Evidence Hub

Etiology and antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial pathogens responsible for community-acquired urinary tract infections in Poland

Stefaniuk E, Suchocka U, Bosacka K, Hryniewicz W

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2016

Abstract

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are some of the most common infections in both community and hospital settings infections. With their high rate of incidence, recurrence, complications, diverse etiologic agents, as well as growing antibiotic resistance, UTIs have proven to be a serious challenge for medical professionals. The aim of this study was to obtain data on the susceptibility patterns of pathogens responsible for UTIs in Poland to currently used antibiotics. A total of 396 bacterial isolates were collected between March and May 2013 from 41 centers in all regions of Poland. The majority of isolates were from adult patients (96.2 %); 144 (37.8 %) patients were diagnosed with uncomplicated UTI, while the remaining 237 (62.2 %) had a complicated infection. The most prevalent pathogen was Escherichia coli (71.4 %), followed by Klebsiella spp. (10.8 %) and the Proteae group (7.6 %). Escherichia coli was responsible for 80.6 % of cases of uncomplicated and 65.8 % of complicated infections. Only 65.8 % of E. coli isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin (uncomplicated 75.9 %, complicated 58.3 %), 64.0 % to nitrofurantoin (67.2 %, 62.8 %), 65.1 % to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (68.1 %, 62.8 %), and 66.4 % to fosfomycin (77.6 %, 62.2 %). Among E. coli isolates from all UTIs, only 43.4 % were susceptible to ampicillin, with 47.4 % from uncomplicated compared with 40.4 % from complicated infections; 88.2 % to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (91.4 % vs. 85.9 % complicated); 90.1…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free