Rajeshwari K G: Fosfomycin susceptibility among ESBL producing gram negative bacilli causing urinary tract infections


Introduction

Infection of any part of Urinary system – kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra is known as Urinary tract infection. The term urinary tract infection encompasses various entities like asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), Cystitis, Prostatitis and pyelonephritis.1 Lower urinary tract infection is frequently encountered in day to day clinical practice. Members of the family Enterobacteriaceae are the most common agents causing UTI with E.coli (Escherichia Coli) being the predominant pathogen.

Erroneous antibiotic prescription practices, readily available Over the counter (OTC) antibiotics, increased use of antibiotics in livestock rearing has dwindled the emergence of Multi drug resistant organisms, thus making outpatient therapy difficult. The organisms causing UTI frequently carry multiple drug resistance (MDR) mechanisms against the commonly used oral antimicrobias like fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nitrofurantoin, and second and third-generation cephalosporins.2

Extended-spectrum Beta lactamases (ESBLs) are a group of enzymes that are resistance to Beta lactam antibiotics. Carbapenems are the drugs of choice for treatment of ESBL producers. Increased use of Carbapenems for the treatment of UTI’s caused by ESBL producers has led to the emergence of Multi drug resistant bacteria (especially Carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae- CRE). MDR is defined as resistance to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories.3

Usage of Fosfomycin is one of the treatment options for MDR bacteria. Fosfomycin is a bactericidal agent which acts by inhibiting the cell wall synthesis.4

Bioavailability of oral Fosfomycin ranges between 34 to 58%, with absorption occurring predominantly in the small intestine thus, consumption of food reduce the absorption of Fosfomycin (37%- fasting v/s 30% with food).5

The peak serum concentration occurs within 4 hours of a 3g dose, with detectable levels (100 mg/L) at the end of 48 hours after the first dose. Hence, dosing of Fosfomycin is once in 48 hours.6

This study was conducted to determine the susceptibility of Fosfomycin among the uropathogens and also to study the susceptibility profiles of various bacteria isolated from Urine.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective study conducted between January 2020 to December 2020 in the Department of Microbiology in a 250 bedded Tertiary care hospital in Bengaluru. The urine culture samples received in the department both from Inpatient and Outpatient requiring urine culture as prescribed by the clinician was included in the study. Midstream urine sample from conscious, alert & oriented patients and from catheterised patients the sample was collected by following standard technique guidelines.7

The samples were processed as per the Standard operating procedure laid down which includes – sample processed within 30 minutes of collection, Direct microscopy of uncentrifuged sample to look for presence of pus cells, RBC’s and bacteria. The samples were inoculated on Urichrom agar by semiquantitative method and were incubated overnight at 37̊ C. The reading of plates was done and samples with significant bacterial growth and with presence of significant pus cells on Microscopy were included in the study.

VITEK 2 Compact System (BioMérieux Inc., France) was used for the identification and susceptibility testing of the bacteria.

Detection of ESBL

Double disc diffusion synergy test8

All Enterobacteriaceae were screened for ESBL by Double disc diffusion synergy test (DDST). Ceftazidime (30μg), Cefotaxime (30μg), Ceftriaxone (30μg) and Amoxycillin / Clavulanic acid (20μg) discs were used. Bacterial isolates in BHI broth matched to 0.5 Mac Farland turbidity was uniformly swabbed on the sterility checked Mueller Hinton Agar using a sterile cotton swab. Ceftazidime(30μg), Cefotaxime(30μg), Ceftriaxone(30μg) were placed at distance of 20 mm from center to center around Amoxycillin / Clavulanic acid(20/10μg) disk. Plates were incubated at 37°C overnight. Extention of zone of inhibition of the any one of the cephalosporin towards the Amoxycillin / Clavulanic acid disc was considered positive result.

Phenotypic confirmatory method9

ESBL phenotypic method was done for all the 100 klebsiella pnuemoniea isolates screening for ESBL. Based on the CLSI guidelines the klebsiella pnuemoniae isolates were subjected for ESBL detection method using combined disc method. Combined disc method was done to detect the ESBL producers organisms in which cefotaxime 30μg and a cefotaxime/ clavulanic acid (30μg+10μg) discs were applied on the surface of Muller-Hinton Agar plate after a lawn culture of the isolated is done matching to 0.5 MacFerland then the plates were incubated overnight under 37 C. The result noted after taking the size of inhibition zone in which the zone of CEC should by ≥ 5mm in diameter comparing to the zone of CTX. This confirms the ESBL production.

Fosfomycin MIC was also tested on VITEK 2 system using M364 card. The MIC interpretation is based on CLSI guidelines with MIC <=64 is considered as significant and >=128 as resistant.

Results

A total of 1715 urine samples were received during the study period. Of which 831 (48.45%) samples that yielded significant growth were processed. Gram negative bacilli were the predominant isolate from the samples followed by Gram positive cocci and Candida species.

E.coli constituted the predominant isolate (60.4%) followed by K.pneumoniae (17.32%), Enterobacter spp (4.21%) and Pseudomonas spp (4.45%) as described in Table 1.

Out of the 831 samples 256 (30.80%) samples yielding growth were from Out patients. Out of the 575 IP samples yielding growth, 508 (88.3%) samples sent from wards and67 (11.6%) were from ICU. Ward wise distribution of gram negative bacteria is shown in Table 2.

All the Enterobacterales which were ESBL producers by Double disc diffusion synergy test were confirmed by phenotypic confirmatory method. All most 50% of E.coli were ESBL producers, 70.5% of Citrobacter spp, 62.8% of Enterobacter spp and 22.2% of Klebsiella pneumonia were also ESBL producers as shown in Table 3.

Fosfomycin sensitivity was performed only on 218 ESBL isolates as depicted in the Table 4.

77% of E.coli isolates were sensitive to Fosfomycin, 69.8% of Klebsiella isolates were sensitive. 17 Enterobacter isolates among 30 isolates tested for Fosfomycin were sensitive.

Table 1

Showing distribution of organisms isolated from urine sample

Organism

Growth

E. coli

502 (60.4%)

Klebsiella pneumoniae

144 (17.32%)

Enterobacter spp

35 (4.21%)

Citrobacter spp

17 (2.04%)

Proteus spp

28 (3.00%)

Pseudomonas spp

37 (4.45%)

A.baumanii

06 (0.72%)

Others (Gram positive bacteria and yeast)

62 (7.46%)

Total

831

Table 2

Distribution of organisms in the ward ICU out patient

Bacteria

OPD

Ward

ICU

Total

E.coli

153 (30.04%)

305 (60.7%)

44 (8.76%)

502 (60.4%)

Klebsiella pneumoniae

42 (29.16%)

88 (61.1%)

14 (9.72%)

144 (17.32%)

Proteus spp

06 (21.4%)

20 (71.42%)

02 (7.14%)

28 (3.00%)

Pseudomonas spp

05 (13.51%)

24 (64.86%)

08 (21.62%)

37 (4.45%)

Enterobacter spp

13 (34.21%)

19 (50%)

03 (08.57%)

35 (4.21%)

Table 3

ESBL producing enterobacterales

Organism

ESBL Producers

Non ESBL Producers

Total

E.coli

248 (49.4%)

254 (50.6%)

502

Klebsiella pneumoniae

32 (22.2%)

112 (78.8%)

144

Proteus spp

6 (21.42%)

22 (78.8%)

28

Enterobacter spp

22 (62.85%)

13 (37.14%)

37

Citrobacter spp

12 (70.5%)

05 (29.4%)

17

Total

320 (43.9%)

406 (55.76%)

728

  

Table 4

Sensitivity to fosfomycin of various ESBL isolates

Organism

Isolates tested for Fosfomycin sensitivity

Sensitive to Fosfomycin

Resistant to Fosfomycin

E.coli

102

79 (77.45%)

23 (22.54%)

K.pneumonaie

63

44 (69.8%)

19 (30.1%)

Enterobacter spp

30

17 (56.6%)

13 (43.3%)

Citrobacter spp

08

5 (62.5%)

3 (37.5%)

Proteus spp

15

9 (60%)

6 (40%)

Total

218

154 (70.64%)

64(29.9%)

Discussion

Due to the development of multi drug resistance and extreme drug resistance physicans are moving towards older antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, polymixins, etc.10

Fosfomycin is a novel antibiotic with broad spectrum activity against drug resistance bacteria.11 It acts by mimicking the phosphoenol pyruvate and binds to binds MurA (UDP-GlcNAc enopyruvyl transferase that is found in the cytoplasm of the bacteria and thus inhibits enolpyruvyl transferase, which is required for peptidoglycan synthesis.12 Hence effective in covering gram positive, gram negative and multi drug resistance organisms. Studies have demonstrated a synergistic activity of Fosfomycin with antibiotics such as beta lactams in mechanism of action as well as reducing the dosage and adverse effects as well.13 On the contrary reports on resistance have also been seen due to the involvement of 6 genes of which MurA is also one and was seen in E coli.14

In the present study Out of the 831 samples 256 samples yielding growth were from out patients and 575 samples were from IP samples.67 samples showing growth were from ICU. As the COVID pandemic was at its peak and lockdown explains the smaller number of OP samples and more number of IP admissions. With COVID first wave affecting predominantly people with comorbidities like Diabetes, these patients also had secondary bacterial infections both due to the comorbid condition & due to increased use of steroid.

Out of 831 samples 769(92.5%) grew Gram negative bacilli followed by Gram positive cocci these findings are in parallel with Ekadashi Rajni Sabharwal et al.15 study in which 82.9% were the gram negative bacilli. E.coli(60.4%) was the predominant isolate followed by K.pneumoniae (17.3%) in this study which is in consistent with study by Banerjee S et al.16 and Ekadashi Rajni Sabharwal et al.15

Over all 44% of isolates in the present study were ESBL producers where as Banerjee S et al16 reported slightly higher percentage of (64.78%) of ESBLs. In the current study 50% of E.coli isolates were ESBL producers similarly in the study by Gupta V et al17 also reported 52.6% of Ecoli isolates as ESBL producers.

No significant difference was found between the use of carbapenem and fosfomycin in the treatment of lower urinary tract infections in ESBL producing bacteria.18 In comparison to another antibiotics in a randomised control trial involving 27 trials in a mixed population there was no significant difference demonstrated between the fosfomycin and other drugs in terms of clinical and microbiological efficacy.[19] However in the present study only 70.64% of isolates were susceptible to fosfomycin in vitro. In contrast to the present study findings Banerjee S et al16 reported 95.18% of the total urinary isolates and 95.93% of MDRs were susceptible to fosfomycin in 2017. These findings indicate that urinary gram negative bacteria are gradually developing resistance to fasfomycin. One of the reasons for increased resistance could be due to its increased usage because of its ease of oral administration especially in treating UTI in out patients.

Conclusion

Many previously reported studies have shown that fosfomycin has high in vitro activity against common uropathogens, including ESBL producers, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. it is being widely used as one of the safe oral antibiotic for the treatment of UTI. However present study finding suggest that resistance to fosfomysin is on rise even though majority of ESBLs were sensitive to it. The current study recommends to use fasfomycin only after testing susceptibility among uropathogens.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1 

GL Mandell JE Bennett DR Mandell Douglas and Benett's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases6th editionElsevier Churchill LivingstonePhiladelphia2005278995

2 

AP Magiorakos A Srinivasan RB Carey Y Carmeli ME Falagas CG Giske Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistanceClin Microbiol Infect20121832688110.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x

3 

ME Falagas EK Vouloumanou G Samonis KZ Vardakas FosfomycinClin Microbiol Rev20162923214710.1128/cmr.00068-15

4 

R. Raz Fosfomycin: an old—new antibioticClin Microbiol Infect20121814710.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03636.x

5 

NK Shrestha JW Tomford Fosfomycin: A ReviewInfect Dis Clin Pract20011052556010.1097/00019048-200106000-00004

6 

JG Collee AG Fraser BP Marmion A Simmons Mackie & Mccartney Practical Medical Microbiology 14th editionElsevier1996

7 

RM Singh HL Singh Comparative evaluation of six phenotypic methods for detecting extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing EnterobacteriaceaeJ Infect Dev Ctries20148044081510.3855/jidc.4052

8 

S Shaikh J Fatima S Shakil SMD Rizvi MA Kamal Antibiotic resistance and extended spectrum beta-lactamases: Types, epidemiology and treatmentSaudi J Biol Sci2015229010110.1016/j.sjbs.2014.08.002

9 

ME Falagas EK Vouloumanou G Samonis KZ Vardakas FosfomycinClin Microbiol Rev20162923214710.1128/cmr.00068-15

10 

AC Dijkmans NV Ortiz Zacarías J Burggraaf JW Mouton E Wilms C Nieuwkoop Fosfomycin: Pharmacological, Clinical and Future PerspectivesAntibiotics2017642410.3390/antibiotics6040024

11 

ED Brown EI Vivas CT Walsh R Kolter MurA (MurZ), the enzyme that catalyzes the first committed step in peptidoglycan biosynthesis, is essential in Escherichia coliJ Bacteriol19951771441947

12 

AS Michalopoulos IG Livaditis V Gougoutas The revival of fosfomycinInt J Infect Dis20111511e732910.1016/j.ijid.2011.07.007

13 

S Takahata T Ida T Hiraishi S Sakakibara K Maebashi S Terada Molecular mechanisms of fosfomycin resistance in clinical isolates of Escherichia coliInt J Antimicrob Agents2010354333710.1016/j.ijantimicag.2009.11.011

14 

ER Sabharwal R Sharma Fosfomycin: An Alternative Therapy for the Treatment of UTI Amidst Escalating Antimicrobial ResistanceJ Clin Diagn Res201591269

15 

S Banerjee M Sengupta TK Sarker Fosfomycin susceptibility among multidrug-resistant, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing, carbapenem-resistant uropathogensIndian J Urol20173321495410.4103/iju.iju_285_16

16 

V Gupta H Rani N Singla N Kaistha J Chander Determination of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases and AmpC Production in Uropathogenic Isolates of Escherichia coli and Susceptibility to FosfomycinJ Lab Physicians201350290310.4103/0974-2727.119849

17 

S Senol M Tasbakan H Pullukcu OR Sipahi H Sipahi T Yamazhan Carbapenem Versus Fosfomycin Tromethanol in the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-ProducingEscherichia Coli-Related Complicated Lower Urinary Tract InfectionJ Chemother2010225355710.1179/joc.2010.22.5.355

18 

ME Falagas EK Vouloumanou AG Togias M Karadima AM Kapaskelis PI Rafailidis Fosfomycin versus other antibiotics for the treatment of cystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsJ Antimicrob Chemother201065918627710.1093/jac/dkq237



jats-html.xsl

© This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 28-06-2021

Accepted : 28-06-2021

Available online : 30-07-2021


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Copyright permission

Get article permission for commercial use

Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijmr.2021.029


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 178

PDF Downloaded: 86



Wiki in hindi