Aims: To describe the uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance patterns in women with singular, sporadic urinary tract infection (UTI) vs those with recurrent UTI (rUTI) in a urogynecologic population. Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of women treated for a UTI by a urogynecologic provider in a 1-year timeframe. Subjects were divided into two groups: (a) sporadic UTI-no history of rUTI and a single infection in the study timeframe and (b) rUTI-history of rUTI and ≥2 UTIs in the study timeframe. Our primary outcome was the difference in uropathogens between groups. Secondary aims were to investigate host characteristics associated with recurrent Escherichia coli infections and resistant uropathogens in the rUTI cohort. Results: We had 265 women with 163 (61.5%) in the sporadic UTI group and 102 (38.5%) in the rUTI group. The most common uropathogens were E. coli (57.3%) and Klebsiella (11.7%). In the rUTI group, only 27 of 102 (26.5%) had all E. coli infections. There were differences between groups regarding age (P = .03) and proportion of neurogenic bladder (P = .01), intermittent self-catheterization (P < .01), antibiotic suppression (P < .01), and vaginal estrogen therapy (P < .01). In the rUTI cohort, there were no risk factors that were significantly associated with recurrent E.coli UTIs and vaginal estrogen therapy was associated with a higher odds of sensitive uropathogens (adjusted odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.28-7.56). Conclusions: In those with rUTI, it was uncommon to have recurring E. coli UTIs and consistently sensitive uropathogens. Pretreatment urine cultures are important to verify causative uropathogens in this population.

No abstract

Introduction and hypothesis We sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with a novel multiplex PCR UTI home collection kit for symptomatic UTI in a urogynecologic population. We secondarily sought to characterize reported uropathogens and resistance profiles of uropathogens in this population. We hypothesized that patients would be satisfied. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of women who were surveyed later about their experience undergoing evaluation for a UTI with a home UTI test at a large tertiary care urogynecology practice in 2020. Symptomatic patients were sent a home UTI kit. We assessed patient satisfaction at a later time with a 5-point Likert scale and collected baseline information. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with this experience. Secondary outcomes included type and number of uropathogens on testing. Results A total of 30 patients [73% white race, mean age 71.9 (SD 12.0) years] were surveyed. Patients responded with a mean score of 4.7/5 to all satisfaction questions. Overall, 86% (26/30) of patients would choose this test again. Of those asked if they would choose this test again outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, 86% responded affirmatively. The most common symptoms reported included dysuria (53%), urgency (37%) and frequency (30%). The most common pathogens identified included Escherichia coli (70%), Enterococcus faecalis (60%) and Aerococcus urinae (43%). Conclusions Patients were satisfied with home UTI PCR testing and the majority would choose this option again. Home UTI PCR testing revealed common uropathogens for a population with a high proportion of recurrent UTI, but additional research comparing home versus in-office urine PCR testing is necessary.

No abstract