| Literature DB >> 31907762 |
Maaike Honsbeek1,2, Aimée Tjon-A-Tsien1, Ellen Stobberingh3, Jurriaan de Steenwinkel4, Damian C Melles4,5, Jan Lous6, Jan Hendrik Richardus1,7, Hélène Voeten8,9.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing problem. The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in general practice patients is expected to be relatively high in Rotterdam, the Dutch city with the largest proportion non-Western immigrants. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant uropathogens (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus mirabilis) in general practices in Rotterdam, and to find a possible association between the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant E. coli and age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES). A retrospective analysis was performed of urine samples from general practice patients in 2016. The prevalence of AMR in uropathogens was compared with national resistance data, as was the prevalence of highly and multidrug resistant and extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae. Univariate logistic regression was used to study associations between antibiotic-resistant E. coli and age, gender, and SES area score. No clinically relevant differences were observed in the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant uropathogens in Rotterdam compared with the national prevalence. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, the prevalence was 3.6% for ESBL production (both pathogens together), while the prevalence ranged between 4.2%-5.0% for high resistance and between 1.2%-3.3% for multidrug resistance. Ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli was significantly associated with higher age. Although Rotterdam has a high percentage of non-western immigrants and a low SES, AMR is low among general practice patients. This indicates that adherence to national guidelines in general practice enables maintenance of low AMR, even in high-risk populations.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; General practice; Prevalence
Year: 2020 PMID: 31907762 PMCID: PMC7182613 DOI: 10.1007/s10096-019-03804-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ISSN: 0934-9723 Impact factor: 3.267
Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance for three different uropathogens compared with the national prevalence in 2016
| Median age | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotterdam | Netherlands | Rotterdam | Netherlands | |||
| 69 years | 66 years | 74 years | 73 years | 79 years | 75 years | |
| Antibiotic | ||||||
| Amoxicillin | 41% | 39% | – | – | 19% | 21% |
| Co-amoxiclav | 17% | 20% | 11% | 10% | 5% | 5% |
| Cefuroxime | 9% | 7% | 14% | 14% | 2% | 1% |
| Cefotaxime | 3% | 3% | 5% | 5% | 1% | 1% |
| Ceftazidime | 2% | 2% | 5% | 4% | 0% | 0% |
| Ciprofloxacin | 11% | 9% | 4% | 4% | 6% | 7% |
| Gentamicin | 3% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 7% | 5% |
| Tobramycin | 3% | 4% | 4% | 3% | ||
| Fosfomycin | 2% | 1% | 32% | 32% | 20% | 17% |
| Trimethoprim | 26% | 25% | 20% | 22% | 31% | 35% |
| Co-trimoxazole | 25% | 23% | 11% | 11% | 28% | 28% |
| Nitrofurantoin | 2% | 2% | – | – | – | – |
aAge > 12 years
bItalicized reported figures: the difference in resistant P. mirabilis against tobramycin between Star-SHL and NethMap is clinically relevant; i.e. absolute difference of ≥ 2.5% for prevalences < 10%
Prevalence of ESBL, HRMO and multidrug resistance compared with the national prevalence in 2016
| Rotterdam | Netherlands | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESBLa | 3.6%b | 3.1%c | ||
| HRMOe | 5.0% | 4.2% | 5.0% | 5.0% |
| Multidrug resistancef | 3.3% | 1.2% | 3.0% | 2.0% |
ESBL Extended spectrum beta-lactamase
HRMO Highly Resistant Microorganisms
aESBL was determined as resistant to cefotaxime (or ceftriaxone) and/or ceftazidime
bDetermined for E. coli and K. pneumonia together
cDetermined for all Enterobacteriaceae
dAge > 12 years
eHRMO was defined as resistant to cefotaxime/ceftriaxone and/or ceftazidime as indicator agents for the production of ESBL, or resistant to both fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) and aminoglycosides (gentamycin or tobramycin) in E. coli and K. pneumonia
fMultidrug resistance was defined as resistant to co-amoxiclav and ciprofloxacin and co-trimoxazole in E. coli and K. pneumoniae
Factors associated with resistant E. coli in 2016 (n = 1130) using univariate logistic regression analysis
| Age ≥ 70 years versus < 70 years | Female vs. male | Low SES score vs. high SES score | Middle SES score vs. high SES score | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||||
| Nitrofurantoina | 4.11* | 1.50–14.41 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.33–4.30 | 1.00 | NAb | NAb | NAb | NAb | NAb | NAb |
| Fosfomycina | 2.34 | 0.99–6.12 | 0.06 | 3.94 | 0.82–70.73 | 0.18 | 1.92 | 0.38–34.79 | 0.53 | 1.45 | 0.24–27.53 | 0.73 |
| Trimethoprima | 1.20 | 0.92–1.57 | 0.18 | 1.13 | 0.78–1.68 | 0.52 | 0.77 | 0.47–1.29 | 0.31 | 0.87 | 0.52–1.48 | 0.59 |
| Co-trimoxazole | 1.10 | 0.83–1.44 | 0.51 | 1.22 | 0.83–1.84 | 0.32 | 0.82 | 0.50–1.39 | 0.45 | 0.85 | 0.50–1.48 | 0.55 |
| Amoxicillin | 1.12 | 0.88–1.41 | 0.36 | 0.94 | 0.68–1.31 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.49–1.22 | 0.26 | 0.78 | 0.48–1.26 | 0.30 |
| Co-amoxiclav | 1.14 | 0.84–1.54 | 0.41 | 0.88 | 0.59–1.35 | 0.54 | 1.19 | 0.66–2.31 | 0.56 | 1.11 | 0.59–2.21 | 0.76 |
| Cefuroxime | 1.15 | 0.76–1.75 | 0.51 | 1.14 | 0.64–2.18 | 0.68 | 4.93* | 1.51 – 30.35 | 0.03 | 2.62 | 0.75–16.57 | 0.20 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 1.86* | 1.27–2.73 | 0.001c | 0.69 | 0.44 - 1.13 | 0.13 | 1.48 | 0.70–3.62 | 0.34 | 0.99 | 0.44–2.54 | 0.99 |
SES social economic status
*Statistically significant associations
aThese antibiotics should be prescribed in this order (first, second and third choice) by the GPs according to the National Guideline for UTI [23]
bNA not applicable: too few outcome events (high SES score has 0 resistant E. coli to nitrofurantoin)
cSignificant after adjustment for multiple testing using the Holm-Bonferroni method, p = 0.03