Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 2000 Apr;44(4):1089–1092. doi: 10.1128/aac.44.4.1089-1092.2000

A Canadian National Surveillance Study of Urinary Tract Isolates from Outpatients: Comparison of the Activities of Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole, Ampicillin, Mecillinam, Nitrofurantoin, and Ciprofloxacin

George G Zhanel 1,2,3,4,*, James A Karlowsky 1,2,4, Godfrey K M Harding 1,5, Anita Carrie 2, Tony Mazzulli 6,7, Donald E Low 6,7; The Canadian Urinary Isolate Study Group, Daryl J Hoban 1,4
PMCID: PMC89821  PMID: 10722520

Abstract

Ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, mecillinam, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin mean resistance rates for 2,000 urinary tract isolates collected from outpatients across Canada in 1998 were 41.1, 19.2, 14.7, 5.0, and 1.8%, respectively. For Escherichia coli isolates alone (n = 1,681) comparable rates were 41.0, 18.9, 7.4, 0.1, and 1.2%, respectively. The majority of E. coli isolates resistant to ampicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or ciprofloxacin were susceptible (MIC, <16 μg/ml) to mecillinam.


Ampicillin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT) resistance among urinary tract isolates has recently been reported with an increased frequency in Canada and the United States (13, 5, 11; R. Davidson, J. Fuller, T. Mazzulli, S. Porter-Pong, A. McGreer, and D. E. Low, Abstr. 38th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. E-34, 1998; T. Mazzulli, M. Skulnick, G. Small, D. E. Low, W. Marshall, D. Hoban, G. G. Zhanel, and S. Finn, Abstr. 38th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. E-38, 1998; G. G. Zhanel, A. S. Gin, A. Kabani, D. J. Hoban, and L. E. Nicolle, Abstr. 36th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. E-17, 1996). Escherichia coli remains the principal causative pathogen of urinary tract infections in both outpatients and inpatients (46, 13; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). As many as 30 and 50% of E. coli isolates from urinary tract infections of outpatients and inpatients, respectively, have been reported to be resistant to ampicillin (3, 5, 10; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). Reports of the prevalence of E. coli resistant to SXT vary considerably, with values ranging from 9% to more than 40% (3, 11; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). Presently, SXT is frequently the treatment of choice for uncomplicated urinary tract infection in Canada and the United States (4, 5). Nitrofurantoin, β-lactams such as amoxicillin, and fluoroquinolones such as ciprofloxacin are also prescribed to treat urinary tract infections of outpatients (4, 5). Reported SXT resistance rates in urinary tract isolates suggest that a reevaluation of first- and second-line therapies may be necessary.

A recent pilot study conducted at a single clinical microbiology laboratory serving a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Canada reported significant resistance to the first- and second-line therapies SXT and ampicillin for 258 urinary tract isolates (11). The goal of the present study was to assess the activity of relevant antibiotics against urinary tract isolates obtained from outpatients at other centers across Canada to determine if similar resistance patterns existed.

(This work was presented in part at the 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, Calif., 24 to 27 September 1998.)

From January to September 1998, 10 tertiary-care hospital microbiology laboratories (listed in the Appendix) from across Canada each collected, for study, bacterial isolates from 200 consecutive outpatients with urinary tract infections. All isolates were deemed significant urinary tract pathogens by individual laboratory criteria and identified to the species level by each laboratory's existing protocols. Isolates were transported to the coordinating laboratory (Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada) on Amies charcoal swabs. Only one isolate per patient was accepted. Upon receipt, isolates were cultured by the coordinating laboratory, stocked in skim milk, and stored at −70°C awaiting reference antibiotic susceptibility testing. Elementary demographic information was also compiled for each isolate.

Susceptibilities to ampicillin (Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis, Mo.), SXT (Sigma Chemical Company), mecillinam (Leo Pharma Inc., Ajax, Ontario, Canada), nitrofurantoin (Procter & Gamble Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio), and ciprofloxacin (Bayer Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada) were determined using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) M7-A4 broth microdilution method (7). Cation-adjusted Mueller-Hinton broth (Ca2+, 25 μg/ml; Mg2+, 12.5 μg/ml) microdilution panels were prepared by the coordinating laboratory to contain antimicrobial doubling dilution concentrations appropriate for each agent tested (7, 8). Each final panel well volume was 100 μl with a bacterial inoculum of 5 × 105 CFU/ml (7). Panels were read following 16 to 20 h of incubation at 35°C in ambient air (7). The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of antimicrobial inhibiting visible growth (7). The ampicillin, SXT, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin resistance breakpoints used were those published by the NCCLS (8). The mecillinam susceptibility and resistance breakpoints used were <16 and ≥16 μg/ml, respectively. Resistance rates were compared using analysis of variance calculations, with statistical significance defined as a P value of <0.05.

The 2,000 urinary tract isolates from outpatients included 1,681 (84.1%) E. coli isolates, 75 (3.8%) Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates, 56 (2.8%) Enterococcus sp. isolates, 51 (2.6%) Proteus mirabilis isolates, 27 (1.4%) Staphylococcus saprophyticus isolates, 17 Enterobacter cloacae (1.9%) isolates, 14 Pseudomonas aeruginosa (0.7%) isolates, 10 β-hemolytic streptococcus group B (0.5%) isolates, and 69 (3.5%) isolates of other organisms, including 9 coagulase-negative staphylococcus, 8 Citrobacter freundii, 8 Enterobacter aerogenes, 7 Staphylococcus aureus, 6 Citrobacter koseri, 5 Staphylococcus epidermidis, 4 Morganella morganii, 4 Serratia marsescens, 2 Acinetobacter baumanii, 2 Acinetobacter lwoffi, 2 Citrobacter amalonaticus, 2 Citrobacter diversus, 2 Enterobacter agglomerans, 2 Flavobacterium odoratum, 2 Klebsiella oxytoca, 2 Providencia stuartii, and 2 Pseudomonas fluorescens isolates. The 2,000 isolates were collected from 1,643 (82.1%) female and 357 (17.9%) male outpatients. The mean age for all outpatients was 43.2 years (range, 3 months to 97 years).

The mean rates of resistance (for all 2,000 isolates) to ampicillin, SXT, mecillinam, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin were 41.1% (range, 35.5 to 47.0%), 19.2% (range, 17.0 to 21.5%), 14.7% (range, 12.5 to 16.5%), 5.0% (range, 4.0 to 6.0%), and 1.8% (range, 1.5 to 2.0%), respectively. Significant differences (P > 0.05) in resistance rates between results from the 10 study centers were not detected (data not shown).

Susceptibilities to each antibiotic are presented in Table 1 as MIC ranges, MICs at which 50% of the isolates tested were inhibited (MIC50s) and MICs at which 90% of the isolates tested were inhibited (MIC90s). Considering all isolates, there were significantly (P < 0.05) lower rates of resistance to mecillinam than to either ampicillin or SXT, while ciprofloxacin and nitrofurantoin resistance rates were both significantly (P < 0.05) lower than those for ampicillin, SXT, and mecillinam (Table 1). For the 1,681 isolates of E. coli, the mean rates of resistance to ampicillin, SXT, mecillinam, ciprofloxacin, and nitrofurantoin were 41.0, 18.9, 7.4, 1.2, and 0.1%, respectively (Table 1). The mecillinam resistance rate for E. coli was significantly (P < 0.05) lower than those of ampicillin and SXT, while there were again significantly (P < 0.05) lower rates of resistance to ciprofloxacin and nitrofurantoin than to ampicillin, SXT, and mecillinam (Table 1). MIC and resistance rate data are also provided in Table 1 for K. pneumoniae, Enterococcus spp., P. mirabilis, and S. saprophyticus.

TABLE 1.

In vitro activities of antibiotics tested against 2,000 urinary tract isolates from outpatients

Isolate(s) (n) and antibiotic MIC50 (μg/ml) MIC90 (μg/ml) Range (μg/ml) % Resistanta
All (2,000)
 Ampicillin 4 >512 ≤0.5–>512 41.0
 Ciprofloxacin ≤0.03 0.12 ≤0.03–32 1.8
 Mecillinam 4 64 ≤0.5–>512 14.7
 Nitrofurantoin 16 32 ≤2–>512 5.0
 SXT 0.12 >64 ≤0.06–128 19.2
E. coli (1,681)
 Ampicillin 4 >512 ≤0.5–>512 41.0
 Ciprofloxacin ≤0.03 ≤0.03 ≤0.03–32 1.2
 Mecillinam 1 16 ≤0.5–>512 7.4
 Nitrofurantoin 16 32 ≤2–>512 0.1
 SXT 0.12 >64 ≤0.06–128 18.9
K. pneumoniae (75)
 Ampicillin 32 128 8–>512 65.6
 Ciprofloxacin ≤0.03 0.12 ≤0.03–32 1.3
 Mecillinam 1 64 ≤0.5–>512 17.8
 Nitrofurantoin 64 128 4–512 18.7
 SXT 0.12 0.5 ≤0.06–128 8.0
Enterococcus spp. (56)
 Ampicillin ≤0.05 1 ≤0.5–256 4.5
 Ciprofloxacin 1 >16 ≤0.03–32 19.6
 Mecillinam 256 512 1–>512 90.1
 Nitrofurantoin 8 16 4–64 0
 SXT 0.06 32 ≤0.06–128 17.9
P. mirabilis (51)
 Ampicillin 1 64 ≤0.5–>512 11.9
 Ciprofloxacin 0.03 0.06 ≤0.03–0.25 0
 Mecillinam 64 256 ≤0.5–>512 76.5
 Nitrofurantoin 128 128 4–128 76.5
 SXT 0.12 >64 ≤0.06–128 17.5
S. saprophyticus (27)
 Ampicillin ≤0.05 32 ≤0.5–32 15.8
 Ciprofloxacin 0.25 0.5 0.06–0.5 0
 Mecillinam 8 32 ≤0.5–32 48.1
 Nitrofurantoin 8 16 4–32 0
 SXT ≤0.06 2 ≤0.06–2 0
a

Resistance breakpoints used were those defined by NCCLS M100-S9 (8). They are as follows: for ampicillin, ≥32 μg/ml; for ciprofloxacin, ≥4 μg/ml; for nitrofurantoin, ≥128 μg/ml; and for SXT, ≥4/76 μg/ml. The mecillinam resistance breakpoint used was ≥16 μg/ml. 

The activities of antibiotics against ampicillin-, SXT-, and ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli are depicted in Table 2. Against ampicillin-resistant, SXT-resistant, and ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli, the rates of resistance to nitrofurantoin were lowest. Concurrent resistance to mecillinam (MIC, ≥16 μg/ml) among ampicillin-, SXT-, or ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli was present in less than 15% of isolates. Ampicillin and SXT did not demonstrate activity against ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

In vitro activities and MIC distributions of five different antibiotics tested against ampicillin-, SXT-, and ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates of E. coli

E. coli isolate group (n) and antibiotic MIC50 (μg/ml) MIC90 (μg/ml) Range (μg/ml) % Resistanta No. of isolates inhibited by MIC (μg/ml) of:
≤0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 >512
Ampicillin-resistant (689)
 Ampicillin 512 >512 32–>512 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 18 46 190 204 220
 Ciprofloxacin ≤0.03 ≤0.03 ≤0.03–32 2.0 643 9 3 6 0 14 0 0 5 2 7
 Mecillinam 4 64 ≤0.5–>512 14.8 75 75 35 287 115 27 5 12 19 9 21 9
 Nitrofurantoin 16 16 4–128 0.2 0 9 149 473 48 9 1 0 0 0
 SXT 0.5 >64 ≤0.06–128 35.7 155 71 79 100 26 12 6 5 0 8 4 223
SXT-resistant (317)
 Ampicillin 256 >512 2–>512 79.6 0 0 26 18 20 0 0 5 18 74 69 86
 Ciprofloxacin ≤0.03 0.25 ≤0.03–32 6.3 282 0 3 3 0 9 0 1 3 7 9
 Mecillinam 4 64 ≤0.5–>512 15.1 82 36 27 83 41 10 0 7 8 8 7 8
 Nitrofurantoin 16 32 ≤2–64 0 4 3 57 180 68 5 0 0 0 0
 SXT >64 >64 4–128 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 8 5 8 286
Ciprofloxacin-resistant (20)
 Ampicillin 512 512 4–512 90 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 0
 Ciprofloxacin 16 >16 4–32 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 9
 Mecillinam 2 16 ≤0.5–16 10 3 4 3 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Nitrofurantoin 16 32 2–32 0 4 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 0
 SXT >64 >64 8–128 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19
a

Resistance breakpoints used were those defined by NCCLS M100-S9 (8). They were as follows: for ampicillin ≥32 μg/ml; for ciprofloxacin, ≥4 μg/ml; for nitrofurantoin, ≥128 μg/ml; and for SXT, ≥4/76 μg/ml. The mecillinam resistance breakpoint used was ≥16 μg/ml. 

Table 2 also displays the distributions of the MICs of the different antibiotics for ampicillin-, SXT-, and ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli. MICs for ampicillin-resistant isolates were generally from 128 to >512 μg/ml. The MICs for mecillinam-resistant isolates were not densely clustered around a single value, as MICs ranged from 16 to >512 μg/ml (data not shown). The MICs for ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates were evenly distributed from 4 to >16 μg/ml (Table 2). The MICs for nitrofurantoin-resistant isolates clustered around the resistance breakpoint at 128 μg/ml (Table 2). The MICs for SXT-resistant isolates were clustered in small numbers around the resistance breakpoint of 4 μg/ml; however, for the majority of resistant isolates the MICs of SXT were higher, being ≥64 μg/ml (Table 2).

Enterobacteriaceae (E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. mirabilis) were the most common among the pathogens isolated in this study, followed by gram-positive cocci (Enterococcus spp. and S. saprophyticus). These data are consistent with recently published studies (3; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). All previous reports as well as the present study have documented that E. coli is the principal pathogen responsible for urinary tract infections of outpatients (3, 5; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC).

The present study demonstrated that the prevalence of ampicillin (41.0%) and SXT (19.2%) resistance among urinary tract isolates recently collected from outpatients in Canada was high. These data are consistent with recently published reports (13, 5, 11; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC; Zhanel et al., 36th ICAAC) and suggest that the prevalence of ampicillin and SXT resistance among urinary tract isolates from outpatients is increasing. The data also support recommendations made in previous studies (1, 3, 11; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC) that suggest nitrofurantoin or ciprofloxacin may be more effective than SXT or amoxicillin in the empiric treatment of urinary tract infections of outpatients. However, the clinical relevance of SXT-resistant E. coli and its association with clinical failure is presently unknown (4, 5).

The activity of ampicillin against urinary tract isolates from outpatients in general as well as against SXT-resistant (79.6% resistance) and ciprofloxacin-resistant (90.0% resistance) E. coli isolates, specifically, was shown to be limited (Table 2). These data, in addition to other recent reports, highlight the continued deterioration of ampicillin activity against urinary tract pathogens, especially against isolates with concurrent resistance to other antibiotics (3, 11; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC). SXT resistance was common among all isolates tested, and rates of SXT resistance for ampicillin-resistant E. coli (35.7% resistance) and ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli (100% resistance) were high. These data confirm reports of increasing SXT resistance (3, 11; Davidson et al., 38th ICAAC; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). Nitrofurantoin and ciprofloxacin demonstrated excellent in vitro activity against both ampicillin- and SXT-resistant E. coli (Table 2).

Mecillinam, a β-lactam antibiotic that was introduced into clinical use in the United States and Canada in 1985, was also tested in this study, as it has previously demonstrated notable activity against gram-negative urinary tract pathogens (9, 11; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC). Mecillinam's mechanism of action against E. coli and, presumably, other gram-negative bacilli differs from those of other β-lactam antibiotics in that its primary target is penicillin-binding protein 2, an enzyme critical to the establishment and maintenance of bacillary cell shape (9, 10). Mecillinam demonstrated a level of activity superior to the activities of both ampicillin and SXT (P < 0.05) against all isolates tested, and ampicillin-, SXT-, and ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli demonstrated low levels of resistance to this drug (Table 2). Mecillinam, administered as its prodrug pivmecillinam, has been reported to be an effective agent for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections of outpatients (6). The observations that mecillinam demonstrated activity superior to that demonstrated by SXT, the current antibiotic of choice for the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections of outpatients (4, 5), and was active against ciprofloxacin-resistant E. coli indicate that its role in the treatment of urinary tract infections needs to be reassessed.

In conclusion, increasing resistance to both ampicillin and SXT is being reported for urinary tract isolates in both Canada and the United States (1, 3, 5, 11; Mazzulli et al., 38th ICAAC; Zhanel et al., 36th ICAAC) and suggests that a reevaluation of first- and second-line therapies for the treatment of urinary tract infections of outpatients may be necessary.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Leo Pharma Inc. and in part by Bayer Inc. and Procter & Gamble Inc. G. G. Zhanel is the MRC/Merck Chair in Pharmaceutical Microbiology.

We thank M. Wegrzyn for expert secretarial support.

Appendix

The members of the Canadian Urinary Isolate Study Group and their participating laboratories were P. Kibsey, Victoria General Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; D. L. Roscoe, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; A. P. Gibb, Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; R. Rennie, University of Alberta Hospitals, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; J. Blondeau, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; G. K. M. Harding, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; G. G. Zhanel and D. J. Hoban, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; J. Dubois, Universitaire de Sante de l'Estrie, Sherbrook, Quebec, Canada; V. Loo, Montreal General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and M. Laverdiere, Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Cormican M, Morris D, Corbett-Feeney G, Flynn J. Extended spectrum beta-lactamase production and fluoroquinolone resistance in pathogens associated with community acquired urinary tract infections. Diagn Micobiol Infect Dis. 1998;32:317–319. doi: 10.1016/s0732-8893(98)00113-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dornbusch K, King A, Legakis N. Incidence of antibiotic resistance in blood and urine isolates from hospitalized patients. Report from a European collaborative study group on antibiotic resistance (ESGAR) Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30:281–288. doi: 10.1080/00365549850160945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gupta K A, Scholes D, Stamm W E. Increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens causing acute uncomplicated cystitis in women. JAMA. 1999;281:736–738. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.8.736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Harding G K M, Field S, MacMahon R, Louie T, Zhanel G G the Prairie Consensus Conference Group. The antibiotic puzzle: guidelines for the family physician. Can J Infect Dis. 1997;8(Suppl. C):1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hooton T M, Stamm W E. Diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 1997;11:551–581. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5520(05)70373-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Menday P. Comparison of pivmecillinam and cephalexin in acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1999;44(Suppl. A):103. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(99)00118-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. 4th ed. 1997. Approved standard M7-A4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; ninth informational supplement. Vol. 18 1999. , no. 1. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Neu H C. Synergy of mecillinam, a beta-amidinopenicillanic acid derivative, combined with beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976;10:535–542. doi: 10.1128/aac.10.3.535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Spratt B G. The mechanism of action of mecillinam. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1977;3(Suppl. B):13–19. doi: 10.1093/jac/3.suppl_b.13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhanel G G, Karlowsky J A, Schwartz B, Jensen S B, Hoban D J. Mecillinam activity compared to ampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ciprofloxacin and nitrofurantoin against urinary tract isolates of Gram-negative bacilli. Chemotherapy. 1998;44:391–396. doi: 10.1159/000007149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES