hospital-acquired infections differ from those of community-acquired infections [2]. On the other hand, antimicrobial susceptibility of each organism is influenced by the origin of infection, periodic alterations, and epidemiological factors of that region [1, 3–5].
Urinary and respiratory tract infections are the leading cause of in-hospital infections consuming huge amounts of health resources. In addition, these infections impose the risk of high morbidity and mortality on admitted patients [6]. Empirical treatment for HAI should be instituted based on the knowledge of susceptibility of responsible pathogens to available antibiotics [5–7]. Although this approach optimizes the effects of antimicrobial agents, inappropriate extended-spectrum antibiotics should strongly be discouraged. The importance is more sensible if increased resistance to many antibiotics is taken into account and action programs have developed to restrict overuse of antibiotics [3, 5, 7–9]. For this reason, specific nationwide surveillance studies should be conducted to provide for microbiological resistance pattern and antibacterial activity of antibiotics. The aim of our study was to provide
2
International Journal of Microbiology Table 1: Annual prevalence of microorganisms with the highest frequency.
Organism E. coli Klebsiella Enterococcus
Urine 2007 249 (64%) 31 (7.9%) 26 (6.6%)
2008 272 (60.9%) 39 (8.7%) 33 (7.3%)
objective evidence in terms of antibiotic susceptibility and resistance of pathogens isolated from patients afflicted by either community- or noncommunity acquired UTI and RTI in a tertiary care center in Iran.
2. Material and Methods 2.1. Patients. This is a cross-sectional study conducted from January 2008 to January 2010. The study population included patients attending to the laboratory or admitted to cardiac wards in Tehran Heart Center (THC), Tehran, Iran. The inclusion criteria comprised clinical evidence of urinary or respiratory tract infection, according to the definition of center for disease control and prevention (CDC), in patients admitted to the hospital before 48 hours of admission and in patients presenting to the outpatient clinic having symptoms for less than 72 hours. The inclusion criteria comprised community-acquired infections diagnosed in patients attending to the laboratory without prolonged duration (>72 hrs) and previous antibiotics reception and hospital-acquired infections considered in patients developing U/R tract infections more than 48 hours after hospital admission. Admitted patients with documented UTI or RTI on admission or outpatient subjects who had received antibiotic therapy within 48 hours, immune compromised patients, and those with documented complicated infections were excluded from the study. The study design and protocol was approved by the Research and Ethics Committee of THC. Informed consent was documented for each patient at the beginning of the study. 2.2. Sampling and Laboratory Assessment. Patients with suggestive symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection or clinical evidence of urinary tract infection underwent sampling for sputum and urine analysis before antibiotic therapy, respectively. Fifty milliliter (mL) of clean-catch midstream urine from patients with a probable diagnosis of UTI was collected in a sterile container for UTI as soon as possible after admission. In those with evidence of an RTI, 20 to 30 mL of early morning sputum was obtained in a sterile plastic container. Bacteriuria was determined with quantitative technique using 0.01 mL calibrated wire loop to inoculate the blood agar, which provides for growth of most organisms. The same technique was accomplished with the MacConkey culture medium specialized for isolation of gram-negative bacteria. The culture media were incubated at 35 ± 2∘ C from 18 to 24 hours. Culture was considered positive if at least 105 CFU/mL was isolated for a single organism.
Organism Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Acinetobacter
Sputum 2007 37 (30.8%) 29 (24.1%) 18 (15%)
2008 29 (20.1%) 26 (18%) 52 (36.8%)
Identification of isolates was obtained by their characteristic appearance on their respective media and gram staining. The isolated colony was confirmed by the pattern of biochemical reactions using the standard method [10] and also by PCR for the type of microorganism [11]. Antibiotic susceptibility was evaluated by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar according to the guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [12] and antibiogram was obtained. The discs were taken from HiMedia Laboratories (India). The followings are the concentrations of drugs used for disc diffusion testing: ampicillin (10 𝜇g), amikacin (30 𝜇g), coamoxiclav (20/10 𝜇g), cefepime (30 𝜇g), cefoxitin (10 𝜇g), ceftazidime (30 𝜇g), ceftriaxone (30 𝜇g), cephalotin (30 𝜇g), ciprofloxacin (5 𝜇g), clindamycin (2 𝜇g), cotrimoxazole (23.75 𝜇g sulfamethoxazole/1.25 𝜇g trimethoprim), erythromycin (15 𝜇g), gentamicin (10 𝜇g), imipenem (10 𝜇g), meropenem (10 𝜇g), nitrofurantoin (100 𝜇g), penicillin (10 units), tobramycin (10 𝜇g), and vancomycin (30 𝜇g). 2.3. Statistical Analysis. Data were assessed using the statistical package for social sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics, version 19, IBM Corporation) and presented as number (percent) and mean ± SD when appropriate.
3. Results Urinary and respiratory samples from admitted patients in 4 intensive care units (ICU), 5 coronary care units (CCU), 12 inpatient wards, and those attended to the laboratory were analyzed. Of 1099 positive cultures, 835 (75.9%) and 264 (24.1%) samples were related to UTI and RTI, respectively. Table 1 demonstrates annual prevalence of microorganisms with the highest frequency. 3.1. Urinary Isolates. Of 835 positive urine cultures, 664 samples (79.5%) were obtained from hospitalized patients compared with 171 samples (20.5%) from outpatient. E. coli was the most prevalent isolated organism in both the hospitalacquired and the community-acquired UTIs followed by Klebsiella and Enterococcus (Table 2). In outpatients, E. coli was the leading cause followed by Klebsiella, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and inactive E. coli. E. coli was highly resistant to cephalotin in the majority of samples (56.6%) followed by cotrimoxazole (49.4%) and ceftriaxone (38.5%) as presented in Table 3. Antibiotic susceptibility and resistance pattern of Klebsiella and Enterococcus species have been also presented in Table 3. It is perceived from the table that the best antibiotics for Klebsiella and
International Journal of Microbiology
3
Table 2: Discriminative prevalence of isolated organism. Type of organism Acinetobacter Citrobacter E. coli E. coli inactive Enterobacter Enterococcus Klebsiella Proteus Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus epidermidis Staphylococcus haemolyticus Staphylococcus saprophyticus Streptococcus group A Streptococcus group D Streptococcus saprophyticus
Urine sample (𝑛 = 835)
Sputum sample (𝑛 = 264)
5 (0.5%) 10 (1.1%) 521 (62.3%) 37 (4.4%) 23 (2.7%) 59 (7%) 70 (8.3%) 6 (0.7%) 17 (2%) 12 (1.4%) 29 (3.4%) 11 (1.3%) 2 (0.2%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33 (3.9%)
71 (26.8%) 4 (1.5%) 14 (5.3%) 1 (0.4%) 11 (4.1%) 2 (0.7%) 11 (4.1%) 0 (0) 66 (25%) 55 (20.8%) 16 (6%) 5 (1.8%) 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.7%) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0)
Enterococcus were imipenem and nitrofurantoin, respectively. On the other hand, we found a high susceptibility of E. coli to imipenem, amikacin, and nitrofurantoin. Table 4 summarizes the prevalence of microorganisms isolated from urine samples according to the source of infection and time of sampling. 3.2. Respiratory Isolates. Two hundred sixty-four positive cultures were obtained from respiratory secretions. Of these, 135 samples (51.1%) were related to ICU wards compared with 129 samples (48.9%) obtained from hospital wards. Acinetobacter constituted the most prevalent organism followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Regarding the admission wards, Acinetobacter was the most prevalent organism in the ICU, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most prevalent organism in non-ICU wards. Acinetobacter demonstrated the greatest resistance to ceftriaxone with the greatest susceptibility and lowest resistance to imipenem. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was greatly susceptible to meropenem and highly resistant to ceftazidime. Staphylococcus aureus was highly susceptible to vancomycin and highly resistant to erythromycin and cefoxitin, respectively. Susceptibility and resistance to antibiotics of the isolated respiratory organisms are summarized in Table 5.
4. Discussion The importance of regional specification of RTI and UTI etiology and their antibiotic susceptibility has been convincingly proved by several studies [5, 13–18]. However, the knowledge needs to be regularly revised with changing trends in microbiological patterns of the responsible organisms [15]. This accelerates the initiation of adequate antibiotic treatment in nosocomial infection with better results in terms of outcome and improved survival [19].
Our study confirmed that E. coli is still the most frequent pathogen in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Although this is in accord with a number of previous reports [13, 16, 17], Muvunyi and colleagues (2011) proposed that the prevalence of urinary infections with E. coli is decreasing probably due to other superseding members of the Enterobacteriaceae [15]. The second and the third most prevalent uropathogens in the hospitalized population of our study were Klebsiella and Enterococcus, respectively. Nevertheless, Staphylococcus epidermidis replaced the latter in the outpatient isolates. Similar to other investigations [3], E. coli constituted a lower percentage of isolates in inpatients than outpatients. However, the pattern of isolates in an ambulatory setting may be quite variable, with E. coli being the most common organism, followed by Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Proteus mirabilis, and Enteric gram-negative rods in one study [8]. Another observational study on microbiologic patterns of UTI in general practice also revealed E. coli as the most common culprit followed by typical uropathogens and Enterococcus faecalis [9]. According to current evidence, irrespective of the chronological pattern of the infection, E. coli still accounts for the most common organism isolated from urinary tract infections in either of the inpatient or outpatient populations which should be investigated in terms of antimicrobial susceptibility. With respect to RTI, Acinetobacter constituted the most common pathogen in 2008 followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Nevertheless, the trend has been different in 2007 with Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the most prevalent and Acinetobacter being the least frequent organisms. In a study by Wang et al. from northern China, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common isolated organism in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infection [18]. However, a SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program showed that Staphylococcus aureus comprised 28 percent of isolates followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 20.0 percent, Streptococcus pneumonia in 9.1 percent, and Klebsiella saprophyticus in 7.5 percent among hospitalized patients in northern America and Canada [14]. Xia and colleagues investigated the changing pattern of isolated pathogens in lower respiratory tract infection among a Chinese population and found that Acinetobacter was more frequently isolated in 2006 than in 2010 [5] which is also confirmed by our study (15% in 2007 versus 36.8% in 2008). Moreover, it seems that Acinetobacter is commonly isolated more from ICU patients than from other wards perhaps due to the compromised immunity of the critically ill patients [5, 18]. The urinary isolated E. coli was susceptible to nitrofurantoin in 90 percent and to gentamicin in 71.8 percent of cases. Although susceptibility to imipenem and meropenem remained high (100 percent and 80.4 percent, resp.), cotrimoxazole represented a susceptible proportion of less than 50 percent. Additionally, Klebsiella demonstrated 80.7 percent susceptibility to gentamicin, 83.9 percent to ciprofloxacin, 58.5 percent to nitrofurantoin, and more than 60 percent to cephalosporin. However, it raised concern because of resistance to coamoxiclav in 61.8 percent and to ampicillin in 92.6 percent of the isolates. Similarly, Enterococcus showed
4
International Journal of Microbiology Table 3: Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of isolated organisms from urine samples.
Organism
E. coli
Klebsiella
Enterococcus
Type of antibiotic
Susceptible 514 (100%) 483 (94.2%) 445 (90.1%) 370 (71.8%) 322 (63%) 301 (58.7%) 289 (57%) 286 (55.6%) 224 (47.1%) 145 (28.4%) 57 (100%) 26 (100%) 55 (96.4%) 47 (83.9%) 46 (80.7%) 41 (71.9%) 36 (65.5%) 35 (63.6%) 34 (63%) 31 (58.5%) 30 (54.5%) 3 (5.6%) 15 (27.3%) 40 (74.1%) 22 (47.8%) 26 (44.8%) 16 (38.1%) 19 (35.2%) 16 (27.6%) 3 (5.9%)
Imipenem Amikacin Nitrofurantoin Gentamicin Cefepime Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Ciprofloxacin Cotrimoxazole Cephalothin Imipenem Meropenem Amikacin Ciprofloxacin Gentamicin Cefepime Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Cotrimoxazole Nitrofurantoin Cephalothin Ampicillin Coamoxiclav Nitrofurantoin Gentamicin Vancomycin Cotrimoxazole Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Clindamycin
Susceptibility level Intermediate 0 (0%) 10 (1.9%) 22 (4.5%) 23 (4.5%) 25 (4.9%) 21 (4.1%) 23 (4.5%) 35 (6.8%) 17 (3.6%) 77 (15.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.8%) 3 (5.3%) 1 (1.8%) 4 (7.3%) 2 (3.7%) 8 (15.1%) 4 (7.3%) 1 (1.9%) 6 (10.9%) 5 (9.3%) 3 (6.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.8%) 16 (29.4%) 8 (41.4%) 0 (0%)
Resistant 0 (0%) 20 (3.9%) 27 (5.5%) 122 (23.7%) 164 (32.1%) 191 (37.2%) 195 (38.5%) 193 (37.5%) 235 (49.4%) 289 (56.6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.5%) 9 (16.1%) 10 (17.5%) 13 (22.8%) 18 (32.7%) 16 (29.1%) 18 (33.3%) 14 (26.4%) 21 (38.2%) 50 (92.6%) 34 (61.8%) 9 (16.7%) 21 (45.7%) 32 (55.2%) 24 (57.1%) 19 (35.2%) 34 (58.6%) 48 (94.1%)
Table 4: Prevalence of microorganisms isolated from urine samples according to source of infection and time of sampling. Admission E. coli Klebsiella Enterococcus Staphylococcus epidermidis
Outpatient 121 (70.7%) 21 (12.2%) 0 (0) 7 (4%)
Inpatient 400 (60.2%) 49 (8.7%) 54 (8.1%) 0 (0)
susceptibility to nitrofurantoin (74.1%) and gentamicin (48%) with 55.2 percent resistance to vancomycin, hence, categorized as vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE). However, the susceptibility and resistance patterns were relatively comparable so as both features are close to 50 percent. In a study by Cullen and colleagues, E. coli, as the most common uropathogen, showed significant resistance to penicillin, trimethoprim, and ciprofloxacin [3]. Their results also showed a decreasing susceptibility to gentamicin during the period of study for 11 years.
Nosocomial 79 (53%) 22 (14.7%) 16 (10.7%) 0 (0)
Source of infection Community acquired 321 (62%) 38 (7.3%) 36 (6.9%) 0 (0)
Respiratory isolated S. aureus showed 100 percent susceptibility to vancomycin. Cotrimoxazole had also over 90 percent activity against this species. In contrast, resistance against cefoxitin and erythromycin exceeded 80 percent implying that more than 80 percent of the organisms were methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Acinetobacter, as the most common isolate in RTI, represented the best susceptibility to imipenem (50%). Nevertheless, its resistance to imipenem (47.9%) was relatively too high to be selected as the first line antibiotic. On the other hand, other antibiotics
International Journal of Microbiology
5
Table 5: Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of isolated organisms from sputum. Organism
Staphylococcus aureus
Acinetobacter
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Type of antibiotic Vancomycin Clindamycin Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Gentamicin Cotrimoxazole Cefoxitin Imipenem Meropenem Gentamicin Tobramycin Ciprofloxacin Amikacin Cotrimoxazole Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Meropenem Ciprofloxacin Imipenem Amikacin Gentamicin Tobramycin Ceftazidime
did not reveal high activity against this organism with the best susceptibility varying from 10 to 15 percent (see Table 5). Interestingly, Pseudomonas aeruginosa had high susceptibility to available antibiotics such as meropenem (90%), ciprofloxacin (87.5%), imipenem (84.4%), and amikacin (73.4%). In their study, Jones et al. rated antimicrobial resistance of pathogens in pediatric infections and reported that ceftriaxone and cefepime were generally more effective against E. coli and Klebsiella pneumonia [4]. However, imipenem was the most effective antibiotic with 100 percent susceptibility. These findings confirm that despite current trends in pediatric population, where administration of imipenem is not widely established yet, the communityacquired pathogens are still amenable with high susceptibility to this antimicrobial agent. The present study was employed as surveillance of current microbiologic pattern and antibiotic susceptibility in UTI and RTI among a large hospital and outpatient population in order to revise the existing knowledge for the establishment of proper and adequate empirical antibiotic therapy. However, a multicenter investigation would have complied with this objective more sufficiently. Furthermore, the history of infection and previous administration of antibiotics are influential factors for striding towards understanding elements of antimicrobial resistance. On the other hand, the role of other nonbacterial microorganisms in communityand in-hospital acquired infections should be taken into
Susceptible 55 (100%) 11 (25.6%) 8 (24.2%) 8 (15.4%) 4 (13.3%) 46 (90.2%) 7 (13.3%) 36 (50.7%) 8 (17.8%) 11 (15.9%) 6 (14.3%) 10 (14.1%) 7 (10.4%) 5 (9.3%) 5 (7.4%) 2 (3.2%) 19 (90.5%) 49 (87.5%) 54 (84.4%) 47 (73.4%) 41 (67.2%) 36 (66.7%) 21 (34.4%)
Susceptibility level Intermediate 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (36.4%) 0 (0%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.8%) 1 (1.4%) 2 (4.4%) 1 (1.4%) 2 (4.8%) 7 (9.9%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.5%) 3 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 4 (7.1%) 4 (6.3%) 5 (7.8%) 1 (1.6%) 2 (3.7%) 1 (1.6%)
Resistant 0 (0%) 32 (74.4%) 13 (39.4%) 44 (84.6%) 23 (76.7%) 5 (9.8%) 43 (82.7%) 34 (47.9%) 35 (77.8%) 57 (82.6%) 34 (81%) 54 (79.1%) 58 (86.6%) 49 (90.7%) 62 (91.2%) 58 (92.1%) 1 (4.8%) 3 (5.4%) 6 (9.4%) 12 (18.8%) 19 (31.1%) 16 (29.6%) 39 (63.9%)
account [20]. Periodic domestic antimicrobial surveillances are needed to regularly update the guidelines on proper empiric and organism-specific antibiotic treatment [7].
5. Conclusion Our study showed the changing trends in antibiotic susceptibility of isolates from UTI and RTI with respect to the source of infection during the time. While E. coli and Acinetobacter remain the most common urinary and respiratory organisms, respectively, their increasing resistance to wide-spectrum imipenem and meropenem is a major concern.
Disclosure There is no fund, no grant, and no support received in any form. The paper has not been presented at a meeting and has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. The authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
6
International Journal of Microbiology
References [1] J. Chastre and J.-Y. Fagon, “Ventilator-associated pneumonia,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 165, no. 7, pp. 867–903, 2002. [2] S. Maraki, E. Mantadakis, L. Michailidis, and G. Samonis, “Changing antibiotic susceptibilities of community-acquired uropathogens in Greece, 2005–2010,” Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 202–209, 2013. [3] I. M. Cullen, R. P. Manecksha, E. McCullagh et al., “The changing pattern of antimicrobial resistance within 42 033 Escherichia coli isolates from nosocomial, community and urology patient-specific urinary tract infections, Dublin, 1999– 2009,” BJU International, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 1198–1206, 2012. [4] M. E. Jones, J. A. Karlowsky, D. C. Draghi, C. Thornsberry, D. F. Sahm, and J. S. Bradley, “Rates of antimicrobial resistance among common bacterial pathogens causing respiratory, blood, urine, and skin and soft tissue infections in pediatric patients,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 445–455, 2004. [5] W. Xia, Y. Chen, Y. Mei et al., “Changing trend of antimicrobial resistance among pathogens isolated from lower respirator/tract at a university-affiliated hospital of China, 2006–2010,” Journal of Thoracic Disease, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 284–291, 2012. [6] B. Misset, J.-F. Timsit, M.-F. Dumay et al., “A continuous quality-improvement program reduces nosocomial infection rates in the ICU,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 395– 400, 2004. [7] K. Gupta, T. M. Hooton, K. G. Naber et al., “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,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. e103–e120, 2011. [8] S. E. Moffett, B. W. Frazee, J. C. Stein et al., “Antimicrobial resistance in uncomplicated urinary tract infections in 3 California EDs,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 942–949, 2012. [9] G. Schmiemann, I. G´agyor, E. Hummers-Pradier, and J. Bleidorn, “Resistance profiles of urinary tract infections in general practice—an observational study,” BMC Urology, vol. 12, no. 11, article 33, 2012. [10] J. G. M. W. Collee, “Culture of bacteria,” in Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, J. G. F. A . Collee, B. P. Marmion, and A. Simmons, Eds., pp. 113–129, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, USA, 14th edition, 1996. [11] B. Xu, L. Liu, L. Liu, X. Li, X. Li, and X. Wang, “A multiplex PCR assay for the rapid and sensitive detection of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus and simultaneous discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus from coagulase-negative staphylococci,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. M638–M642, 2012. [12] CaLSI, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, CLSI, Wayne, Pa, USA, 2009. [13] M. Akram, M. Shahid, and A. U. Khan, “Etiology and antibiotic resistance patterns of community-acquired urinary tract infections in J N M C Hospital Aligarh, India,” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, vol. 6, article 4, 2007. [14] D. J. Hoban, D. J. Biedenbach, A. H. Mutnick, and R. N. Jones, “Pathogen of occurrence and susceptibility patterns associated with pneumonia in hospitalized patients in North America: results of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Study (2000),” Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 279–285, 2003. C. M. Muvunyi, F. Masaisa, C. Bayingana et al., “Decreased susceptibility to commonly used antimicrobial agents in bacterial pathogens isolated from urinary tract infections in Rwanda: need for new antimicrobial guidelines,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 923–928, 2011. L. Raka, G. Mulliqi-Osmani, L. Berisha et al., “Etiology and susceptibility of urinary tract isolates in Kosova,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 23, supplement 1, pp. S2–S5, 2004. F. Randrianirina, J.-L. Soares, J.-F. Carod et al., “Antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens that cause communityacquired urinary tract infections in Antananarivo, Madagascar,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 309– 312, 2007. Y. Wang, R. Zhang, W. Li, Y. Feng, and T. Leng, “Serious antimicrobial resistance status of pathogens causing hospitalacquired lower respiratory tract infections in north China,” Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 899– 907, 2009. T. Mathevon, B. Souweine, O. Traor´e, B. Aublet, and D. Caillaud, “ICU-acquired nosocomial infection: impact of delay of adequate antibiotic treatment,” Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 831–835, 2002. D. Lieberman, A. Shimoni, Y. Shemer-Avni, A. Keren-Naos, R. Shtainberg, and D. Lieberman, “Respiratory viruses in adults with community-acquired pneumonia,” Chest, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 811–816, 2010.
Copyright of International Journal of Microbiology is the property of Hindawi Publishing Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
International Journal of Microbiology both was found to be a valid instrument for epidemiological studies. The variability in genes that are built from repetitive moieties might go along with enhanced speed of evolution. This typing system, therefore, is intended mainly for routine epidemiological surveillance, where isolates obtained within a narrow time frame are subject for typing analysis.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
References [1] I. Montesinos, E. Salido, T. Delgado, M. Cuervo, and A. Sierra, “Epidemiologic genotyping of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis at a University Hospital and comparison with antibiotyping and protein A and coagulase gene polymorphisms,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 2119–2125, 2002. [2] R. Valaperta, M. R. Tejada, M. Frigerio et al., “Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial infections: the role of a rapid and low-cost characterization for the establishment of a surveillance system,” New Microbiologica, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223–232, 2010. [3] J. V. Hookey, J. F. Richardson, and B. D. Cookson, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus based on PCR restriction fragment length polymorphism and DNA sequence analysis of the coagulase gene,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1083–1089, 1998. [4] T. A. Wichelhaus, K.-P. Hunfeld, B. B¨oddinghaus, P. Kraiczy, V. Sch¨afer, and V. Brade, “Rapid molecular typing of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus by PCR-RFLP,” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 294–298, 2001. [5] M. Himabindu, D. S. Muthamilselvan, D. K. Bishi, and R. S. Verma, “Molecular analysis of coagulase gene polymorphism in clinical isolates of methicilin resistant Staphylococcus aureus by restriction fragment length polymorphism based genotyping,” American Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 163– 169, 2009. [6] F. Shakeri, A. Shojai, M. Golalipour, S. R. Alang, H. Vaez, and E. A. Ghaemi, “Spa diversity among MRSA and MSSA strains of Staphylococcus aureus in north of Iran,” International Journal of Microbiology, vol. 2010, Article ID 351397, 5 pages, 2010. [7] D. Baird, “Staphylococcus: cluster-forming gram-positive cocci,” in Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, J. G. Collee, A. G. Fraser, B. P. Marmion, and A. Simmons, Eds., pp. 245–258, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, USA, 14th edition, 1996. [8] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, “Performance standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing; 21th informational supplement,” CLSI document M100-S21 Vol 31 No.1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pa, USA, 2011. [9] A.-P. Magiorakos, A. Srinivasan, R. B. Carey et al., “Multidrugresistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 268–281, 2012. [10] P. Vannuffel, J. Gigi, H. Ezzedine et al., “Specific detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus species by multiplex PCR,”
International Journal of Microbiology Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2864–2867, 1995. [11] P. R. Hunter and M. A. Gaston, “Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing systems: an application of Simpson’s index of diversity,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2465–2466, 1988. [12] S. L. Davis, M. B. Perri, S. M. Donabedian et al., “Epidemiology and outcomes of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1705–1711, 2007. [13] F.-J. Schmitz, M. Steiert, H.-V. Tichy et al., “Typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Dusseldorf by six genotypic methods,” Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 341–351, 1998. [14] M. M. Baddour, M. M. Abuelkheir, and A. J. Fatani, “Trends in antibiotic susceptibility patterns and epidemiology of MRSA isolates from several hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, vol. 5, article 30, pp. 1–11, 2006. [15] P. L. Mehndiratta and P. Bhalla, “Typing of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a technical review,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 16–23, 2012. [16] J. Merlino, J. Watson, B. Rose et al., “Detection and expression of methicillin/oxacillin resistance in multidrug-resistant and nonmultidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Central Sydney, Australia,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 793–801, 2002. [17] H. I. Awadalla, I. A. Khalil, H. H. Bassim, M. N. Ahmed, and L. M. Wahba, “Molecular typing of methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates at Ain Shams University Hospital, Egypt,” African Journal of Microbiology Research, vol. 4, no. 15, pp. 1639–1646, 2010. [18] I. Janwithayanuchit, S. Ngam-ululert, P. Paungmoung, and W. Rangsipanuratn, “Epidemiologic study of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by coagulase gene polymorphism,” ScienceAsia, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 127–132, 2006. [19] B. Shopsin, M. Gomez, M. Waddington, M. Riehman, and B. N. Kreiswirth, “Use of coagulase gene (coa) repeat region nucleotide sequences for typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 3453–3456, 2000. [20] H. K. Tiwari, D. Sapkota, A. Gaur, J. P. Mathuria, A. Singh, and M. R. Sen, “Molecular typing of clinical Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Northern India using coagulase gene PCR-RFLP,” Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 467–473, 2008. [21] S.-H. Goh, S. K. Byrne, J. L. Zhang, and A. W. Chow, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus on the basis of coagulase gene polymorphisms,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1642–1645, 1992. [22] H. D. Saei, M. Ahmadi, K. Mardani, and R. A. Batavani, “Molecular typing of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis based on polymorphism of the coagulase gene in the north west of Iran,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 137, no. 1-2, pp. 202–206, 2009. [23] C. Lange, M. Cardoso, D. Senczek, and S. Schwarz, “Molecular subtyping of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cases of bovine mastitis in Brazil,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 127–141, 1999.
11 [24] C. Lawrence, M. Cosseron, O. Mimoz et al., “Use of coagulase gene typing method for detection of carrier of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 37, pp. 687–696, 1996. [25] H. D. Saei and M. Ahmadi, “Discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus isolates on the basis of gene coding protein A using PCRrestriction enzyme analysis,” Comparative Clinical Pathology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 645–652, 2011. [26] H. M. E. Frenay, J. P. G. Theelen, L. M. Schouls et al., “Discrimination of epidemic and nonepidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains on the basis of protein A gene polymorphism,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 846–847, 1994. [27] S. A. Adesida, Y. Likhoshvay, W. Eisner et al., “Repeats in the 3 region of the protein A gene is unique in a strain of Staphylococcus aureus recovered from wound infections in Lagos, Nigeria,” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 5, no. 20, pp. 1858–1863, 2006. [28] P. Mehndiratta, P. Bhalla, A. Ahmed, and Y. Sharma, “Molecular typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains by PCR-RFLP of SPA gene: a reference laboratory perspective,” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 116– 122, 2009. [29] C. Wilailuckana, C. Tribuddharat, C. Tiensasitorn et al., “Discriminatory powers of molecular typing techniques for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a University Hospital, Thailand,” Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 327–334, 2006. [30] N. Mitani, A. Koizumi, R. Sano et al., “Molecular typing on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by PCR-RFLP and its usefulness in an epidemiological study of an outbreak,” Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 250– 252, 2005.
Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Microbiology Volume 2014, Article ID 682304, 6 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/682304
Research Article Microbiologic Spectrum and Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern among Patients with Urinary and Respiratory Tract Infection Maryam Sotoudeh Anvari,1 Mohammad Naderan,1,2 Mohammad Ali Boroumand,1 Saeed Shoar,1,2 Robab Bakhshi,2 and Morteza Naderan2 1
Department of Surgical and Clinical Pathology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1411713138, Iran 2 Department of Research, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, North Karegar Avenue, Tehran 1411713138, Iran Correspondence should be addressed to Mohammad Naderan; [email protected] Received 4 January 2014; Revised 10 June 2014; Accepted 11 June 2014; Published 29 June 2014 Academic Editor: Todd R. Callaway Copyright © 2014 Maryam Sotoudeh Anvari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Aim. To demonstrate the prevalence of isolated organisms in urinary/respiratory tract infections and their antibiotic susceptibilities in a tertiary care center. Methods and Material. Between January 2008 and January 2010, patients referring to the clinic of cardiology or those admitted to the cardiac wards were enrolled in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Urine and sputum sampling was done for all the patients and the specimens underwent microbiologic examination and, in case of isolation of microorganism, antibiotic disk diffusion test was performed. Results. Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most prevalent isolated organism in-hospital and community-acquired UTIs and was highly resistant to cephalothin in all the samples followed by cotrimoxazole, and ceftriaxone. It revealed high sensitivity to imipenem, amikacin, and nitrofurantoin. Acinetobacter constituted the most prevalent organism isolated from respiratory secretions and represented the highest resistance to ceftriaxone and the greatest sensitivity to imipenem. Conclusions. E. coli and Acinetobacter remain the most common uropathogenic and respiratory organisms, respectively. However, their increasing resistance to wide-spectrum imipenem, meropenem, and vancomycin is a major concern.
1. Introduction With the increasing utility of invasive procedures in inpatient settings, nosocomial infections are encountered with more prevalence among the hospitalized population. Hospital/noncommunity acquired infections (HAI) not only lengthen the duration of hospital stay with increased demand for additional health care resources but also are potential sources for acquisition of microorganisms by the health care providers, burdens health care system itself, and sets up the transmission into shorter cycle [1, 2]. In essence, the most common pathogens responsible for hospital-acquired infections differ from those of community-acquired infections [2]. On the other hand, antimicrobial susceptibility of each organism is influenced by the origin of infection, periodic alterations, and epidemiological factors of that region [1, 3–5].
Urinary and respiratory tract infections are the leading cause of in-hospital infections consuming huge amounts of health resources. In addition, these infections impose the risk of high morbidity and mortality on admitted patients [6]. Empirical treatment for HAI should be instituted based on the knowledge of susceptibility of responsible pathogens to available antibiotics [5–7]. Although this approach optimizes the effects of antimicrobial agents, inappropriate extended-spectrum antibiotics should strongly be discouraged. The importance is more sensible if increased resistance to many antibiotics is taken into account and action programs have developed to restrict overuse of antibiotics [3, 5, 7–9]. For this reason, specific nationwide surveillance studies should be conducted to provide for microbiological resistance pattern and antibacterial activity of antibiotics. The aim of our study was to provide
2
International Journal of Microbiology Table 1: Annual prevalence of microorganisms with the highest frequency.
Organism E. coli Klebsiella Enterococcus
Urine 2007 249 (64%) 31 (7.9%) 26 (6.6%)
2008 272 (60.9%) 39 (8.7%) 33 (7.3%)
objective evidence in terms of antibiotic susceptibility and resistance of pathogens isolated from patients afflicted by either community- or noncommunity acquired UTI and RTI in a tertiary care center in Iran.
2. Material and Methods 2.1. Patients. This is a cross-sectional study conducted from January 2008 to January 2010. The study population included patients attending to the laboratory or admitted to cardiac wards in Tehran Heart Center (THC), Tehran, Iran. The inclusion criteria comprised clinical evidence of urinary or respiratory tract infection, according to the definition of center for disease control and prevention (CDC), in patients admitted to the hospital before 48 hours of admission and in patients presenting to the outpatient clinic having symptoms for less than 72 hours. The inclusion criteria comprised community-acquired infections diagnosed in patients attending to the laboratory without prolonged duration (>72 hrs) and previous antibiotics reception and hospital-acquired infections considered in patients developing U/R tract infections more than 48 hours after hospital admission. Admitted patients with documented UTI or RTI on admission or outpatient subjects who had received antibiotic therapy within 48 hours, immune compromised patients, and those with documented complicated infections were excluded from the study. The study design and protocol was approved by the Research and Ethics Committee of THC. Informed consent was documented for each patient at the beginning of the study. 2.2. Sampling and Laboratory Assessment. Patients with suggestive symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection or clinical evidence of urinary tract infection underwent sampling for sputum and urine analysis before antibiotic therapy, respectively. Fifty milliliter (mL) of clean-catch midstream urine from patients with a probable diagnosis of UTI was collected in a sterile container for UTI as soon as possible after admission. In those with evidence of an RTI, 20 to 30 mL of early morning sputum was obtained in a sterile plastic container. Bacteriuria was determined with quantitative technique using 0.01 mL calibrated wire loop to inoculate the blood agar, which provides for growth of most organisms. The same technique was accomplished with the MacConkey culture medium specialized for isolation of gram-negative bacteria. The culture media were incubated at 35 ± 2∘ C from 18 to 24 hours. Culture was considered positive if at least 105 CFU/mL was isolated for a single organism.
Organism Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Acinetobacter
Sputum 2007 37 (30.8%) 29 (24.1%) 18 (15%)
2008 29 (20.1%) 26 (18%) 52 (36.8%)
Identification of isolates was obtained by their characteristic appearance on their respective media and gram staining. The isolated colony was confirmed by the pattern of biochemical reactions using the standard method [10] and also by PCR for the type of microorganism [11]. Antibiotic susceptibility was evaluated by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar according to the guidelines of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [12] and antibiogram was obtained. The discs were taken from HiMedia Laboratories (India). The followings are the concentrations of drugs used for disc diffusion testing: ampicillin (10 𝜇g), amikacin (30 𝜇g), coamoxiclav (20/10 𝜇g), cefepime (30 𝜇g), cefoxitin (10 𝜇g), ceftazidime (30 𝜇g), ceftriaxone (30 𝜇g), cephalotin (30 𝜇g), ciprofloxacin (5 𝜇g), clindamycin (2 𝜇g), cotrimoxazole (23.75 𝜇g sulfamethoxazole/1.25 𝜇g trimethoprim), erythromycin (15 𝜇g), gentamicin (10 𝜇g), imipenem (10 𝜇g), meropenem (10 𝜇g), nitrofurantoin (100 𝜇g), penicillin (10 units), tobramycin (10 𝜇g), and vancomycin (30 𝜇g). 2.3. Statistical Analysis. Data were assessed using the statistical package for social sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics, version 19, IBM Corporation) and presented as number (percent) and mean ± SD when appropriate.
3. Results Urinary and respiratory samples from admitted patients in 4 intensive care units (ICU), 5 coronary care units (CCU), 12 inpatient wards, and those attended to the laboratory were analyzed. Of 1099 positive cultures, 835 (75.9%) and 264 (24.1%) samples were related to UTI and RTI, respectively. Table 1 demonstrates annual prevalence of microorganisms with the highest frequency. 3.1. Urinary Isolates. Of 835 positive urine cultures, 664 samples (79.5%) were obtained from hospitalized patients compared with 171 samples (20.5%) from outpatient. E. coli was the most prevalent isolated organism in both the hospitalacquired and the community-acquired UTIs followed by Klebsiella and Enterococcus (Table 2). In outpatients, E. coli was the leading cause followed by Klebsiella, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and inactive E. coli. E. coli was highly resistant to cephalotin in the majority of samples (56.6%) followed by cotrimoxazole (49.4%) and ceftriaxone (38.5%) as presented in Table 3. Antibiotic susceptibility and resistance pattern of Klebsiella and Enterococcus species have been also presented in Table 3. It is perceived from the table that the best antibiotics for Klebsiella and
International Journal of Microbiology
3
Table 2: Discriminative prevalence of isolated organism. Type of organism Acinetobacter Citrobacter E. coli E. coli inactive Enterobacter Enterococcus Klebsiella Proteus Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Staphylococcus epidermidis Staphylococcus haemolyticus Staphylococcus saprophyticus Streptococcus group A Streptococcus group D Streptococcus saprophyticus
Urine sample (𝑛 = 835)
Sputum sample (𝑛 = 264)
5 (0.5%) 10 (1.1%) 521 (62.3%) 37 (4.4%) 23 (2.7%) 59 (7%) 70 (8.3%) 6 (0.7%) 17 (2%) 12 (1.4%) 29 (3.4%) 11 (1.3%) 2 (0.2%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33 (3.9%)
71 (26.8%) 4 (1.5%) 14 (5.3%) 1 (0.4%) 11 (4.1%) 2 (0.7%) 11 (4.1%) 0 (0) 66 (25%) 55 (20.8%) 16 (6%) 5 (1.8%) 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.7%) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0)
Enterococcus were imipenem and nitrofurantoin, respectively. On the other hand, we found a high susceptibility of E. coli to imipenem, amikacin, and nitrofurantoin. Table 4 summarizes the prevalence of microorganisms isolated from urine samples according to the source of infection and time of sampling. 3.2. Respiratory Isolates. Two hundred sixty-four positive cultures were obtained from respiratory secretions. Of these, 135 samples (51.1%) were related to ICU wards compared with 129 samples (48.9%) obtained from hospital wards. Acinetobacter constituted the most prevalent organism followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Regarding the admission wards, Acinetobacter was the most prevalent organism in the ICU, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most prevalent organism in non-ICU wards. Acinetobacter demonstrated the greatest resistance to ceftriaxone with the greatest susceptibility and lowest resistance to imipenem. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was greatly susceptible to meropenem and highly resistant to ceftazidime. Staphylococcus aureus was highly susceptible to vancomycin and highly resistant to erythromycin and cefoxitin, respectively. Susceptibility and resistance to antibiotics of the isolated respiratory organisms are summarized in Table 5.
4. Discussion The importance of regional specification of RTI and UTI etiology and their antibiotic susceptibility has been convincingly proved by several studies [5, 13–18]. However, the knowledge needs to be regularly revised with changing trends in microbiological patterns of the responsible organisms [15]. This accelerates the initiation of adequate antibiotic treatment in nosocomial infection with better results in terms of outcome and improved survival [19].
Our study confirmed that E. coli is still the most frequent pathogen in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Although this is in accord with a number of previous reports [13, 16, 17], Muvunyi and colleagues (2011) proposed that the prevalence of urinary infections with E. coli is decreasing probably due to other superseding members of the Enterobacteriaceae [15]. The second and the third most prevalent uropathogens in the hospitalized population of our study were Klebsiella and Enterococcus, respectively. Nevertheless, Staphylococcus epidermidis replaced the latter in the outpatient isolates. Similar to other investigations [3], E. coli constituted a lower percentage of isolates in inpatients than outpatients. However, the pattern of isolates in an ambulatory setting may be quite variable, with E. coli being the most common organism, followed by Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Proteus mirabilis, and Enteric gram-negative rods in one study [8]. Another observational study on microbiologic patterns of UTI in general practice also revealed E. coli as the most common culprit followed by typical uropathogens and Enterococcus faecalis [9]. According to current evidence, irrespective of the chronological pattern of the infection, E. coli still accounts for the most common organism isolated from urinary tract infections in either of the inpatient or outpatient populations which should be investigated in terms of antimicrobial susceptibility. With respect to RTI, Acinetobacter constituted the most common pathogen in 2008 followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Nevertheless, the trend has been different in 2007 with Pseudomonas aeruginosa being the most prevalent and Acinetobacter being the least frequent organisms. In a study by Wang et al. from northern China, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common isolated organism in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infection [18]. However, a SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program showed that Staphylococcus aureus comprised 28 percent of isolates followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 20.0 percent, Streptococcus pneumonia in 9.1 percent, and Klebsiella saprophyticus in 7.5 percent among hospitalized patients in northern America and Canada [14]. Xia and colleagues investigated the changing pattern of isolated pathogens in lower respiratory tract infection among a Chinese population and found that Acinetobacter was more frequently isolated in 2006 than in 2010 [5] which is also confirmed by our study (15% in 2007 versus 36.8% in 2008). Moreover, it seems that Acinetobacter is commonly isolated more from ICU patients than from other wards perhaps due to the compromised immunity of the critically ill patients [5, 18]. The urinary isolated E. coli was susceptible to nitrofurantoin in 90 percent and to gentamicin in 71.8 percent of cases. Although susceptibility to imipenem and meropenem remained high (100 percent and 80.4 percent, resp.), cotrimoxazole represented a susceptible proportion of less than 50 percent. Additionally, Klebsiella demonstrated 80.7 percent susceptibility to gentamicin, 83.9 percent to ciprofloxacin, 58.5 percent to nitrofurantoin, and more than 60 percent to cephalosporin. However, it raised concern because of resistance to coamoxiclav in 61.8 percent and to ampicillin in 92.6 percent of the isolates. Similarly, Enterococcus showed
4
International Journal of Microbiology Table 3: Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of isolated organisms from urine samples.
Organism
E. coli
Klebsiella
Enterococcus
Type of antibiotic
Susceptible 514 (100%) 483 (94.2%) 445 (90.1%) 370 (71.8%) 322 (63%) 301 (58.7%) 289 (57%) 286 (55.6%) 224 (47.1%) 145 (28.4%) 57 (100%) 26 (100%) 55 (96.4%) 47 (83.9%) 46 (80.7%) 41 (71.9%) 36 (65.5%) 35 (63.6%) 34 (63%) 31 (58.5%) 30 (54.5%) 3 (5.6%) 15 (27.3%) 40 (74.1%) 22 (47.8%) 26 (44.8%) 16 (38.1%) 19 (35.2%) 16 (27.6%) 3 (5.9%)
Imipenem Amikacin Nitrofurantoin Gentamicin Cefepime Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Ciprofloxacin Cotrimoxazole Cephalothin Imipenem Meropenem Amikacin Ciprofloxacin Gentamicin Cefepime Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Cotrimoxazole Nitrofurantoin Cephalothin Ampicillin Coamoxiclav Nitrofurantoin Gentamicin Vancomycin Cotrimoxazole Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Clindamycin
Susceptibility level Intermediate 0 (0%) 10 (1.9%) 22 (4.5%) 23 (4.5%) 25 (4.9%) 21 (4.1%) 23 (4.5%) 35 (6.8%) 17 (3.6%) 77 (15.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.8%) 3 (5.3%) 1 (1.8%) 4 (7.3%) 2 (3.7%) 8 (15.1%) 4 (7.3%) 1 (1.9%) 6 (10.9%) 5 (9.3%) 3 (6.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (4.8%) 16 (29.4%) 8 (41.4%) 0 (0%)
Resistant 0 (0%) 20 (3.9%) 27 (5.5%) 122 (23.7%) 164 (32.1%) 191 (37.2%) 195 (38.5%) 193 (37.5%) 235 (49.4%) 289 (56.6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.5%) 9 (16.1%) 10 (17.5%) 13 (22.8%) 18 (32.7%) 16 (29.1%) 18 (33.3%) 14 (26.4%) 21 (38.2%) 50 (92.6%) 34 (61.8%) 9 (16.7%) 21 (45.7%) 32 (55.2%) 24 (57.1%) 19 (35.2%) 34 (58.6%) 48 (94.1%)
Table 4: Prevalence of microorganisms isolated from urine samples according to source of infection and time of sampling. Admission E. coli Klebsiella Enterococcus Staphylococcus epidermidis
Outpatient 121 (70.7%) 21 (12.2%) 0 (0) 7 (4%)
Inpatient 400 (60.2%) 49 (8.7%) 54 (8.1%) 0 (0)
susceptibility to nitrofurantoin (74.1%) and gentamicin (48%) with 55.2 percent resistance to vancomycin, hence, categorized as vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE). However, the susceptibility and resistance patterns were relatively comparable so as both features are close to 50 percent. In a study by Cullen and colleagues, E. coli, as the most common uropathogen, showed significant resistance to penicillin, trimethoprim, and ciprofloxacin [3]. Their results also showed a decreasing susceptibility to gentamicin during the period of study for 11 years.
Nosocomial 79 (53%) 22 (14.7%) 16 (10.7%) 0 (0)
Source of infection Community acquired 321 (62%) 38 (7.3%) 36 (6.9%) 0 (0)
Respiratory isolated S. aureus showed 100 percent susceptibility to vancomycin. Cotrimoxazole had also over 90 percent activity against this species. In contrast, resistance against cefoxitin and erythromycin exceeded 80 percent implying that more than 80 percent of the organisms were methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Acinetobacter, as the most common isolate in RTI, represented the best susceptibility to imipenem (50%). Nevertheless, its resistance to imipenem (47.9%) was relatively too high to be selected as the first line antibiotic. On the other hand, other antibiotics
International Journal of Microbiology
5
Table 5: Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of isolated organisms from sputum. Organism
Staphylococcus aureus
Acinetobacter
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Type of antibiotic Vancomycin Clindamycin Ciprofloxacin Erythromycin Gentamicin Cotrimoxazole Cefoxitin Imipenem Meropenem Gentamicin Tobramycin Ciprofloxacin Amikacin Cotrimoxazole Ceftazidime Ceftriaxone Meropenem Ciprofloxacin Imipenem Amikacin Gentamicin Tobramycin Ceftazidime
did not reveal high activity against this organism with the best susceptibility varying from 10 to 15 percent (see Table 5). Interestingly, Pseudomonas aeruginosa had high susceptibility to available antibiotics such as meropenem (90%), ciprofloxacin (87.5%), imipenem (84.4%), and amikacin (73.4%). In their study, Jones et al. rated antimicrobial resistance of pathogens in pediatric infections and reported that ceftriaxone and cefepime were generally more effective against E. coli and Klebsiella pneumonia [4]. However, imipenem was the most effective antibiotic with 100 percent susceptibility. These findings confirm that despite current trends in pediatric population, where administration of imipenem is not widely established yet, the communityacquired pathogens are still amenable with high susceptibility to this antimicrobial agent. The present study was employed as surveillance of current microbiologic pattern and antibiotic susceptibility in UTI and RTI among a large hospital and outpatient population in order to revise the existing knowledge for the establishment of proper and adequate empirical antibiotic therapy. However, a multicenter investigation would have complied with this objective more sufficiently. Furthermore, the history of infection and previous administration of antibiotics are influential factors for striding towards understanding elements of antimicrobial resistance. On the other hand, the role of other nonbacterial microorganisms in communityand in-hospital acquired infections should be taken into
Susceptible 55 (100%) 11 (25.6%) 8 (24.2%) 8 (15.4%) 4 (13.3%) 46 (90.2%) 7 (13.3%) 36 (50.7%) 8 (17.8%) 11 (15.9%) 6 (14.3%) 10 (14.1%) 7 (10.4%) 5 (9.3%) 5 (7.4%) 2 (3.2%) 19 (90.5%) 49 (87.5%) 54 (84.4%) 47 (73.4%) 41 (67.2%) 36 (66.7%) 21 (34.4%)
Susceptibility level Intermediate 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (36.4%) 0 (0%) 3 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (3.8%) 1 (1.4%) 2 (4.4%) 1 (1.4%) 2 (4.8%) 7 (9.9%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.5%) 3 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 4 (7.1%) 4 (6.3%) 5 (7.8%) 1 (1.6%) 2 (3.7%) 1 (1.6%)
Resistant 0 (0%) 32 (74.4%) 13 (39.4%) 44 (84.6%) 23 (76.7%) 5 (9.8%) 43 (82.7%) 34 (47.9%) 35 (77.8%) 57 (82.6%) 34 (81%) 54 (79.1%) 58 (86.6%) 49 (90.7%) 62 (91.2%) 58 (92.1%) 1 (4.8%) 3 (5.4%) 6 (9.4%) 12 (18.8%) 19 (31.1%) 16 (29.6%) 39 (63.9%)
account [20]. Periodic domestic antimicrobial surveillances are needed to regularly update the guidelines on proper empiric and organism-specific antibiotic treatment [7].
5. Conclusion Our study showed the changing trends in antibiotic susceptibility of isolates from UTI and RTI with respect to the source of infection during the time. While E. coli and Acinetobacter remain the most common urinary and respiratory organisms, respectively, their increasing resistance to wide-spectrum imipenem and meropenem is a major concern.
Disclosure There is no fund, no grant, and no support received in any form. The paper has not been presented at a meeting and has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. The authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.
Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
6
International Journal of Microbiology
References [1] J. Chastre and J.-Y. Fagon, “Ventilator-associated pneumonia,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 165, no. 7, pp. 867–903, 2002. [2] S. Maraki, E. Mantadakis, L. Michailidis, and G. Samonis, “Changing antibiotic susceptibilities of community-acquired uropathogens in Greece, 2005–2010,” Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 202–209, 2013. [3] I. M. Cullen, R. P. Manecksha, E. McCullagh et al., “The changing pattern of antimicrobial resistance within 42 033 Escherichia coli isolates from nosocomial, community and urology patient-specific urinary tract infections, Dublin, 1999– 2009,” BJU International, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 1198–1206, 2012. [4] M. E. Jones, J. A. Karlowsky, D. C. Draghi, C. Thornsberry, D. F. Sahm, and J. S. Bradley, “Rates of antimicrobial resistance among common bacterial pathogens causing respiratory, blood, urine, and skin and soft tissue infections in pediatric patients,” European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 445–455, 2004. [5] W. Xia, Y. Chen, Y. Mei et al., “Changing trend of antimicrobial resistance among pathogens isolated from lower respirator/tract at a university-affiliated hospital of China, 2006–2010,” Journal of Thoracic Disease, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 284–291, 2012. [6] B. Misset, J.-F. Timsit, M.-F. Dumay et al., “A continuous quality-improvement program reduces nosocomial infection rates in the ICU,” Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 395– 400, 2004. [7] K. Gupta, T. M. Hooton, K. G. Naber et al., “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,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. e103–e120, 2011. [8] S. E. Moffett, B. W. Frazee, J. C. Stein et al., “Antimicrobial resistance in uncomplicated urinary tract infections in 3 California EDs,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 942–949, 2012. [9] G. Schmiemann, I. G´agyor, E. Hummers-Pradier, and J. Bleidorn, “Resistance profiles of urinary tract infections in general practice—an observational study,” BMC Urology, vol. 12, no. 11, article 33, 2012. [10] J. G. M. W. Collee, “Culture of bacteria,” in Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, J. G. F. A . Collee, B. P. Marmion, and A. Simmons, Eds., pp. 113–129, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, USA, 14th edition, 1996. [11] B. Xu, L. Liu, L. Liu, X. Li, X. Li, and X. Wang, “A multiplex PCR assay for the rapid and sensitive detection of methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus and simultaneous discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus from coagulase-negative staphylococci,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. M638–M642, 2012. [12] CaLSI, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, CLSI, Wayne, Pa, USA, 2009. [13] M. Akram, M. Shahid, and A. U. Khan, “Etiology and antibiotic resistance patterns of community-acquired urinary tract infections in J N M C Hospital Aligarh, India,” Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, vol. 6, article 4, 2007. [14] D. J. Hoban, D. J. Biedenbach, A. H. Mutnick, and R. N. Jones, “Pathogen of occurrence and susceptibility patterns associated with pneumonia in hospitalized patients in North America: results of the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
Study (2000),” Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 279–285, 2003. C. M. Muvunyi, F. Masaisa, C. Bayingana et al., “Decreased susceptibility to commonly used antimicrobial agents in bacterial pathogens isolated from urinary tract infections in Rwanda: need for new antimicrobial guidelines,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 923–928, 2011. L. Raka, G. Mulliqi-Osmani, L. Berisha et al., “Etiology and susceptibility of urinary tract isolates in Kosova,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 23, supplement 1, pp. S2–S5, 2004. F. Randrianirina, J.-L. Soares, J.-F. Carod et al., “Antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens that cause communityacquired urinary tract infections in Antananarivo, Madagascar,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 309– 312, 2007. Y. Wang, R. Zhang, W. Li, Y. Feng, and T. Leng, “Serious antimicrobial resistance status of pathogens causing hospitalacquired lower respiratory tract infections in north China,” Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 899– 907, 2009. T. Mathevon, B. Souweine, O. Traor´e, B. Aublet, and D. Caillaud, “ICU-acquired nosocomial infection: impact of delay of adequate antibiotic treatment,” Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 831–835, 2002. D. Lieberman, A. Shimoni, Y. Shemer-Avni, A. Keren-Naos, R. Shtainberg, and D. Lieberman, “Respiratory viruses in adults with community-acquired pneumonia,” Chest, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 811–816, 2010.
Copyright of International Journal of Microbiology is the property of Hindawi Publishing Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
