Dataset Information

Routine laboratory surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in community-acquired urinary tract infections adequately informs prescribing policy in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess whether resistance estimates obtained from sentinel surveillance for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in community-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs) differ from routinely collected laboratory community UTI data.

Methods

All patients aged ≥18 years presenting to four sentinel general practices with a suspected UTI, from 13 November 2017 to 12 February 2018, were asked to provide urine specimens for culture and susceptibility. Specimens were processed at the local diagnostic laboratory. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was conducted using automated methods. We calculated the proportion of Escherichia coli isolates that were non-susceptible (according to contemporaneous EUCAST guidelines) to trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, cefalexin, ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, overall and by age group and sex, and compared this with routine estimates.

Results

Sentinel practices submitted 740 eligible specimens. The specimen submission rate had increased by 28 specimens per 1000 population per year (95% CI 21-35). Uropathogens were isolated from 23% (169/740) of specimens; 67% were E. coli (113/169). Non-susceptibility of E. coli to trimethoprim was 28.2% (95% CI 20.2-37.7) on sentinel surveillance (33.4%; 95% CI 29.5-37.6 on routine data) and to nitrofurantoin was 0.9% (95% CI 0-5.7) (1.5%; 95% CI 0.7-3.0 on routine data).

Conclusions

Routine laboratory data resulted in a small overestimation in resistance (although the difference was not statistically significant) and our findings suggest that it provides an adequate estimate of non-susceptibility to key antimicrobials in community-acquired UTIs in England. This study does not support the need for ongoing local sentinel surveillance.

SUBMITTER: Watts V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8210191 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the validity of diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) through urine culture between samples processed in routine health service laboratories and those processed in a research laboratory.Population and methodsWe conducted a prospective diagnostic cohort study in 4808 acutely ill children aged <5 years attending UK primary health care. UTI, defined as pure/predominant growth ?105 CFU/mL of a uropathogen (the reference standard), was diagnosed at routine health service laboratories and a central research laboratory by culture of urine samples. We calculated areas under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) for UTI predicted by pre-specified symptoms, signs and dipstick test results (the "index test"), separately according to whether samples were obtained by clean catch or nappy (diaper) pads.Results251 (5.2%) and 88 (1.8%) children were classified as UTI positive by health service and research laboratories respectively. Agreement between laboratories was moderate (kappa = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.43), and better for clean catch (0.54; 0.45, 0.63) than nappy pad samples (0.20; 0.12, 0.28). In clean catch samples, the AUC was lower for health service laboratories (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI 0.69, 0.80) than the research laboratory (0.86; 0.79, 0.92). Values of AUC were lower in nappy pad samples (0.65 [0.61, 0.70] and 0.79 [0.70, 0.88] for health service and research laboratory positivity, respectively) than clean catch samples.ConclusionsThe agreement of microbiological diagnosis of UTI comparing routine health service laboratories with a research laboratory was moderate for clean catch samples and poor for nappy pad samples and reliability is lower for nappy pad than for clean catch samples. Positive results from the research laboratory appear more likely to reflect real UTIs than those from routine health service laboratories, many of which (particularly from nappy pad samples) could be due to contamination. Health service laboratories should consider adopting procedures used in the research laboratory for paediatric urine samples. Primary care clinicians should try to obtain clean catch samples, even in very young children.