Abstract

Objective: Community-acquired urinary tract infections (CA-UTIs) are common bacterial infections most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The present study evaluated extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) positivity rates, antibiotic resistance profiles, and 10-year trends in resistance among adult patients with CA-UTIs caused by E. coli and K. pneumoniae.

Methods: This retrospective study evaluated adult outpatients admitted to Ondokuz Mayıs University Medical Faculty Hospital between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2023, whose urine cultures yielded ≥10⁵ colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of E. coli or K. pneumoniae. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the VITEK® 2 Compact system (bioMérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France), and the results were interpreted according to the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) criteria. ESBL positivity was defined according to the “presumed ESBL phenotype” approach described in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M100 guideline.

Results: A total of 5168 isolates were evaluated. Of the isolates, 83.5% (n=4316) were E. coli and 16.5% (n=852) were K. pneumoniae. The overall ESBL positivity rate was 28.9%. ESBL positivity was detected in 27% of E. coli isolates and 38.4% of K. pneumoniae isolates (p<0.001). A significant increase in the proportion of K. pneumoniae isolates was observed during the second 5-year study period (p<0.001). Resistance rates to ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, and second-generation cephalosporins were high in both pathogens. Ciprofloxacin resistance was 44.3% in E. coli isolates and 33.6% in K. pneumoniae isolates. Nitrofurantoin resistance was low in E. coli isolates (3.0%) but high in K. pneumoniae isolates (39.2%). In addition, carbapenem resistance in K. pneumoniae isolates increased markedly over the years.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that ESBL positivity and antimicrobial resistance rates among E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates causing CA-UTIs increased over time. In particular, increases in ESBL positivity and carbapenem resistance among K. pneumoniae isolates are progressively limiting empirical treatment options. Therefore, regular reassessment of empirical treatment approaches based on current local resistance data is critical.

Keywords: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, community-acquired urinary tract infections, extended-spectrum β-lactamase

Volume 39, Issue 2 Volume 39, Isssue 1 Volume 38, Issue 4 Volume 38, Issue 3 Volume 38, Issue 2 Volume 38, Issue 1 Volume 37, Issue 4 Volume 37, Issue 3 Volume 37, Issue 2 Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1