Antibacterial Susceptibility Patterns of UTI Pathogens among Different Age Groups in Lahore, Pakistan

Muhammad Anees Sharif 1, Muhammad Imran2*, Ramna Zia3, Ali Hamza 2,Hashim Siddique2, Adeel Shahid2, Muhammad Ilyas4, Areeba Manzoor1, Nida Tahir5

1Department of Pathology, Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore, Pakistan

2University Institute of Medical Lab Technology, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

3Department of Biological Sciences, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

4Provencal Public Health Laboratories, Lahore, Pakistan

5Gulab Devi Educational Complex, Lahore, Pakistan

Original Article Open Access
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32350/bsr.71.01

ABSTRACT

Background. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a significant health problem. They affect individuals across all age groups globally, with a higher prevalence among women and patients with chronic disorders such as diabetes.

Methodology. The current study was performed in the Department of Urology at The University of Lahore to explore the susceptibility of UTIs across different age groups in this region. For this purpose, 157 patients presented with the symptoms of frequent urination and pain during urination were considered. These also included some patients admitted in The University of Lahore Teaching Hospital. Midstream urine samples were collected from patients and cultured. Bacterial colonies of positive cultures were identified through morphological characteristics and serological tests such as Lancefield grouping. Additionally, biochemical tests and API 20E were used to identify members of the Enterobacteriaceae family. The data was analyzed using SPSS (version 25.0).

Results. In this study, the overall prevalence of UTIs was 53.5%, with the highest incidence of UTIs occurring in patients aged 25 to 45 years. The frequently identified isolates comprised Escherichia coli which accounted for 46 (54.8%) cases, followed by Enterococcus species accounting for 11 (13.1%) cases, Klebsiella species accounting for 07 (8.3%) cases, and Staphylococcus aureus accounting for another 07 (8.3%) cases. Furthermore, it was found that gram-negative bacteria showed a high level of resistance with 73.3% for cefixime, 73.2% for ceftriaxone, 73.0% for ceftazidime, and a relatively low level of resistance against fosfomycin (15.9%) and nitrofurantoin (16.3%). On the other hand, gram-positive isolates showed a higher level of resistance against penicillin (66.7%). Whereas, all isolates were found to be sensitive to gentamycin (100%).

Conclusion. Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing prior to antibiotic prescription is recommended. Aminoglycosides, fosfomycin, and nitrofurantoin proved to be the most effective drugs of choice against these bacteria.

Keywords : antibiotics, antimicrobial resistance, bacterial susceptibility patterns, extensive-drug-resistant (XDR) bacteria, multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, UTI pathogens
*Corresponding author: : [email protected]

Published: 20-01-2025
Highlights
  • UTI susceptibility patterns across age groups in Lahore, Pakistan were assessed, identifying demographic trends in infection rates.
  • Diverse methods, including bacterial culture, microscopic examination, and biochemical tests such as API 20E were applied for precise pathogen identification.
  • A notably higher UTI prevalence was observed among women with peak incidence in patients aged 25 to 45, underscoring critical demographic findings.

1. Introduction

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the second most common infectious disease (after respiratory tract infections or RTIs) for antibiotic prescriptions, globally. UTIs occur when pathogens invade and proliferate the urinary system, disrupting kidneys and the urinary function and leading to asymptomatic and symptomatic bacteriuria [1]. The presentation of a UTI varies based on the site of infection: urethritis affects the urethra, cystitis primarily impacts the bladder, and pyelonephritis involves the kidneys [2]. With an alarming global incidence of 150 million cases annually, UTIs have become a significant public health issue [3]. In 2019 alone, over 404.6 million individuals were affected by UTIs, which led to 236,786 deaths [4]. It has been estimated that nearly 50% of women suffer from a UTI at least once in their lifetime, with 12% experiencing an initial infection and 48% facing recurrent infections [5][6]. The increased susceptibility of UTIs among women can be attributed to anatomical factors, such as the shorter length of the female urethra, the absence of bactericidal prostate secretions, pregnancy, and the proximity of the urinary tract to fecal flora, facilitating contamination [7]. Although UTIs affect people of all ages and gender, women are often more vulnerable due to anatomical differences and the risk increases with advancing age [8].

Various pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and protozoa, contribute to the occurrence of UTIs. Common bacterial pathogens include Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis, group B streptococcus, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida species (yeast) [9]. UTIs can be classified into two categories. These include symptomatic cases, which exhibit apparent symptoms of a UTI, as well as asymptomatic cases, where significant bacteriuria occurs without any noticeable symptoms [10]. Clinical manifestations, such as fever, dysuria, hematuria, pyuria, and lower abdominal pain are commonly observed in symptomatic UTIs [11]. If left untreated, UTIs can lead to severe complications, such as irreversible kidney damage and blockage of the urinary tract [12]. The common symptoms in patients with upper UTIs include fever, hematuria (blood in urine), nausea, and vomiting [13].

The misuse and overuse of common antibiotics lead to the evolution of drug-resistant pathogens and increase the prevalence of microbial infections, including UTIs. Drug-resistant pathogens are defined as pathogens that could have been inhibited previously by antibiotics but have now become insensitive to them [14]. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported recently that approximately 700,000 deaths each year occur due to infections caused by multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. This figure may reach 2 million deaths and could potentially burden the global economy with over 2.9 trillion dollars in 2050, if the same trend continues [15]. Antimicrobial resistance is a critical health issue that leads to prolonged hospitalization, increases healthcare costs, and limits the treatment options for clinicians, ultimately resulting in higher mortality rates [16][17]. According to WHO, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, non-typhoidal Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Shigella species are gaining resistance to various antibiotics and complicating infection control [18].

During the past six decades, empirical antibiotic therapy has been employed to treat several UTIs, often initiated before the availability of antimicrobial susceptibility test results. However, increased infection caused by resistant pathogens limits and complicates treatment options [19][20]. In several developing countries including Pakistan, the empirical approach for treating UTIs continues to transmit resistance genes among pathogens, increasing the prevalence of MDR gram-negative-bacilli-associated UTIs [21][22]. UTI-causing pathogens show increased resistance to antibiotics, such as quinolones, carbapenems, and third-generation cephalosporins through different mechanisms including the production of various enzymes. These enzymes include carbapenemase, extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), and biofilm formation. These resistance mechanisms allow the bacteria to survive under non-favorable conditions and increase the incidence of chronic infections through genetic mutations or horizontal gene transfer, hence bacteria acquire resistance-carrying genes [23]. MDR bacteria are pathogens that exhibit resistance to at least one antibiotic among three or more antibiotic classes, whereas extensive-drug-resistant or XDR bacteria are susceptible to only one or two antimicrobial classes and are also resistant to the most commonly available antibiotics [24]. The rising prevalence of MDR and XDR pathogens, particularly resistance to last-resort antibiotics including carbapenemase, complicates UTI treatment [25].

UTIs pose a significant health concern in Pakistan, particularly due to the rising prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria. Recent studies reported high rates of MDR E. coli [26] and XDR Salmonella that showed 100% resistance to fluoroquinolones [27]. The absence of regional surveillance data makes treatment difficult. So, there is a need to focus on more local studies of drug resistance patterns among uropathogens because such pathogens make it challenging to manage UTIs [28]. Routine antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) is a benchmark to guide clinicians in selecting antibiotics, managing empirical therapy, and aiding in effective antimicrobial stewardship [25][29]. However, only a few studies in Pakistan have identified common uropathogens and their AST profiles [30].

This study was designed to investigate the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of uropathogens isolated from patients in Lahore, Pakistan. The objectives included identifying the etiological agents causing UTIs across various age groups and gender, determining the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among these pathogens, and exploring the relationship between age, gender, and susceptibility patterns. By achieving these objectives, the current study aims to offer valuable insights into resistance trends and pathogen distribution, which can inform better treatment and management strategies for UTIs.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This hospital-based, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in the Pathology Laboratory of the Department of Urology at the University Institute of Medical Laboratory Technology (UIMLT), University of Lahore. The institutional ethics committee approved this study. All the participants were voluntary and each participant supplied informed consent.

2.1. Sample Collection

From 4013 patients who visited the pathology laboratory, 157 midstream urine samples were collected aseptically from individuals presented with symptoms such as frequent urination and harboring pain during urination. The participants included patients from various locations across Lahore, with several admitted to The University of Lahore Teaching Hospital. The samples were collected from March 2024 to August 2024. The patients with a history of antibiotic therapy (within the last 72 hours) were excluded from the study population.

2.2. Culture and Identification

Following the manufacturer's instructions (Merk, Germany), powdered agar media was dissolved in water and mixed thoroughly to ensure homogenization. The media flasks were autoclaved for 15 minutes at 121°C and 15 PSI to achieve sterilization. When the media cooled to 50°C, 10 ml of sterile blood was added per 100 ml of media. Once sufficiently cooled, the media was poured into sterile petri dishes labeled with the date and batch information.

The urine samples were inoculated using a standardized inoculation wire loop (0.001 ml) onto Cystine Lactose Electrolyte Deficient (CLED) and 5% blood agar plates via the streak plate method, adhering to standard microbial techniques [31]. The inoculated plates were incubated aerobically for 24 hours at 37°C. After incubation, the plates were examined for bacterial growth. If growth was present, the colonies were counted and multiplied with the reciprocal of the loop's volume. Bacterial counts exceeding 105 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/ml) indicated a significant infection, whereas counts below 103 CFU/ml were considered non-pathogenic. Counts between 104 and 105 CFU/ml suggested potential infection, whereas counts between 103 and 104 CFU/ml were generally considered to indicate contamination [32].

All positive urine cultures showing significant bacterial growth were initially identified based on their morphological characters through Gram staining. Based on Gram staining and colony morphology, biochemical tests were selected for further bacterial identification. For gram-positive bacteria, catalase and coagulase tests were performed [31]. Landfield grouping was used to classify the Streptococcus species further. On the other hand, for the identification of gram-negative bacteria, different biochemical tests including Kligler's iron agar (KIA), citrate utilization, urease hydrolysis, and sulfur indole motility (SIM) were conducted. For quality control, reference strains S. aureus (ATCC 25923) and E. coli (ATCC 25922) were used. As per the recommendations by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2024) [33], Kirby-Bauer (KB) disk diffusion method was followed for antibiotic susceptibility testing using Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar (Merk, Germany). Two to three colonies with similar morphology were emulsified in distilled water and the solution’s optical density was adjusted to 0.5% McFarland standard. The inoculated plates were homogenously swabbed and allowed to dry at room temperature for 3–5 minutes.

Antibiotics from Oxoid Ltd. were applied at their respective concentrations to treat UTIs. These included: ampicillin (AMP, 10 µg), ampicillin/sulbactam (AMC, 20/10 µg), piperacillin/tazobactam (TZP, 110 µg), cefotaxime (CTX, 30 µg), ceftriaxone (CRO, 30 µg), ceftazidime (CAZ, 30 µg), cefepime (FEP, 30 µg), meropenem (MEM, 10 μg), imipenem (IPM, 10 μg), ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), levofloxacin (LEV, 5 µg), tobramycin (TOB, 30 µg), gentamycin (CN, 10 µg), amikacin (AK, 10 µg), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (SXT, 1.25/23.75 µg), colistin (CT, 10 µg), chloramphenicol (C, 30 µg), fosfomycin (F, 30 µg), tetracycline, doxycycline (DO, 30 µg), penicillin (PEN, 10 µg), cefoxitin (FOX, 30 µg), clindamycin (DA, 10 µg), erythromycin (E, 15 µg), and clarithromycin. Following the CLSI guidelines, the clearance zone around each antibiotic disc was measured with a ruler after 18–20 hours of incubation at 37°C. Pathogens were categorized as sensitive (showed recommended cleared zone around antibiotic disc), resistant, or intermediate.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were summarized, with numerical and percentage data presented in tables created using Microsoft Excel (version 2021). Data analysis was performed using IBM's Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 25.0). Statistical differences between antibiotic susceptibility results were assessed using the chi-square statistical test and the Fisher-Freeman-Halton test. The confidence limit for statistical tests was considered 95% with a significance level of p < 0.05.

3. Results

Table 1.Prevalence of Gram-Positive Cocci and Gram-Negative Rods in UTIs
UTI Isolates Frequency Percentage

Gram Negative Rods (GNRs), n = 63/84 (75.0%)

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

46

54.8% (46/84)

Klebsiella species

7

8.3% (07/84)

Proteus vulgaris

3

3.6% (03/84)

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

3

3.6% (03/84)

Proteus mirabilis

2

2.4% (02/84)

Enterobacter

2

2.4% (02/84)

Gram Positive Cocci (GPCs), n = 21/84 (25.0%)

Enterococcus faecalis

11

13.1% (11/84)

Staphylococcus aureus

7

8.3% (0784)

Streptococcus agalactiae

3

3.6% (03/84)

Total

Total Positive cultures

84

53.5% (84/157)

Total Negative cultures

73

46.5% (73/157)

Total Cultures

157

 

Table 2.Distribution of Infection among Genders and Different Age Groups

 

Gender

Total

Male

Female

n

%

n

%

N

%

Age Groups (years)

1–12

4

44.4

5

55.6

9

10.7

13–24

5

38.5

8

61.5

13

15.5

25–45

7

28.0

18

72.0

25

29.8

46–60

8

47.1

9

52.9

17

20.2

> 60

9

45.0

11

55.0

20

23.8

Microbial Growth

 

33

39.3

51

60.7

84

53.5

No Growth

 

38

52.1

35

47.9

73

46.5

A total of 157 patients symptomatic of UTIs were included in the current study. The mean age of the study population was 41.73 ± 19.4 and the age range of patients was 7-75 years. Moreover, 85 (54.2%) samples were collected from women, while the remaining 72 (45.8%) were collected from men. The results of the Pearson chi-square and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test showed that there was no statistical association between gender and the distributions of bacterial isolates or between gender and the antibacterial susceptibility patterns of the pathogens. Patients’ age distribution showed that 26 (17%) were children, 20 (13%) were adolescents and young adults, 47 (30%) were adults, 26 (17%) were middle-aged adults, and 37 (24%) were from the elderly population. The study found that out of 157 urine samples, 84 (53.5%) tested positive for urine cultures. Of the total 84 isolates, the majority (63, 75%) were gram-negative organisms, while the remaining (21, 25%) were gram-positive bacteria. Escherichia coli was found to be the most frequent isolate collected from 46 patients, accounting for 73.0% of gram-negative and 54.8% of all pathogens. This was followed by Enterococcus faecalis (13.1%), Klebsiella species (8.3%), and Staphylococcus aureus (8.3%). Additionally, the other isolated organisms included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (3.6%), Proteus vulgaris (3.6%), Streptococcus agalactiae (3.6%), Proteus mirabilis (2.4%), and Enterobacter species (2.4%).

In the analysis of antimicrobial sensitivity patterns among the gram-negative bacteria, fosfomycin exhibited the highest antibiotic sensitivity rate at 84.1%, followed closely by nitrofurantoin (83.7%), and amikacin (78.3%). Doxycycline and gentamycin also demonstrated significant effectiveness, with sensitivity rates of 78.1% and 76.2%, respectively. Among carbapenems, meropenem showed a sensitivity rate of 69.8%, whereas imipenem showed a slightly lower sensitivity rate of 61.9%. Other antibiotics, such as tobramycin (64.4%), also demonstrated moderate effectiveness. In contrast, ceftriaxone and cefixime proved to be the least effective, since both showed a sensitivity rate of 26.7%.

Regarding specific bacterial isolates, the antibiotic profile of E. coli revealed that nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin were the most effective antibiotics against it, with sensitivity rates of 89.7% and 89.5%, respectively. Gentamycin (82.6%), amikacin (80.4%), meropenem (65.2%), tobramycin (62.5%), and imipenem (58.7%) also showed high sensitivity against E. coli. However, ceftriaxone and amoxicillin-clavulanate proved to be the least sensitive antibiotics, both showing a low sensitivity rate of 19.6%. In contrast, Klebsiella pneumoniae exhibited 100% sensitivity to cefepime, cefotaxime, imipenem, meropenem, fosfomycin, and tigecycline, highlighting the efficacy of these drugs in treating UTIs caused by this pathogen. Norfloxacin was the least effective antibiotic, with a sensitivity rate of 50% (Table 5). The results of chi-square and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test proved that among gram-negative bacteria, there was found a significant association between age groups and antibiotic resistance patterns of co-amoxiclav, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefixime, cefepime, cefoperazone-sulbactam, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin (Table 3). Furthermore, there was also observed a strong association between isolate types and antibiotic resistance patterns among antibiotics such as co-amoxiclav, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefixime, cefepime, fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin, and tigecycline (Table 5).

With respect to gram-positive bacterial isolates, gentamycin showed the highest antibacterial susceptibility with 100% sensitivity; however, it was only tested against Staphylococcus aureus. Overall, doxycycline demonstrated the highest level of sensitivity towards all gram-positive bacteria with a susceptibility rate of 95.2%. Only one isolate of S. aureus showed resistance, maintaining its role as a critical antibiotic in treating gram-positive infections. In contrast, penicillin, levofloxacin, and ciprofloxacin presented lower efficacy, with a sensitivity rate of 33.3%, 47.6%, and 47.6%, respectively. In terms of specific isolates, Streptococcus agalactiae displayed the highest antimicrobial susceptibility, being 100% sensitive to tetracycline, doxycycline, ampicillin, and penicillin, with a single isolate showing resistance to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin. S. aureus was found to be completely sensitive to gentamycin (100%) and highly sensitive to doxycycline and tetracycline (85.7%). However, none of S. aureus isolates were sensitive to penicillin. For Enterococcus faecalis, doxycycline showed the highest sensitivity (100%), followed by teicoplanin (90.9%), with similar susceptibility to fosfomycin and tetracycline (81.8%) (Table 6). The results of the chi-square and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test showed that among gram-positive bacteria there was a significant association between age groups and antibiotic resistance patterns of co-amoxiclav, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin. Moreover, the results also suggested a significant association between bacterial isolates and penicillin resistance (Table 3 and Table 6).

Table 3.Antibiogram of Gram-Positive Bacteria: Association between Age Groups and Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern

Antibiotic

Age Groups

p value

1-12 years

13-24 years

25-45 years

46-60 years

>60 years

Total

Pearson chi-square/
Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test

Penicillin

3(S), 1(R)

2(S),2(R)

2(S),3(R)

0(S),3(R)

0(S),5(R)

7(S),14(R)

0.114

Ampicillin

3(S), 1(R)

2(S),2(R)

2(S),3(R)

0(S),3(R)

4(S),1(R)

11(S),10(R)

0.288

Co-Amoxiclav

3(S), 1(R)

3(S),1(R)

4(S),1(R)

0(S),3(R)

5(S),0(R)

15(S),6(R)

0.044a

Ciprofloxacin

3(S), 1(R)

4(S),0(R)

1(S),4(R)

0(S),3(R)

2(S),3(R)

10(S),11(R)

0.047a

Levofloxacin

3(S), 1(R)

4(S),0(R)

1(S),4(R)

0(S),3(R)

2(S),3(R)

10(S),11(R)

0.047a

Doxycycline

4(S), 0(R)

4(S),0(R)

5(S),0(R)

3(S),0(R)

4(S),1(R)

20(S),1(R)

1.00

Teicoplanin

4(S),0(R)

3(S),0(R)

2(S),1(R)

1(S),2(R)

5(S),0(R)

15(S),3(R)

0.075

Nitrofurantoin

4(S), 0(R)

3(S),0(R)

2(S),1(R)

2(S),1(R)

4(S),1(R)

15(S),3(R)

0.779

Co-Trimoxazole

2(S), 2(R)

3(S),1(R)

4(S),1(R)

0(S),3(R)

3(S),2(R)

12(S),9(R)

0.324

Fosfomycin

4(S), 0(R)

1(S),0(R)

1(S),2(R)

1(S),0(R)

2(S),0(R)

9(S),2(R)

0.273

Tetracycline

3(S), 1(R)

4(S),0(R)

4(S),1(R)

2(S),1(R)

5(S),0(R)

18(S),3(R)

0.673

Gentamycin

 

2(S),0(R)

 

2(S),0(R)

3(S),0(R)

 

b

Note.S: Sensitive, R: Resistance, p value: Statistical significance for the antibiotic against each age group
a: Represent statistically significant values.
b: No statistics are computed because Gentamycin is a constant.

Table 4.Antibiogram of Gram-Negative Bacteria: Association between Age Groups and Antibiotic Susceptibility Pattern
Antibiotic Age Groups p value
1–12 years 13–24 years 25–45 years 46–60 years >60 years Total Pearson chi-square/
Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test
AMC5(S),0(R)3(S),6(R)5(S),14(R)3(S),10(R)1(S),13(R)17(S),43(R)0.004a
CRO4(S),0(R)3(S),6(R)3(S),15(R)3(S),9(R)2(S),11(R)15(S),41(R)0.019a
CAZ5(S),0(R)3(S),6(R)3(S),17(R)4(S),10(R)2(S),13(R)17(S),46(R)0.003a
CFM5(S),0(R)3(S),5(R)3(S),17(R)3(S),10(R)2(S),12(R)16(S),44(R)0.003a
FEP5(S),0(R)5(S),4(R)4(S),16(R)4(S),10(R)3(S),12(R)39(S),24(R)0.005a
SCF4(S),0(R)6(S),3(R)10(S),6(R)5(S),6(R)4(S),9(R)29(S),24(R)0.115
TZP3(S),2(R)3(S),4(R)8(S),8(R)5(S),8(R)5(S),8(R)24(S),30(R)0.91
LEV5(S),0(R)2(S),7(R)5(S),15(R)5(S),9(R)3(S),12(R)20(S),43(R)0.019a
CIP5(S),0(R)2(S),7(R)6(S),14(R)5(S),9(R)4(S),11(R)22(S),41(R)0.039a
CN5(S),0(R)6(S),3(R)16(S),4(R)12(S),2(R)9(S),6(R)48(S),15(R)0.232
AK5(S),0(R)7(S),2(R)14(S),5(R)10(S),4(R)11(S),2(R)47(S),13(R)0.799
TOB2(S),0(R)6(S),3(R)6(S),7(R)8(S),2(R)7(S),4(R)29(S),16(R)0.482
IPM5(S),0(R)8(S),1(R)12(S),8(R)8(S),6(R)6(S),9(R)16(S),44(R)0.062
MEM5(S),0(R)8(S),1(R)13(S),7(R)9(S),5(R)9(S),6(R)44(S),19(R)0.342
FOS3(S),0(R)4(S),2(R)10(S),3(R)9(S),1(R)11(S),1(R)37(S),7(R)0.592
F5(S), 0(R)6(S),1(R)11(S),3(R)11(S),1(R)11(S),1(R)8(S),3(R)0.705
NOR5(S),0(R)3(S),4(R)7(S),5(R)5(S),6(R)2(S),8(R)22(S),24(R)0.066
TGC1(S),0(R)3(S),2(R)1(S),3(R)1(S),2(R)2(S),0(R)8(S),7(R)0.543
DOX4(S),0(R)3(S),1(R)7(S),3(R)5(S),1(R)6 (S),2(R)25 (S), 7 (R)0.911

Note.AMC Co-Amoxiclav, CRO ceftriaxone, CAZ ceftazidime, CFM cefixime, FEP cefepime, SCF cefoperazone-sulbactam, TZP piperacillin-tazobactam, LEV levofloxacin, CIP ciprofloxacin, CN gentamycin, AK amikacin, TOB tobramycin, IPM imipenem, MEM meropenem, FOS fosfomycin, F nitrofurantoin, NOR norfloxacin, TGC tigecycline, DO doxycycline. S: Sensitive, R: Resistance, p value: Statistical significance for the antibiotic against each age group
a:Represent statistically significant values.

Table 5. Effectiveness of Antibiotics against Gram-Negative Rods (GNR): Association between isolate types and antibiotic susceptibility pattern.
Pattern Escherichia coli Klebsiella pneumoniae Pseudomonas aeruginosa Proteus mirabilis Proteus vulgaris Enterobacter spp. Total p value
SR SR SR SR SR SR S (%)R (%) Pearson χ² /
Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test

AMC

9

37

4

2

 

 

1

1

1

2

1

1

17(28%)

43(72%)

0.019a

CRO

9

37

3

2

 

 

0

2

0

3

0

2

15(27%)

41(73%)

0.008a

CAZ

13

33

4

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

0

2

17(27%)

46(73%)

0.044a

CFM

11

35

6

0

0

3

1

1

1

2

0

2

16(27%)

44(73%)

0.001a

FEP

11

35

6

0

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

21(33%)

42(67%)

0.014a

SCF

22

24

5

1

0

2

1

1

3

0

1

1

29(55%)

24(45%)

0.216

TZP

18

28

4

2

1

2

2

0

1

2

1

1

24(44%)

30(56%)

0.568

LEV

12

34

4

2

1

2

1

1

0

3

1

1

20(32%)

43(68%)

0.102

CIP

14

32

4

2

1

2

1

1

0

3

1

1

22(35%)

41(65%)

0.190

CN

38

8

4

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

0

48(76%)

15(24%)

0.078

AK

37

9

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

0

47(78%)

13(22%)

0.206

TOB

20

12

4

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

0

29(64%)

16(36%)

0.964

IPM

27

19

6

0

1

2

2

0

2

1

2

0

39(62%)

24(38%)

0.521

MEM

30

16

6

0

1

2

2

0

3

0

2

0

44(70%)

19(30%)

0.373

FOS

34

4

1

0

 

 

2

0

0

3

 

 

37(84%)

7(16%)

0.007a

F

35

4

4

2

0

2

 

 

 

 

2

0

41(84%)

8(16%)

0.023a

NOR

16

20

3

3

1

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

22(48%)

24(52%)

0.696

TGC

1

7

6

0

 

 

1

0

 

 

 

 

8(53.%)

7(47%)

0.003a

DO

21

6

3

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

0

25(78%)

7(22%)

1.00

Note.Abbreviations: AMC – Co-Amoxiclav, CRO – Ceftriaxone, CAZ – Ceftazidime, CFM – Cefixime, FEP – Cefepime, SCF – Cefoperazone-Sulbactam, TZP – Piperacillin-Tazobactam, LEV – Levofloxacin, CIP – Ciprofloxacin, CN – Gentamycin, AK – Amikacin, TOB – Tobramycin, IPM – Imipenem, MEM – Meropenem, FOS – Fosfomycin, F – Nitrofurantoin, NOR – Norfloxacin, TGC – Tigecycline, DO – Doxycycline.
a:Represent statistically significant values.

Table 6.Effectiveness of Antibiotics against Gram-Positive Cocci (GPC): Association between isolate types and antibiotic susceptibility pattern
Antibiotic Enterococcus faecalis Staphylococcus aureus Streptococcus agalactiae Total p value
SR SR SR S (%)R (%) Pearson χ² /Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test
PEN 4(36.4%)7(63.6%) 0(0%)7(100%) 3(100%)0(0%) 7(33.3%)14(66.7%) 0.007
AMP 6(54.5%)5(45.5%) 2(28.6%)5(71.4%) 3(100%)0(0%) 11(52.4%)10(47.6%) 0.148
AMC 8(72.7%)3(27.3%) 4(57.1%)3(42.9%) 3(100%)0(0%) 15(71.4%)6(28.6%) 0.447
CIP 4(36.4%)7(63.6%) 4(57.1%)3(42.9%) 2(66.7%)1(33.3%) 10(47.6%)11(52.4%) 0.587
LEV 4(36.4%)7(63.6%) 4(57.1%)3(42.9%) 2(66.7%)1(33.3%) 10(47.6%)11(52.4%) 0.587
DOX 11(100%)0(0%) 6(85.7%)1(14.3%) 3(100%)0(0%) 20(95.2%)1(4.8%) 0.476
TEC 10(90.9%)1(9.1%) 5(71.4%)2(28.6%) 15(83.3%)3(16.7%) 0.528
F 8(72.7%)3(27.3%) 7(100%)0(0%) 15(83.3%)3(16.7%) 0.245
SXT 5(45.5%)6(54.5%) 4(57.1%)3(42.9%) 3(100%)0(0%) 12(57.1%)9(42.9%) 0.342
FOS 9(81.8%)2(18.2%) 9(81.8%)2(18.2%) b
TET 9(81.8%)2(18.2%) 6(85.7%)1(14.3%) 3(100%)0(0%) 18(85.7%)3(14.3%) 1.00
CN 7(100%)0(0%) 7(100%)0(0%) c

Note.Abbreviations: PEN – Penicillin, AMP – Ampicillin, AMC – Amoxicillin-Clavulanate, CIP – Ciprofloxacin, LEV – Levofloxacin, DO – Doxycycline, TEC – Teicoplanin, F – Nitrofurantoin, SXT – Co-trimoxazole, FOS – Fosfomycin, TET – Tetracycline, CN – Gentamycin.
a: Represent statistically significant values.
b: No statistics are computed because Isolates is a constant.
c: No statistics are computed because Isolates and Gentamycin are constants.

4. DISCUSSION

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are prevalent and clinically significant health concerns, warranting a comprehensive investigation into bacterial prevalence across various age groups [8]. Identifying UTI-causing bacterial pathogens is essential for their effective treatment and for the alignment of clinical practice with laboratory findings [34]. The overall prevalence of significant UTIs among different age groups and gender was 53.6%. This showed a lower prevalence than in Karachi, where the prevalence was 66.5% [35], and a higher prevalence than in Peshawar [36] and Lahore [37], which were 43.2% and 42.5%, respectively. Moreover, the prevalence was lower than in most major cities of other developing countries, such as Dhaka, Bangladesh where the prevalence was 71.0% [38] and Prayagraj, India where it was 77.9% [39]. The inconsistency in UTI prevalence might be due to study populations, sample size, personal hygiene, and the methodology employed. Furthermore, the prevalence of uropathogens in this study was higher than those reported from developed regions, such as France (19.2%) [40] and parts of Central Europe (26.9%) [41]. These differences may be due to variations in antibiotic usage policies, public awareness, improved sanitation infrastructure, and restricted antibiotic access to the public.

In this study, female participants were found to be more affected (male: female, 1:1.20). The data showed similarity with several studies conducted irrespective of geographical locations, including India [40], France [41], Pakistan [42], and the United States [43]. This is probably due to the anatomical differences between both genders, such as a shorter urethra [44], more sensitive skin of the external urethral meatus, and close proximity of the urethra to the rectum [45]. The current study identified a higher prevalence of UTIs in female patients aged 25–45 years. The results resemble a recent study conducted in Lahore which determined the percentage of adult females experiencing bacteriuria as 28.7% [38]. Dadi et al. [46] highlighted that sexual intercourse enhances the bacteria's access to the bladder. The results of the current study also showed that a significant proportion of positive cultures (23.4%) was obtained from individuals aged over 60 years. This finding aligns with the study of Girija et al. [47], who reported that 24% of patients presented with UTIs fell within the 70–90 years age category. A study by Pardeshi [48] found that women are more susceptible to UTIs than men, particularly middle-aged women. The study also observed that men over the age of 45 years have comparable rates of UTIs to women, further emphasizing the age and gender-related vulnerability to these infections.

This finding also showed that pathogens causing UTIs included E. coli, E. faecalis, P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus, S. agalactiae, Proteus species, and Enterobacter species. These findings are similar to Ahmad et al. [36] and Odoki et al. [49]. In this study, gram-negative rods (GNR) causing UTIs were found to be more prevalent (75%) than gram-positive bacteria (25%), highlighting the different virulence factors that help them adhere to urogenital epithelial cells, prevent them from being washed away in urine, and aid in tissue invasion [50]. E. coli emerged as the predominant etiological agent, responsible for 54.8% of isolated cases. This aligns with the findings of numerous studies conducted across different geographical regions. The results varied from that of a study conducted in Multan, Pakistan, which determined the prevalence of E. coli among uropathogens as 33% [51]. Likewise, the majority of previous studies established E. coli as the most frequent etiological agent of UTIs in India with 54.95% prevalence [40], in Pakistan with 62.80% prevalence [52], and in Bangladesh with a 48.00% prevalence [53]. A possible explanation is that E. coli shows enhanced virulence factors for attachment to the host urogenital tract’s epithelial cells, such as Type 1 or Type 2 fimbriae [50].

In this study, among gram-negative bacteria, the highest resistance was shown against third-generation cephalosporines, namely ceftriaxone (73.2%), cefotaxime (73.3%), and ceftazidime (73.0%). These findings align with the study of Bullens et al. [52]. The possible explanation for this is the readily available oral suspension of CFX throughout Pakistan for first-line treatment of UTIs. High levels of resistance against beta-lactam-containing antibiotics could occur due to the production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase enzymes. Moreover, higher levels of resistance were observed against quinolone antibiotics, that is, levofloxacin (68.3%) and ciprofloxacin (65.1%). These results are consistent with the findings of [54] and highlight the need for updated treatment guidelines. On the other hand, the effectiveness of nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin showed similarity with [55], emphasizing their importance as the first-line option. Additionally, a higher rate of sensitivity (lower resistance) was observed against amikacin, gentamycin, doxycycline, meropenem, tobramycin, and imipenem. A possible justification is the higher cost of carbapenem injections and the infrequent prescription of aminoglycoside antibiotics. Hence, they could be considered as an alternative option for treating UTIs.

Among gram-negative uropathogens, E. coli was the predominant isolate (89.7%) sensitive to nitrofurantoin, fosfomycin (89.5%), and amikacin (80.4%). These results are comparable to the findings of Rizvi et al. [56] for Pakistan and Acharjee et al. [53] for Bangladesh. While, high resistance was shown to ceftriaxone (80.4%), co-amoxiclav (80.4%), tigecycline (87.5%), and cefepime (76.1%). These results are in line with the studies of Hassan conducted in Iraq [57] and Fatima et al., conducted in Pakistan [51]. In the current study, Klebsiella pneumoniae showed complete sensitivity to imipenem (6/6, 100%), meropenem (6/6, 100%), and cefepime (6/6, 100%) [42]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated in (3/84, 3.6%) specimens. A total of 2 strains were extensive drug resistant (XDRs) and only 1 strain showed sensitivity to carbapenem, quinolones, aminoglycosides, and 3rd and 4th generation cephalosporines. This is in line with a study conducted by Sendra et al. [58] in Spain, which found that P. aeruginosa was susceptible to amikacin (42.6%, n = 43/101). MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa is emerging as a major healthcare issue and infection prevention is gaining utmost importance because it can rapidly develop resistance even to novel drugs [59].

Gram-positive bacteria were found to be relatively sensitive to gentamycin (7/7, 100%), doxycycline (20/21, 95.2%), tetracycline (18/21, 85.7%), and fosfomycin (15/18, 83.3%), similar to a study conducted by [60]. Only penicillin (14/21, 66.7%), ciprofloxacin (11/21, 52.4%), and levofloxacin (11/21, 52.4%) exhibited more than 50% resistance among gram-positive bacteria. This might be due to the easy availability and indiscriminate usage of these drugs, which may lead to an increase in resistance.

4.1. LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, it was conducted at a single hospital with a relatively small sample size of 157 patients. Self-reported clinical symptoms may introduce potential bias. Moreover, sole reliance on phenotypic methods to detect antibiotic resistance without using molecular techniques reduces the depth of antimicrobial resistance analysis. Future studies should include a more diverse patient population and utilize molecular techniques to better understand the resistance mechanisms of UTIs-causing pathogens.

4.2. CONCLUSION

Due to the increasing prevalence of MDR and XDR pathogens and the cost associated with UTIs, precise infection control and careful administration of antibiotics are crucial. Routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing before prescribing antibiotics is recommended. Furthermore, hospitals should have an antibiotic stewardship program to reduce antibiotic resistance and prevent further complications

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors of this manuscript declare they have no financial and non-financial conflict of interest

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data associated with this study will be provided by the corresponding author upon request.

FUNDING DETAILS

No funding has been received for this research.

REFERENCES

  1. Zhao F, Yang H, Bi D, Khaledi A, Qiao M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic resistance patterns, and the correlation between biofilm formation with virulence factors in uropathogenic E. coli isolated from urinary tract infections. Microb Pathog. 2020;144:e104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104196
  2. Zagaglia C, Ammendolia MG, Maurizi L, Nicoletti M, Longhi C. Urinary tract infections: the current scenario and future prospects. Pathogens. 2023;12(4):e623. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12040623
  3. Zagaglia C, Ammendolia MG, Maurizi L, Nicoletti M, Longhi C. Urinary tract infections caused by Uropathogenic Escherichia coli strains–new strategies for an old pathogen. Microorganisms. 2022;10(7):e1425. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10071425
  4. Zeng Z, Zhan J, Zhang K, Chen H, Cheng S. Global, regional, and national burden of urinary tract infections from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of the global burden of disease study 2019. World J Urol. 2022;40(3):755–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03913-0
  5. Grigoryan L, Mulgirigama A, Powell M, Schmiemann G. The emotional impact of urinary tract infections in women: a qualitative analysis. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):e182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01757-3
  6. Naber KG, Tirán-Saucedo J, Wagenlehner FME. Psychosocial burden of recurrent uncomplicated urinary tract infections. GMS Infect Dis. 2022;10:eDoc01. https://doi.org/10.3205/id000078
  7. Czajkowski K, Broś-Konopielko M, Teliga-Czajkowska J. Urinary tract infection in women. Menopause Rev Menopauzalny. 2021;20(1):40–47. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2021.105382
  8. Murray BO, Flores C, Williams C, et al. Recurrent urinary tract infection: a mystery in search of better model systems. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:691210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.691210
  9. Bader MS, Loeb M, Leto D, Brooks AA. Treatment of urinary tract infections in the era of antimicrobial resistance and new antimicrobial agents. Postgrad Med. 2020;132(3):234–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2019.1680052
  10. Klein RD, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: microbial pathogenesis, host–pathogen interactions and new treatment strategies. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(4):211–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0324-0
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Urinary tract infection (catheter-associated urinary tract infection [CAUTI] and non-catheter-associated urinary tract infection [UTI]) events. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/7psccauticurrent.pdf
  12. Abalkhail A, AlYami AS, Alrashedi SF, et al. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli producing ESBL among male and female patients with urinary tract infections in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. Healthcare. 2022;10(9):e1778. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10091778
  13. Maharjan G, Khadka P, Shilpakar GS, Chapagain G, Dhungana GR. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection and obstinate biofilm producers. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2018;2018(1):e7624857. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7624857
  14. Teferi S, Sahlemariam Z, Mekonnen M, et al. Uropathogenic bacterial profile and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of isolates among gynecological cases admitted to Jimma Medical Center, South West Ethiopia. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):e7078. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34048-4
  15. Uddin TM, Chakraborty AJ, Khusro A, et al. Antibiotic resistance in microbes: History, mechanisms, therapeutic strategies and prospects. J Infect Public Health. 2021;14(12):1750–1766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.10.020
  16. Khan A, Saraf VS, Siddiqui F, et al. Multidrug resistance among uropathogenic clonal group A E. Coli isolates from Pakistani women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections. BMC Microbiol. 2024;24(1):e74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03221-8
  17. Fatima S, Akbar A, Irfan M, et al. Virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance of Uropathogenic Escherichia coli eq101 UPEC isolated from UTI patient in Quetta, Baluchistan, Pakistan. BioMed Res Int. 2023;2023(1):e7278070. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7278070
  18. Al-Shahrani GS, Belali TM. Frequency of drug-resistant bacterial isolates among pregnant women with UTI in maternity and children’s hospital, Bisha, Saudi Arabia. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):e7397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58275-5
  19. Morris CJ, Rohn JL, Glickman S, Mansfield KJ. Effective treatments of UTI—is intravesical therapy the future? Pathogens. 2023;12(3):e417. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12030417
  20. Nobel F, Akter S, Jebin R, et al. Prevalence of multidrug resistance patterns of Escherichia coli from suspected urinary tract infection in Mymensingh city, Bangladesh. J Adv Biotechnol Exp Ther. 2021;4(3):256–264. https://doi.org/10.5455/jabet.2021.d126
  21. Rasool MS, Siddiqui F, Ajaz M, Rasool SA. Prevalence and antibiotic resistance profiles of gram negative bacilli associated with urinary tract infections (UTIs) in Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2019;32(6). https://doi.org/10.36721/PJPS.2019.32.6.REG.2617-2623.1
  22. Roy R, Tiwari M, Donelli G, Tiwari V. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: a focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence. 2018;9(1):522–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372
  23. Zavala-Cerna MG, Segura-Cobos M, Gonzalez R, et al. The clinical significance of high antimicrobial resistance in community-acquired urinary tract infections. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2020;2020(1):e2967260. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2967260
  24. Mekonnen S, Tesfa T, Shume T, Tebeje F, Urgesa K, Weldegebreal F. Bacterial profile, their antibiotic susceptibility pattern, and associated factors of urinary tract infections in children at Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(4):e0283637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283637
  25. Dasgupta C, Rafi MA, Salam MA. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant uropathogens: A recent audit of antimicrobial susceptibility testing from a tertiary care hospital in Bangladesh. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(6):1297–1302. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.6.2943
  26. Ahsan A, Zahra FT, Asif A, et al. Antibiotic resistance and virulence genes in Escherichia coli isolated from patients in a tertiary care hospital: implications for clinical management and public health. BioSci Rev. 2024;6(3):106–121. https://doi.org/10.32350/bsr.63.07
  27. Bilal H, Khan MN, Rehman T, et al. Antibiotic resistance in Pakistan: a systematic review of past decade. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:e244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-05906-1
  28. Baunoch D, Luke N, Wang D, et al. Concordance between antibiotic resistance genes and susceptibility in symptomatic urinary tract infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:3275–3286. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S323095
  29. Toosky MN, Grunwald JT, Pala D, et al. A rapid, point-of-care antibiotic susceptibility test for urinary tract infections. J Med Microbiol. 2020;69(1):52–62. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.001119
  30. Muhammad A, Khan SN, Ali N, Rehman MU, Ali I. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of uropathogens in outpatients at a tertiary care hospital. New Microbes New Infect. 2020;36:e100716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmni.2020.100716
  31. Ogodo AC, Agwaranze DI, Daji M, Aso RE. Chapter 13 - Microbial techniques and methods: basic techniques and microscopy. In: Egbuna C, Patrick-Iwuanyanwu KC, Shah MA, Ifemeje JC, Rasul A, eds. Analytical Techniques in Biosciences. Academic Press; 2022:201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822654-4.00003-8
  32. Karah N, Rafei R, Elamin W, et al. Guideline for urine culture and biochemical identification of bacterial urinary pathogens in low-resource settings. Diagnostics. 2020;10(10):e832. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10100832
  33. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. CLSI M100: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2024.
  34. Storme O, Saucedo JT, Garcia-Mora A, Dehesa-Dávila M, Naber KG. Risk factors and predisposing conditions for urinary tract infection. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:e1756287218814382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287218814382
  35. Ejaz SM, Vohra MS, Raza Y. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of isolates from patients with urinary tract infection in Karachi. Microbiol Immunol Commun. 2022;1(1):7–19. https://doi.org/10.55627/mic.001.01.0179
  36. Ahmad S, Ali F, Qureshi S, et al. The evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility pattern and associated risk factors of UTI in tertiary care hospital of Peshawar. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2022;35:897–903. https://doi.org/10.36721/PJPS.2022.35.3.SP.897-903.1
  37. Asim A, Javed R, Aziz A, et al. Incidence of culture proven UTI and antimicrobial sensitivity pattern among the adult population in the local area. J Pak Soc Intern Med. 2024;5(2):496–501.
  38. Islam MA, Islam MR, Khan R, et al. Prevalence, etiology and antibiotic resistance patterns of community-acquired urinary tract infections in Dhaka, Bangladesh. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(9):e0274423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274423
  39. Bhargava K, Nath G, Bhargava A, Kumari R, Aseri GK, Jain N. Bacterial profile and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of uropathogens causing urinary tract infection in the eastern part of Northern India. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:e965053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.965053
  40. Joya M, Aalemi AK, Baryali AT. Prevalence and antibiotic susceptibility of the common bacterial uropathogens among UTI patients in French Medical Institute for Children. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:4291–4297. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S353818
  41. Hrbacek J, Cermak P, Zachoval R. Current antibiotic resistance trends of uropathogens in central Europe: survey from a tertiary hospital urology department 2011–2019. Antibiotics. 2020;9(9):e630. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9090630
  42. Younas MR, Imran M. Bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance of uropathogenic Enterobacteriaceae. Urology. 2019;97:24–26.
  43. Faine BA, Rech MA, Vakkalanka P, et al. High prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant UTI among US emergency department patients diagnosed with urinary tract infection, 2018–2020. Acad Emerg Med. 2022;29(9):1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14545
  44. Meena P, Rana DS, Bhalla AK, et al. Clinical profile and predisposing factors for the development of urinary tract infection during the first 3 months postrenal transplantation: a tertiary care hospital experience. Indian J Transplant. 2020;14(2):104–110. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijot.ijot_66_19
  45. Jalil MB, Al Atbee MYN. The prevalence of multiple drug resistance Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from patients with urinary tract infections. J Clin Lab Anal. 2022;36(9):e24619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24619
  46. Dadi BR, Abebe T, Zhang L, Mihret A, Abebe W, Amogne W. Distribution of virulence genes and phylogenetics of uropathogenic Escherichia coli among urinary tract infection patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):e108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-4844-z
  47. Girija S, Priyadharsini JV, Paramasivam A. Prevalence of Acb and non-Acb complex in elderly population with urinary tract infection (UTI). Acta Clin Belg. 2021;76(2):106–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17843286.2019.1669274
  48. Pardeshi P. Prevalence of urinary tract infections and current scenario of antibiotic susceptibility pattern of bacteria causing UTI. Indian J Microbiol Res. 2018;5(3):334–338. https://doi.org/10.18231/2394-5478.2018.0070
  49. Odoki M, Aliero AA, Tibyangye J, et al. Prevalence of bacterial urinary tract infections and associated factors among patients attending hospitals in Bushenyi District, Uganda. Int J Microbiol. 2019;2019(1):e4246780. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4246780
  50. Govindarajan DK, Kandaswamy K. Virulence factors of uropathogens and their role in host pathogen interactions. Cell Surf. 2022;8:e100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcsw.2022.100075
  51. Fatima T, Rafiq S, Iqbal A, Husnain S. Prevalence and antibiogram of MDR E. coli strains isolated from UTI patients—1-year retrospective study at Nishtar Medical Hospital, Multan. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2(4):423–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00246-8
  52. Bullens M, de Cerqueira Melo A, Raziq S, et al. Antibiotic resistance in patients with urinary tract infections in Pakistan. Public Health Action. 2022;12(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.21.0071
  53. Acharjee M. Prevalence of urinary tract infection among the patients admitted in the Brahmanbaria Medical College Hospital in Bangladesh. Merit Res J Med Med Sci. 2020;8:111–119. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3832418
  54. Idrees MM, Rasool MF, Imran I, et al. A cross-sectional study to evaluate antimicrobial susceptibility of uropathogens from South Punjab, Pakistan. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:1845–1855. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S356489
  55. Ejaz H, Imran M, Zafar A, et al. Phenotypic Characterisation of Carbapenemase-Producing Escherichia coli Isolated from a Tertiary Care Paediatric Hospital. Int Med Jl. 2020;27(2):e155.
  56. Rizvi ZA, Jamal AM, Malik AH, Zaidi SMJ, Rahim NUA, Arshad D. Exploring antimicrobial resistance in agents causing urinary tract infections at a tertiary care hospital in a developing country. Cureus. 2020;12(8):e9735. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.9735
  57. Hasan T. Extended spectrum beta lactamase E. coli isolated from UTI patients in Najaf Province, Iraq. Int J Pharm Res. 2020;17(1):00–00. https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.04.049
  58. Sendra E, Montesinos IL, Rodriguez-Alarcón A, et al. Comparative analysis of complicated urinary tract infections caused by extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antibiotics. 2022;11(11):e1511. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11111511
  59. Karruli A, Catalini C, D’Amore C, et al. Evidence-based treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections: a critical reappraisal. Antibiotics. 2023;12(2):e399. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020399
  60. Gajdács M, Ábrók M, Lázár A, et al. Increasing relevance of Gram-positive cocci in urinary tract infections: a 10-year analysis of their prevalence and resistance trends. Sci Rep. 2020;10:e17658. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74834-y