ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE PATTERNS OF COMMON UROPATHOGENS ISOLATED FROM FEMALES AT ZAKHO CITY, KURDISTAN REGION, IRAQ.

 

Fawzi Adil Issa*

 

Departments of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Zakho, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

Corresponding Author Email: fawzi.issa@uoz.edu.krd

 

Received: 29 Sep 2024 / Accepted: 13 Nov., 2024 / Published: 18 Nov., 2024.               https://doi.org/10.25271/sjuoz.2024.12.3.1395

ABSTRACT:

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is an infection in any part of the urinary system, including kidneys, ureters, bladder, and urethra. Uropathogenic bacterial-antibiotic resistance has become a severe challenge among UTI-causative agents. Objective: This work attempted to screen the activity of a wide range of antibiotics routinely used for UTI-derived infection management to assess the impact of antibiotics on some common UTI pathogens isolated from females. Method: This retrospective study was performed at Zakho Emergency Hospital, Kurdistan region of Iraq, from January 2016 to December 2019. Conventional bacteriological tests were used to identify the most common isolated uropathogens in females. The antibiotic sensitivity test was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). The bacterial-antibiotics assay was determined using the disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer) method, which depended on the microbiology laboratory records. Results: Out of 1730 urine samples, 1040 (60.4%) were found to be pathogens-positive samples. The most common uropathogens isolated were Staphylococcus spp 44% (n=460), Escherichia coli strains 25.35% (n=265), Klebsiella spp 15.78% (n=65), and Streptococcus spp 14.83 (n=155). Regarding the microbial-antibiotic resistance, ≤ 25% of the UTI investigated cases, except Streptococcus spp, meropenem, imipenem, and amikacin, showed a remarkable effect against all addressed pathogens. Vancomycin was the first choice against gram-positive bacteria in addition to rifampicin and doxycycline for Streptococcus spp. Gentamycin was found to be the most effective antimicrobial against Klebsiella spp. Concerning bacterial-antibiotic resistance ≥75% and excluding Streptococcus spp, amoxicillin, ampicillin/cloxacillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, cloxacillin, and metronidazole were completely non-functional against all bacteria. Azithromycin, norfloxacin, oxacillin, cefixime, nalidixic acid, and ceftazidime showed relatively weak activity against gram-positive bacteria in addition to cephalexin, ceftriaxone, and cloxacillin for Streptococcus spp. Ampicillin, augmentin, penicillin, and cephalexin were comparatively non-functional against gram-negative pathogens in addition to vancomycin, rifampicin, cephalothin, oxacillin, and trimethoprim for Klebsiella spp. All remaining antibiotics produced an activity ranging between ≥25% to ≤75% of examined cases. The results of this work may help clinicians to accurate their antibiotic-bacterial infection empirical treatment. Conclusion: All subjected bacteria exhibited a strong resistance to a broad spectrum of antibiotics. Therefore, except for imipenem, meropenem, or amikacin, an antibiotic sensitivity test should be conducted prior to prescribing any antibiotic.

KEYWORDS: antibiotic sensitivity, antibiotic resistance, bacteria, infectious disease, urinary tract infection, uropathogens.  

 


1.        INTRODUCTION

        Antibiotic resistance is a globally continuously increasing threat to patient management (Paul, 2018). Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are recorded to be the most common infections leading to clinical intervention all over the world (Flores-Mireles et al., 2015). UTIs may lead to a high rate of mortality and morbidity in a number of infected groups, such as immunocompromised patients (Eliakim-Raz et al., 2019), women, older patients, diabetes, obesity, and people who have frequent intercourse (Sabih & Leslie, 2023) as well as those with long-term catheters (Nagaraj, 2023) and frequent sexual activity (Seid et al., 2023).

        A wide range of Gram-negative and ----positive pathogens was isolated from patients with UTI. Based on the epidemiology of UTIs, uropathogenic E. coli is the most common causative agent (Naqid et al., 2020a), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniaeStaphylococcus saprophyticus, Enterococcus faecalis, group B Streptococcus (GBS), Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, in addition to other bacteria cause opportunistic UTIs (Flores-Mireles et al., 2015) as well as fungi (Nyirjesy et al., 2022).

All UTI patients face serious problems associated with bacterial-antibiotic resistance (Nickel, 2007). According to Guclu et al., the initial bacterial antibiotic resistance was detected in patients with diabetes or renal reflux (2021). Resistance later broadened to include other nosocomial pathogens. However, nowadays, a large number of community-acquired infections with resistance to antimicrobials are noticed (Mares et al., 2024). Bacterial antibiotic resistance is not limited to any particular country, but it is a global phenomenon.

        Antibiotics are the mainstay of treatment for any bacterial infection, and UTIs are no exception. Nevertheless, the relentless and misused use of antibiotics for human and veterinary or agro-industrial purposes (Tiseo et al., 2020) in the last decades has given rise to a severe public health issue: the drastic rise in the antibiotic-resistance of bacteria (Wiedemann et al., 2014; Alhazmi et al., 2023). The occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in UTIs exceeds the garden homogeneity of the European Union, with over half a million cases (WHO and ECDC report, 2023). The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and WHO report occasional emergence of antibiotic resistance blazing across these strains for quick and effective action.

        Unfortunately, Iraq, including the Kurdistan region, has one of the highest rates of antibiotic consumption in the Middle East, with low knowledge of the appropriate use of antibiotics by the public. As a consequence, recent data bring to light the burden of antimicrobial resistance in this country and the necessity of monitoring the prudent use of these categories of drugs (Qurbani et al., 2024). Bacterial-antibiotics resistance studies in the local setting also showed increased resistance of bacteria to ampicillin, aztreonam, and nitrofurantoin. In contrast, the integrity of amikacin, ciprofloxacin, imipenem, and nitrofurantoin sensitivity is still preserved (Osman, 2019).

        Current research evaluates the recent evolution of antimicrobial resistance in female patients. It updates the knowledge regarding the resistance and sensitivity of uropathogens to antimicrobials in Kurdistan of Iraq, associated with the presentation of relevant clinical data of patients that may constitute risk factors in the context of antibiotic-resistance UTIs. This work aimed to assess the activity of a wide range of antibiotics against several common UTI causative agents and to discuss the susceptibility pattern of antimicrobials based on urine-culture sensitivity assay. By studying bacterial sensitivity patterns to antibiotics in indicated pathogens, a new review could be proposed for treatment protocol in such patients.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design and sample collection:

         This retrospective study was carried out among females for a period of four years (Jan 2016 to Dec 2019), including 1730 urine samples at the Microbiology Laboratories in Zakho Emergency Hospital, located in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. To prevent contamination, first, midstream morning urine samples were collected from female patients of all ages in sterile containers. All participants exhibited one or more symptoms indicative of UTI, including pain or a burning sensation during urination (dysuria), increased frequency of urination during both the day and night (nocturia), urgent or sudden urges to urinate, and the presence of cloudy or bloody urine.

Bacterial identification:

         Bacteria isolates were initially identified by their morphological characteristics post-culturing on blood agar, mannitol salt agar, and MacConkey agar based on standard microbiological culture as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2020) guidelines. Each sample was cultured immediately on an appropriate agar and then incubated in aerobic conditions at 37 °C for 24 to 48 hours with aeration (Giuliano et al., 2019).

Antimicrobial susceptibility test:

        Antibiotic susceptibility was assessed using the disk diffusion (Kirby-Bauer) method. Upon collection, samples were promptly analyzed microbiologically. Initially, samples were incubated overnight at 37 °C on blood agar. In samples yielding uniform bacterial growth, microorganisms were transferred and spread on Mueller-Hinton agar plates using a sterile cotton swab.  Antibiotic discs were applied on plates seeded with bacterial lawn and incubated at 37 °C for 24-48 h. The results were interpreted based on the size of the inhibition zone around the antibiotic disc according to the guidelines that are provided by (CLSI, 2020). Vaginal yeast infection agents were excluded from this research. The data analysis concentrated on four prevalent uropathogens: Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., strains of E. coli, and Klebsiella spp. Antibiotic types, abbreviations, and concentrations are shown below.

Ethical approval:

         The study design and procedure were approved by the College of Medicine, University of Zakho, Kurdistan region, Iraq. Ethics considerations, including the privacy of personal data, were considered during all steps of the study. Written informed consent was acquired from each subject before sampling.

3. RESULTS

        Out of 1,730 urine samples, they were collected from females for bacterial identification and antibiotic resistance profiling. Of those, 1,045 (60.4%) exhibited bacterial growth on various microbiological media. This study specifically examined different strains of Staphylococcus spp and Streptococcus spp as representatives of gram-positive bacteria, as well as E. coli and Klebsiella spp as examples of gram-negative bacteria (see Table 1). The bacterial isolates were tested against a comprehensive array of Bioanalyse® ATS antibiotic discs (manufactured in Turkey), each containing the same concentration of their respective antibiotics.

        The most significant number of isolates was observed for Staphylococcus spp (460 samples, 44.01%), followed by E. coli strains (265 samples, 25.35%), Klebsiella spp (165 samples, 15.78%), and then Streptococcus spp, in that order (Table 1). The identification of Klebsiella and Streptococcus species (155 samples, 14.83%), along with E. coli strains and Staphylococcus spp, was excluded from the bacterial-antibiotic analysis unless specifically requested by physicians. Based on years, the total number of bacteria isolated was highest in 2016 (n=493), followed by 2019 (n=461), 2018 (n=409), and then 2017 (n=367).


 

B a c t e r i a l   N u m b e r s   a n d   P e r c e n t a g e s

Bacterial Urine Samples

Total Urine

Samples

Year

Klebsiella spp.

E. coli

Strept. spp.

Staph. spp.

48   (13.95%)

113 (32.84%)

  55 (15.98%)

128 (37.20%)

344   (69.77%)

493

2016

31   (13.02%)

  49 (20.58%)

  48 (20.16%)

110 (46.21%)

238   (64.85%)

367

2017

32   (12.35%)

  43 (16.60%)

  29 (11.19%)

155 (59.84%)

259   (63.32%)

409

2018

54   (26.47%)

  60 (29.41%)

  23 (11.27%)

067 (32.84%)

204   (44.25%)

461

2019

165 (15.78%)

265 (25.35%)

155 (14.83%)

460 (44.01%)

1045 (60.40%)

1730

Total

Table 1: Number of the Pathogen Isolates and Their Antibiotics Resistance Percentages for 2016-19.


 

        Over the indicated period, Staphylococcus aureus, S. albus, S. saprophyticus, and S. epidermidis species were isolated from 460 (~44.0 %) bacterial-positive samples. Staphylococcus spp illustrated an antibacterial resistance rate of ~ 66% of cases (20 out of 31). The highest rate (75-100%) of Staph-antibiotic resistance was found with MTZ (100%), CTZ (97.5%), CFX (95.8%), NA (95.1%), E (92.2), DA (92.0%), CX (91.7%), APX (89.1%), AZM (88.6%), OX (87.1%), AX (80.5%), and NOR (76.6%) respectively (Table 2, Fig 1). Another eight antibiotics did not show any lethal effect in 50-74% of cases, such as in AMP, AUG, CL, CRO, CTX, P, TE, and TMP. Relatively, KF,

CIP, DX, GN, NIT, and RF produced better antimicrobial activity compared to the previous group of antibiotics, as Staphylococcus spp demonstrated resistance in (25-49%) of test cases (not shown in Fig 1). Only four antibiotics, MEM (15.5%), AK (10.8%), VA (7.2%), and IMP (2.6%), were found to be effective antimicrobials as pathogens produced resistance only in ≤24% of the tested cases (Table 2, and Fig 1). Staphylococcus spp was grown in 100% of cases when challenged against metronidazole (MTZ), which is considered to be the most ineffective antibiotic. On the other side, imipenem (IMP) was the first choice for Staphylococcus-related infections, where Staphylococcus spp grew in only 2 out of 76 cases (2.6%) (Table 2 and Fig. 1).


 


Staphylococcal-Antibiotic Resistance (%)

 

Figure 1: Staphylococcus-antibiotic resistance profile. Cases per antibiotic; MTZ (11), CTZ (83), CFX (288), NA (164), E (123), DA (75), CX (157), APX (138), AZM (185), OX (70), AX (103), NOR (30), MEM (126), AK (322), VA (236), IMP (76). Percentages represent the total number of each bacterial-antibiotic analysis for the period of 2016-2019. Only antibiotics with activity of ≥ 75% or ≤ 25% of investigated cases are shown. All the other antibiotics with active rates between 25-74% are not included.

 



        Escherichia coli was isolated from 265 (25.35%) cases of those bacterial-positive samples over the period mentioned above. Isolated E. coli strains produced antibiotic resistance (>50%) in 21 out of 29 applied antibiotics. E. coli showed antimicrobial confrontation at (75-100%) of investigated samples when challenged against ten antibiotics, including MTZ (100%), P (96.0%), E (95.3%), CX (95.2%), AX (93.3%), APX (92.0%), DA (86.5%), AMP (84.7%), AUG (82.5%), and CL (76.9%) respectively. Additional 11 antibiotics were not effective in a range of 50-74% of analyzed cases, such as CFX, CRO, CTX, CTZ, DX, KF, NA, RF, TE, TMP, and VA. Fife antibiotics like; AZM, CIP, GN, NIT, and NOR were relatively functional as they killed or inhibited the E. coli strains growth in 50-74% of the investigated cases (not shown in Fig. 2). Only three antibiotics, AK (8.9%), MEM (7.5%), and IMP (0.0%) were considerably effective against E. coli strains as they produced lethal phenomena in 75-100% of the addressed cases (Table 2, and Fig. 2). E. coli strains were grown in 100% (49 cases) when tested against the combination of ampicillin and cloxacillin (APX) which should not be prescribed for the controlling of E. coli infections. In contrast, E. coli strains were produced in only 8.9% and 7.5% of cases when countered against AK and MEM, respectively. Furthermore, IMP was the most effective antibiotic as it prevented the E. coli strains from growing in 100% of tested cases (Table 2, Fig. 2).


 

E. coli - Antibiotic Resistance (%)




 


Figure 2: Activity of Antibiotics against Escherichia coli. Cases per antibiotic: MTZ (100), P (25), E (85), CX (21), AX (45), APX (75), DA (88), AMP (118), AUG (189), CL (52), AK (223), MEM (71), IMP (59). Other details are in Fig. 1.

 


 

        In spite of a comparatively low number of Streptococcus-positive samples, Streptococcus spp showed a different pattern of antimicrobial-resistance phenomena compared to other species of indicated bacteria. Only 155 cases (14.83%) out of 1045 bacterial-positive cultivations were found to be Streptococcus spp. All Streptococcus spp samples showed different levels of bacterial-antibiotic tolerance. As expected, 20 out of 29 antibiotics were relatively non-functional as Streptococcus spp displayed resistance to antibiotics from 50-100% of analyzed cases. Non-functional antibiotics (from high to low resistance) included NOR (100.0%), CTZ (94.4%), OX (94.1%), CFX (84.1%), AZM (82.2%), NA (81.0%), CL (77.2%), COR (76.4%), and CX (75.0%) as bacteria were respectively resistant in 75 to 100% of the investigated cases. AMP, APX, CFX, DA, E, AX, KF, GN, TMP, IMP, and TE were non-lethal in 50 to 74% of bacterial-positive cases. P, CIP, AK, AUG, and NIT were also partially non-working but better than above antimicrobial as the bacterial resistance was found only in 25-49% of the cases (not shown in Fig. 3). The range of the active antibiotics was restricted in DX (19.0%), RF (18.1%), MEM (15.3%), and VA (14.8%) as they killed or prevented bacterial growth in 0-24% of the tests (Fig 3 and Table 2).

 


Streptococcal - Antibiotic Resistance (%)

Figure 3: Analysis of Streptococcus-antibiotic interactions. Cases per antibiotic: NOR (5), CTZ (18), OX (17), CFX (63), AZM (62), NA (37), CL (22), CRO (68), CX (36), DX (27), RF (44), MEM (30), VA (54). Other details are in Fig. 1.

 


        Through all the bacterial-positive samples, Klebsiella spp were isolated only from 165 (15.78%) samples during the same period. Klebsiella spp demonstrated resistance to a broader range of antibiotics compared to other bacteria. Klebsiella spp were resistance to 15 antimicrobials; MTZ, OX, and APX (100.0%), P (96.2%), E (92.6%), DA (92.1%), AX (91.0%), AMP (88.0%), CL (85.0%), KF (83.3%), VA (80.9%), AUG and TMP (80.0%), RF (75.8%), and CTX (75.2%) for ≥ 75% of analyzed cases and also another eight antibiotics (CFX, CTZ, CRO, NA, NOR, CX, TMP, and TE) did not show any ability to kill or prevent bacterial growth for 50-74% of the tested cases (not shown in Fig .4). Therefore, such 23 out of 33 antibiotics were non-functional in at least ≥ 50% of investigated samples. However, AZM, CIP, DX, and NIT were found to be more functional than those mentioned above by preventing the Klebsiella spp to grow in 25-49% of cases via their positive action against Klebsiella spp. Finally, GN (18.2%), AK (7.0%), MEM (3.4%), and IMP (2.95) were the first choices in Klebsiella-related infections where they were fatal in 75-100% of tested samples (Table 2, Fig. 4). Antimicrobials like; APX, MTZ, OX were entirely non-functional (100%) against Klebsiella spp in addition to P (96.2%) of analyzed samples. On the other side, IMP was the most functional (97.1%) antibiotic against Klebsiella spp in addition to MEM (96.6%), AK (93.0%), and GN (82.8%).


 

  

 

 

Klebsiella - Antibiotic Resistance (%)
 




 

 


Figure 4: Klebsiella-Antibiotics Sensitivity Analysis. Cases per antibiotic: MTZ (22), OX (4), APX (49), P (27), E (41), DA (51), AX (6), AMP (67), CL (34), KF (12), VA (21), AUG (115), TMP (15), RA (58), CTX (101), GN (126), AK (26), MEM (29), IMP (34). Other details are in Fig. 1.

 


Table 2: Distribution of antibiotics according to their activity against indicated bacteria.


Bacterial-Antibiotic Resistance (%)

 

 

0-24

25-49

50-74

75-100

Bacteria 

AK, IMP, MEM, VA.

KF, CIP, DX, GN, NIT, RF.

AMP, CL, AUG, TE, CTX, P, CRO, TMP.

AX, APX, E, DA, CX, MTZ, CFX, NA, CTZ, AZM, NOR, OX.

Staphylococcus spp

AK, IMP, MEM.

AZM, CIP, GN, NIT, NOR.

KF, CFX, CTX, CTZ, CRO, DX, NA, RF, TMP, VA, TE.

AX, APX, E, DA, CX, MTZ,

AMP, AUG, P, CL.

Escherichia coli

DX, RF, MEM, VA.

P, CIP, AK, AUG, NIT. 

AMP, APX, CFX, DA, E, AX, KF, GN, TMP, IMP, TE.

NOR, CTZ, OX, CFX, AZM, NA, CL, CRO, CX.

Streptococcus spp

AK, IMP, MEM, GN.

AZM, CIP, DX, NIT.  

CFX, CTZ, CRO, NA, NOR, TE, TMP, CX.    

AX, APX, E, DA, CTX, MTZ, AMP, AUG, P, CL, VA, RF, KF, OX, TMP.  

Klebsiella spp


 


4. DISCUSSION

        All tested bacterial strains demonstrated significant resistance to a broad spectrum of antibiotics, with each genus showing resistance to at least ten different antibiotics. This resistance presents a severe challenge in combating bacterial infections. Most antibiotics were ineffective, failing to kill or inhibit bacterial growth in at least 75% of the cases tested. Conversely, only a few antibiotics, such as AK, IMP, MEM, VA, DX, RF, and GN, showed lethal effects in ≥75% of the tested cases, with no more than four effective antibiotics per genus. Unfortunately, these findings highlight the alarming rate of antibiotic resistance among uropathogenic bacteria.

        Staphylococcus, especially S. aureus, has become adept at resisting antibiotics through a variety of mechanisms. This resistance is especially concerning with strains like MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus), which can cause serious infections that are hard to treat (Nandhini et al., 2022). In line with our results, Staphylococcus species previously obtained from the upper respiratory tract exhibited susceptibility to MEM, IMP, and AK (Ullah et al., 2022), as well as to VA (Ali et al., 2022). Nonetheless, as suggested in various earlier studies, Staphylococcus species were also identified as resistant to a broad spectrum of antibiotics (Van et al., 2024). These findings align with a previous study conducted in Kurdistan-Iraq, where Staphylococcus spp were observed to be resistant to VA (Abdulrahman & Taher, 2018) NIT and P but yet remained susceptible to AK (Mohamed, 2023). However, research by Abduljabar and Naqid (2022) indicates that Staphylococcus spp found in the nasal passages of athletes are highly susceptible to RF, GN, and fusidic acid.

        Moreover, and consistent with current work presented findings, strains of E. coli isolated from hospitalized patients with various infections demonstrated susceptibility to AK, MEM, and IMP (Esfahani et al., 2024). Conversely, some E. coli strains derived from children were identified as resistant to these antibiotics (Luo et al., 2023). This variation in antibiotic response could be linked to several factors, including bacterial population density, genetic variation, or prior exposure to pathogens. Similar to the current study’s findings, E. coli strains in research conducted in the Kurdistan region were found to be resistant to P and E but showed sensitivity to IMP and MEM (Assafi & Ali, 2022).

The present antibiotic susceptibility profile of Streptococcus species aligns with findings from a previous study by Alhamadani and Oudah (2022). Their research indicated that Streptococcus spp showed complete resistance to NOR, marking it as the least effective antibiotic against this pathogen. On the other hand, among the antibiotics evaluated in this study, VA showed the most excellent effectiveness against Streptococcus spp., consistent with the results of a study by Chiorescu et al. (2024). Furthermore, the current findings of Klebsiella spp are parallel with those of other research conducted in the Kurdistan region, where K. pneumoniae was found to be resistant to a broad range of antimicrobials, especially AMP. At the same time, IMP showed complete lethality against the isolates (Naqid et al., 2020b). In another study by Mhawesh et al., 2021, Klebsiella strains were observed to be resistant to VA and RF but sensitive to AK and MEM. However, the pattern of antibiotic resistance in Klebsiella spp appears to vary between studies due to differences in pathogen strains, antibiotic concentrations, and the bacteria's resistance capabilities. Klebsiella-mediated biofilms contribute to the failure of antibiotic treatments by obstructing access to the cells in the deeper layers of the biofilm matrix and creating drug resistance (Sharma et al., 2023). Klebsiella strains were also found to be resistant to multiple antimicrobials due to plasmid-mediated properties (Li et al., 2023). 

        Bacteria have developed multiple methods to resist antibiotics, including breaking down antibiotic molecules through enzymes (Pathak et al., 2023) and altering their internal targets. Hence, the drugs are ineffective (Varela et al., 2021), using broad-spectrum efflux pumps to remove antibiotics from their cells (Gaurav et al., 2023) and reducing their cell membrane permeability, which limits the number of antibiotics that can enter (Maher & Hassan, 2023). The bacteria studied in this work might employ one or more of the previously mentioned antibiotic resistance mechanisms to survive in environments heavily saturated with antimicrobial agents.

        Several risk factors contribute to the emergence of an antibiotic-resistance problem. However, the primary reasons for the rise in bacterial-antibiotic resistance in the Kurdistan region include the overuse of antibiotics, a common practice among the public (Ghazala et al., 2023), incomplete treatment courses (Borek et al., 2023), and poor infection control in some healthcare settings (Abalkhail & Alslamah, 2022). Other contributing factors are global travel and trade, environmental contamination (Coque et al., 2023), molecular reasons such as horizontal gene transfer (Michaelis & Grohmann, 2023), and chromosomal point mutations (Simone et al., 2023). The differences between presented results and findings from other studies may be due to several reasons: genetic variability from one strain to another, environmental conditions, antibiotic concentrations, bacterial population density, pathogens' previous exposure, susceptibility measurement methods, and the presence of resistance mechanisms which differ from species to another. By combining responsible antibiotic use, improved hygiene practices, international collaboration, and continuous research, substantial progress can be achieved in addressing the challenge of bacterial antibiotic resistance.

CONCLUSION

        Meropenem (MEM) and amikacin (AK) are recommended as the primary treatment options for urinary tract infections (UTIs) caused by the pathogens discussed above. Among the antibiotics tested, imipenem (IMP) and vancomycin (VA) demonstrated the highest effectiveness against Staphylococcus species, with fatal activity rates of 97.8% and 92.4%, respectively. Additionally, IMP is considered the first-line treatment for infections caused by E. coli strains and Klebsiella spp, with lethal activity levels reaching 100% and 97.1%, respectively. For treating infections derived from Streptococcus, vancomycin (85.2%) and meropenem (84.3%) were identified as the most potent antimicrobials.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

        The author profoundly thanks the administration of the Zakho Emergency Hospital for their providing the microbiology lab data. A special thanks to Mrs. Nasreen Jawad, Mrs. Payman Saady, and Mr. Renas Ghazi for their kind help and continuous technical support.

 

Abbreviations and concentrations of antibiotics/μg

        AK Amikacin (10), AMP Ampicillin (10), APX Ampicillin/Cloxacillin (25/5), AUG Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid (Augmentin) (20/10), AX Amoxicillin (10), AZM Azithromycin (15), C Chloramphenicol (10), CFX Cefixime (30), CIP Ciprofloxacin 10), CL Cephalexin (30), CRO Ceftriaxone (10), CTX Cefotaxime (10), CTZ Ceftazidime (10), CX Cloxacillin (10), DA Clindamycin (10), DX Doxycycline (10), E Erythromycin (100), GN Gentamycin (10), IMP Imipenem (10), KF Cephalothin (30), LEV Levofloxacin (5), ME methicillin, MEM Meropenem (10), MTZ Metronidazole (30), NA Naldixic acid (30), NIT Nitrofurantoin (100), NOR Norfloxacin (30), OX Oxacillin (10), P Penicillin (10), RF Rifampicin (5), TE Tetracycline (25), TMP Trimethoprim (10), VA Vancomycin (10).  

REFERENCES

Abalkhail A., and Alslamah T., (2022). Institutional factors associated with infection prevention and control practices globally during the infectious pandemic in resource-limited settings. Vaccines, 10(11): 1811. DOI: http://10.3390/vaccines10111811.

Abdulrahman M., and Taher A., (2018). Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among food handlers in Duhok City. Science Journal of University of Zakho, 6(4): 140-145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25271/sjuoz.2018.6.4.540.

Abduljabar S., and Naqid I., (2022). Staphylococcus aureus among athletes in Zakho City, Kurdistan Region, Iraq: Nasal carriage rate, risk factors, and antibiotic sensitivity profile. Science Journal of University of Zakho, 10(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.25271/sjuoz.2022.10.3.929.

Alhamadani Y., and Oudah A., (2022). Study of the bacterial sensitivity to different antibiotics, which are isolated from patients with UTI, using the Kirby-Bauer Method. Journal of Biomedicine and Biochemistry, 1(2): 1-5. DOI: http://10.57238/jbb.2022.19387.  

Alhazmi A., Alameer K., Abuageelah B., Alharbi R., et al., (2023). Epidemiology and antimicrobial resistance patterns of urinary tract infections: A cross-sectional study from Southwestern Saudi Arabia. Medicina, 59: 1411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59081411.

Ali A., Sayed N., and Hassan R., (2022). Study of vancomycin susceptibility pattern among Staphylococcus aureus isolated from superficial incisional surgical site infections. Microbes and Infectious Diseases, 3(2): 309-317. DOI: http://10.21608/mid.2022.115351.1232.

Assafi M., and Ali F., (2022). An epidemiological and multidrug resistance study for E. coli isolated from urinary tract infection (three years of study). Baghdad Science Journal, 19(1): 7-15. DOI: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-3694.

Borek A., Edwards G., Santillo M., Wanat M., et al., (2023). Re-examining advice to complete antibiotic courses: a qualitative study with clinicians and patients. British Journal of General Practice, 7(2): DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0170.

Chiorescu R., Buksa S., Botan A., et al., (2024). Vancomycin-resistant Streptococcus thoraltensis: A case report of bacterial endocarditis and review of literature on infections caused by this pathogen. Microorganisms, 12;12(3):566. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12030566.

CLSI, (2020). Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 30th Ed. Vol 40.  Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. ISBN 978-1-68440-067-6 (Electronic).

Coque T., Cantón R., Pérez-Cobas A., Fernández M., (2023). Antimicrobial resistance in the global health network: Known unknowns and challenges for efficient responses in the 21st century. Microorganisms, 11(4), 1050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms/11041050

Eliakim-Raz N., Babitch T., Shaw E., Addy I., Wiegand I. et al., (2019). Risk factors for treatment failure and mortality among hospitalized patients with complicated urinary tract infection: A Multicenter retrospective cohort study. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 68(1): 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy418.

Esfahani S., Rostami S., and Poorshariat S., (2024). Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Escherichia coli isolates from hospitalized patients with different infections in Isfahan, Iran: Impact on empiric antibiotic therapy in associated infections. International Journal of Infection, 10(2): https://doi.org/10.5812/iji-141058.

Flores-Mireles A., Walker J., Caparon M., and Hultgren S., (2015). Urinary tract infections: Epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 3:269–284. DOI: http://10.1038/nrmicro3432.

Gaurav A., Bakht P., Saini M., Pandey S., and Pathania R., (2023). Role of bacterial efflux pumps in antibiotic resistance, virulence, and strategies to discover novel efflux pump inhibitors. Microbiology, 69(5):001333. DOI: http://10.1099/mic.0.001333.

Ghazala Muteeb G., Rehman T., Shahwan M., and Aatif M., (2023). Origin of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance, and their impacts on drug development: A narrative review.  Pharmaceuticals, 16(11), 1615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ph16111615.

Giuliano C., Patel R., and Kale-Pradhan P., (2019). A guide to bacterial culture identification and results interpretation. Pharmacy and therapeutic, 44(4):192-200. ID: PMID30930604.

Guclu E., Halis F., Kose E., Ogutlu A., and Karabay O., (2021). Risk factors of multidrug-resistant bacteria in community-acquired urinary tract infections. African Health Sciences, 21(1): 214-219. DOI: http://10.4314/ahs.v21i1.28.

Li Y., Kumar S., Zhang L., Wu H., and Wu H., (2023). Characteristics of antibiotic resistance mechanisms and genes of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Open Medicine, 18(1): 20230707. DOI: http://10.1515/med-2023-0707.

Luo H., Xu L., and Chen Y., (2023). Drug resistance and susceptibility of amikacin in children with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 106(4): 115956. DOI: http://10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2023.115956.

Maher C., and Hassan K., (2023). The Gram-negative permeability barrier: tipping the balance of the in and the out. AMS Journals, mBio14: e01205-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01205-23.

Mares C., Petca R., Popescu R., Petca A., Multescu R., et al., (2024). Update on urinary tract infection antibiotic resistance - A retrospective study in females in conjunction with clinical data. Life, 14, 106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010106.

Mhawesh A., Khudair M., Radeef Y., Chillab R., and Jaber M., (2021). Antibiotic susceptibility patterns, and biofilm Formation for Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, its genotype identification and phenotype affiliation. International Journal of Drug Delivery Technology, 11(1):13-20. DOI: http://10.25258/ijddt.11.1.3.

Michaelis C., and Grohmann E., (2023). Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in biofilms. Antibiotics, 12(2): 328. DOI: http://10.3390/antibiotics12020328.

Mohamed A., (2023). Antimicrobial Resistance Rates in Gram-positive Uropathogens in Duhok city, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. MedRvix, https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.26.23286459.

Nagaraj C., (2023). Hospital-acquired urinary tract infections. Advances and challenges in urine laboratory analysis. IntechOpen. DOI: http://10.5772/intechopen.110532.

Nandhini P., Kumar P., Mickymaray S., Alothaim A., et al., (2022). Recent developments in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) treatment: A review, antibiotics (Basel), 29;11(5):606. DOI:  http://10.3390/antibiotics11050606.

Naqid I., Balatay A., Hussein N., Saeed K., Ahmed H., and Yousif S., (2020a). Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Escherichia coli isolated from various clinical samples in Duhok City, Kurdistan Region of Iraq. International Journal of Infection, 7(3): https://doi.org/10.5812/iji.103740.

Naqid I., Hussein N., Balatay A., Saeed K., and Ahmed H., (2020b). The antimicrobial resistance pattern of Klebsiella pneumonia isolated from the clinical specimens in Duhok City in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Journal of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, 24 (2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/jkums.106135.

Nickel J., (2007). Urinary tract infections and resistant bacteria: Highlights of a symposium at the combined meeting of the 25th international congress of chemotherapy (ICC) and the 17th European congress of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases (ECCMID). Reviews in Urology, 9:78‑80. PMCID: PMC1892623, PMID: 17592541.

Nyirjesy P., Brookhart C., Lazenby G., Schwebke J., and Sobel J., (2022). Vulvovaginal Candidiasis: A review of the evidence for the 2021 centers for disease control and prevention of sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 74(15): S162–S168. DOI: http://10.1093/cid/ciab1057.

Pathak A., Angst D., León-Sampedro R., and Hall A., (2023). Antibiotic-degrading resistance changes bacterial community structure via species-specific responses. ISME J, 17: 1495–1503. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01465-2.

Qurbani K.Ali S.Hussein S., and Hamzah H., (2024). Antibiotic resistance in Kurdistan, Iraq: A growing concern. New Microbes and New Infections, 57: 1012-1021. DOI: http://10.1016/j.nmni.2024.101221.

Sabih A., and Leslie S., (2023). Complicated urinary tract infections. In: StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. NCB Bookshelf ID: NBK436013. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28613784/.

Seid M., Markos M., Aklilu A., Manilal A., Zakir A., et al., (2023). Community-acquired urinary tract infection among sexually active women: Risk factors, bacterial profile and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, Arba Minch, Southern Ethiopia. Infection and Drug Resistance, 18(16): 2297-2310. DOI: HTTP://10.2147/IDR.S407092.

Sharma S., Mohler J., Mahajan S., Schwartz S., et al., (2023). Microbial biofilm: A review on formation, infection, antibiotic resistance, control measures, and innovative treatment. Microorganisms, 11(6), 1614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11061614.

Simone Marini S., Boucher C., Noyes N., and Prosperi M., (2023). The K-mer antibiotic resistance gene variant analyzer (KARGVA). Frontiers in Microbiology, 14: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1060891.

Tiseo K., Huber L., Gilbert M., Robinson T., and Van Boeckel T., (2020). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals from 2017 to 2030. Antibiotics, 9: 918. DOI: http://10.3390/antibiotics9120918.

Ullah K., Baloch M., Saleem F., Khan A., Saeed H., and Islam M., (2022). Antibiotic susceptibility patterns of bacterial isolates of patients with upper respiratory tract infections. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 58: e20484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s2175-97902022e20484.

Van N., Hai L., Luong V., Vinh N., Hoa P., Hung L., Son N., et al., (2024). Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Staphylococcus aureus isolated at a general hospital in Vietnam between 2014 and 2021. Infection and Drug Resistance, 17 259–273. DOI: http://10.2147/IDR.S437920.

Varela M., Stephen J., Lekshmi M., Ojha M., Wenzel N., Sanford L., Hernandez A., et al., (2021). Bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. Antibiotics, 10; 593. DOI: http://10.3390/antibiotics10050593.

WHO and ECDC report: Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/who-and-ecdc-report-antimicrobial-resistance-remains-healththreat-europe (accessed: 05 June 2023).

Wiedemann B., Heisig A., and Heisig P., (2014). Uncomplicated urinary tract infections and antibiotic resistance-epidemiological and mechanistic aspects. Antibiotics, 3: 341–352. DOI: http://10.3390/antibiotics3030341.