Urogenital Infections and Inflammations

T.E. Bjerklund Johansen, F. M.E. Wagenlehner, Y.-H. Cho, T. Matsumoto, J. N. Krieger, D. Shoskes, K. Naber

MRSA in urology

 Satoshi Takahashi 1


1 Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the main pathogen in healthcare-associated infections (HAI) worldwide, especially in hospitals and long-term care facilities. In the field of urology, however, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on MRSA infections. Therefore, urological infections caused by MRSA need to be examined more carefully in clinical trials, because urinary tract infections (UTI) and surgical site infections (SSI) caused by MRSA are both important HAI. Treatment of MRSA infection is usually empirical, but complete eradication of MRSA from the urinary tract is difficult because of complicating factors, such as indwelling catheters. There have been, however, no randomized clinical trials on treatment of the various MRSA infections in urological diseases to date. In recent years, community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) has been noted as an emerging pathogen causing SSI in the community. Therefore, we should know how to diagnose and treat such SSI caused by CA-MRSA, although they have been rare in the field of urology.


Summary of recommendations

Epidemology

1. If the rate of MRSA infections is high or increasing, active surveillance is recommended to prevent outbreaks (GoR B).

Pathogenesis of UTI caused by MRSA

2. Considering the multifactorial conditions of UTI caused by MRSA and their toxins further research on pathogenesis of MRSA UTI is needed (GoR C).

3. The potential reservoir of urinary MRSA for healthcare-associated infections (HAI) needs to be considered (GoR B).

Biofilm

4. Two virulence factors, beta-hemolysin and fibronectin-binding protein A, should be recognized in biofilm formation, because they are suggested to be associated with MRSA colonization and infection of the urinary tract (GoR C).

5. Clarithromycin could be considered for combination therapy because it has an inhibitory effect on the glycocalyx and biofilm formation of MRSA (GoR C).

MRSA in surgical site infections

6. The clinical relevance of SSIs caused by MRSA should be perceived, because the isolation rate of MRSA from SSIs was unchanged with regard to duration and type of antimicrobial prophylaxis (GoR B).

7. Preoperative urine culture could be critical for surveillance of MRSA, because MRSA isolated from wounds often correspond to that found in preoperative urine culture. Therefore, preoperative urine culture is also recommended, to exclude MRSA bacteriuria as a risk factor for SSIs in urological surgery (GoR B).

Treatment

8. Glycopeptides could be used for treatment of MRSA UTI, although there is a lack of data on the treatment outcome and there are not enough data on their cost, toxicity and their availability (GoR C).

9. Daptomycin, a new lipopeptide antimicrobial agent, could be used as an alternative treatment option, because it is considered to be as effective as linezolid or vancomycin (GoR C).

10. In an in vitro study, vancomycin or rifampicin was ineffective in reducing biofilm formation and combined with linezolid both were also ineffective (GoR C).

11. Clarithromycin could be an alternative treatment for MRSA biofilm infection because it has an inhibitory action on the glycocalyx and biofilm of MRSA (GoR C).

12. Combination therapy with vancomycin and clarithromycin might be an alternative treatment option because of their efficacy in UTI caused by MRSA (GoR C).

Community- versus healthcare-acquired MRSA (CA- versus HA-MRSA)

13. Genetic markers can be an important diagnostic tool, because use of genetic markers may make it possible to discriminate between CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA (GoR A).

14. Daptomycin and tigecycline can be used for skin and soft-tissue infections caused by CA-MRSA, because double-blinded clinical trials revealed that daptomycin and tigecycline were equally effective for skin and soft-tissue infections by CA-MRSA (GoR A).

Prevention

15. For the purpose of preventing UTI and SSI caused by MRSA, specific recommendations should be deveoped although there are several educational guidelines for the prevention of UTI and SSI in general (GoR A).

1 Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is part of the normal flora on the human skin and in the nasal cavity. To date, various multidrug resistant (MDR) bacterial pathogens have been identified and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is one of the most important. MDR bacterial organisms have been mostly isolated in hospitals or long-term care facilities causing healthcare-associated infections (HAI). MRSA was first isolated in the United Kingdom in 1961 [1], [2] and has become widespread worldwide since then. In Japan, healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) infection, including urinary tract infection (UTI) and surgical site infection (SSI), became an issue of clinical importance especially during the period 1980 to 1990. At that time, there were occasional outbreaks of HA-MRSA not only in intensive care units but also in urology wards. Although frequent outbreaks of HA-MRSA in the urology field have occurred rarely in Japan in recent years, the isolation rate of MRSA in the urological field has been either unchanged or increasing [3], [4], [5] despite implementation of the standard precautions advocated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the United States. In this chapter, reports on mainly HA-MRSA isolated from urine or surgical sites in the urology field are reviewed and discussed.

2 Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed with the following keywords: MRSA and urinary tract infection, MRSA and biofilm, MRSA and surgical site infection, MRSA and genital infection, community-associated MRSA and genital infection, MRSA and skin and soft tissue infection, MRSA and balanoposthitis, and keywords above and treatment. Only English publications and Japanese publications with english abstracts were considered. Publications on other infections, such as pneumonia, sepsis and blood stream infection were excluded from the analysis. A total of 8,997 publications were found, which were screened by title and abstract, and finally 32 were included in the analysis.

The studies were rated according to the level of evidence (LoE) and the grade of recommendation (GoR) using ICUD standards (for details see Preface) [6].

3 Definition

MRSA is defined as strains of S. aureus resistant to isoxaszoyl penicillins, such as methicillin and oxacillin. The definition of MRSA should be made according to clinical background at isolation and microbiological characteristic findings. In this chapter, MRSA is defined according to the clinical background or situation at isolation because we focused on clinical MRSA infection. We define both healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) and community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) mostly according to the guidelines developed by the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy [7]. We mainly focus on HA-MRSA, except in the section on CA-MRSA.

4 Healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA)

The pattern of transmission is dissemination within healthcare settings. Most HA-MRSA strains are diagnosed in inpatient settings. In general, the medical history shows the history of MRSA colonization, infection, recent surgery, antibiotic use and admission to a hospital or nursing home. When infection occurs in hospitals or healthcare settings, it is hospital or healthcare onset. When it occurs in the community e.g. after hospital discharge, it is community onset [6].

5 Community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA)

The transmission pattern is just community-associated (CA). Diagnosis is done in outpatient or community settings. Medical history shows no significant history or healthcare contact. When infection occurs in an outpatient or community setting, it means community onset. When it occurs within 48 hours of hospital admission, it means hospital onset. Medical history shows no history of MRSA and patients do not have indwelling catheters [6] (LoE 4, GoR A). However, because S. aureus can persist for a longer duration, community-onset infections with possible CA-MRSA may indeed be caused by HA-MRSA.

6 MRSA in urinary tract infection

6.1 Epidemiology

The frequency of S. aureus urinary tract infections (UTI), mostly MRSA, has been gradually growing and it is a clinically important issue for HAI worldwide [8], [9]. In particular, bloodstream infection and pneumonia due to MRSA have been frequently observed [10]. The colonization with MRSA might be common in long term care facilities which relates to the relatively high prevalence in patients admitted to acute care geriatric departments (7.6%) compared to the acute care admission prevalence (2.2%) in other departments [11] (LoE 3).

In a report on the isolation rate of UTI bacterial pathogens for urology inpatients in Kobe, Japan [5], the prevalence rates of isolated urinary S. aureus were 1.9% from 1983 to 1987, 4.6% from 1988 to 1992, 5.3% from 1993 to 1997, and 6.6% from 1998 to 2002. The rate showed an increasing trend in the past years. The authors noted that the rate of MRSA showed a similar increasing trend and accounted for 82.2% of the entire S. aureus population in 2002 (LoE 3).

In a report examining how to determine the number of newly diagnosed cases of MRSA detected in a urology ward in Portsmouth, UK [12], the ratios of the number of newly diagnosed MRSA cases to total urological admissions were 0.82 in 2000, 0.89 in 2001, 1.00 in 2002, 0.67 in 2003, and 0.79 in 2004. The origins of isolates were urinary indwelling devices and urine, including three catheters, six nephrostomy tips, 19 suprapubic catheter tips, six urine samples from catheter, and 11 midstream urine samples. Other origins were wounds, nose, genitalia, groin, blood cultures, leg ulcers, sputum, and bronchoscopic lavage fluid. The proportion of MRSA isolates of urinary origin was 38.8% (45 of 116). They concluded that the number of new cases of MRSA remained constant and low acquisition rates were found (LoE 3).

The isolation rates of urinary MRSA varied among hospitals and facilities. Therefore we should track the isolation rates of urinary MRSA by surveillance of urinary pathogens and undertake standard precautions to prevent MRSA outbreaks (GoR B). If the rate of MRSA infection is relatively high or increasing, active surveillance cultures might be needed for effective prevention of outbreaks [13] (LoE 1a, GoR B).

6.2 Virulence in urinary tract

S. aureus strains, including MRSA (57%), isolated from patients with UTI were analyzed, and the prevalence of toxins and adhesion factors were determined [14]. Staphylococcal enterotoxin (SE) A (63%), SE D (20%), toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (8.5%) and staphylococcal bicomponent leukotoxin LukE/LukD (60%) were produced by the isolates. In addition, S. aureus UTI has been found to be associated with implanted catheters and biomaterials. Adhesin factors, including clumping factor B (clfb), elastin-binding protein (ebp) and laminin-binding protein (lbp) are possibly involved in colonization on urinary catheters. In general, the pathogenesis of urinary MRSA is multifactorial and toxins causing UTI have not been clearly determined yet (LoE 3).

In a cohort study at a long-term care Veterans Affairs facility [15], 82% of 102 patients had urinary tract catheterization. In addition, 33% of the patients had symptomatic UTI with initial isolation of S. aureus and 13% were bacteremic. In this study, 86% of the initial urine cultures were MRSA-positive. Persistent carriers of urinary MRSA colonization were found to be at high risk for subsequent UTI and bacteremia. Therefore, the pathogenesis of urinary MRSA might be associated with urinary indwelling catheters and there was a relatively high prevalence of asymptomatic patients with urinary MRSA. In the patients with asymptomatic urinary MRSA, we should be aware of urinary MRSA being a potential reservoir for HAI (LoE 2, GoR B).

In a recent review of the pathogenesis of MRSA [16], selected virulence factors of S. aureus were investigated. Microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules (MSCRAMMs) are important surface proteins that can bind molecules such as collagen, fibronectin, and fibrinogen. MSCRAMMs might initiate catheter infections as well as endocarditis, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis and prosthetic-device infections. According to Muder et al. [16] there are no specific risk factors for UTI caused by MRSA except for urinary catheter or instrumentation (LoE 1a). The virulence of MRSA in the urinary tract depends on urinary catheters or instruments. Therefore UTI caused by MRSA can always be considered as complicated UTI. There are no definite virulence factors of MRSA reported for uncomplicated UTI to date.

6.3 Biofilm

Although there are relatively many patients with asymptomatic urinary MRSA, it rarely leads to severe systemic infection or febrile UTI, but occasionally it can lead to serious bacteremia. Biofilm formation in the urinary tract or on a urinary indwelling device is considered the main cause for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU). The mechanisms of biofilm formation in the urinary tract or on the urinary indwelling device [17] are as follows: once bacterial adhesion is completed on the surface of a foreign body such as a urinary catheter, a glycocalyx consisting of polysaccharides is produced outside the bacterial cells. Finally, the condition results in biofilm formation. The biofilm is considered to be antimicrobial-resistant, allowing bacteria to escape the host defense against infection and to escape the actions of antimicrobials. Two virulence factors, beta-hemolysin and fibronectin-binding protein A, were suggested to be associated with MRSA colonization and infection of the urinary tract [18] (LoE 2b). In an experimental study [17], the results suggested that clarithromycin had an inhibitory action on the glycocalyx and biofilm of MRSA (LoE 2b).

7 MRSA in surgical site infections

SSIs are strongly associated with morbidity and mortality for inpatients as HAI occur despite standard precautions. SSIs caused by MRSA are common in urology wards [3], [19]. Two transmission manners are hypothesized. One is preoperative dissemination from MRSA bacteriuria, with MRSA endogenously transmitted from the urinary tract to the wound. The other is exogenous contact transmission from hand to hand by the medical staff.

In a study [3], [4] on SSIs of open urological operations, the results showed that the most frequently isolated pathogen was MRSA. The isolation rate of MRSA from SSIs was unchanged regarding duration and type of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The frequencies of MRSA isolation from SSI were 73.3% in an uncontrolled antimicrobial prophylaxis group and 93.3% in a controlled antimicrobial prophylaxis group (LoE 2b). In addition, SSIs for radical cystectomy with urinary diversion using the small intestine, considered a contaminated operation by the CDC guidelines, were surveyed and reported [19]. The results showed that the overall incidence of SSIs was 33% and MRSA was the most frequently isolated bacterium, accounting for 38% of the isolated pathogens. This study showed that MRSA isolated from wounds tended to correspond to that in preoperative infected urine (LoE 3). Another report [20] also showed that MRSA was frequently associated with SSI of open urological surgery and preoperative UTI was the most important risk factor for SSI (LoE 3).

There have been a few reports about SSIs of urological surgeries according to the classification of the CDC guideline; however, those reports indicated that MRSA was the organism most frequently isolated from wound SSIs. Preoperative MRSA bacteriuria is considered to be one of the risk factors for SSIs in urological surgery (LoE 3). As we know, the rate of SSI in clean or clean-contaminated surgery is much lower than that in contaminated surgery [3], [21]. Therefore, SSIs of urological surgeries caused by MRSA are mainly related to contaminated surgery such as radical cystectomy with urinary diversion as described in previous reports [3], [19], [20]. Unfortunately, no effective antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen against SSI caused by MRSA has been established yet. Because MRSA isolation rates are highly variable among medical centers, not every urologist may have a problem with SSI caused by MRSA. However, since MRSA is an important pathogen in HAI, we should establish effective standard precautions.

8 Treatment

Surprisingly few studies of antimicrobial treatment for UTI caused by MRSA have been performed to date. Applicable anti-MRSA drugs are generally likely to vary in each country or region. In addition, the frequency of uncomplicated UTI caused by MRSA is not high enough to establish a standard treatment regimen. In Japan, there are five applicable antimicrobial agents for MRSA infection, including UTI: vancomycin, teicoplanin, arbekacin, linezolid, and daptomycin. Regrettably, there have been no randomized controlled studies with these antimicrobial agents [22] although such studies might lead to favorable treatment outcomes.

In the guidelines of the United Kingdom [23], tetracycline is recommended as the first-line treatment regimen for UTI caused by susceptible MRSA. The guidelines state that there is a lack of data on the treatment outcomes of glycopeptides for UTI caused by MRSA and not enough data on their cost, toxicity and the availability of other agents. Therefore, well designed basic, clinical and epidemiological studies on UTI caused by MRSA are needed (LoE 4, GoR C). In patients with MRSA bacteremia due to severe febrile UTI, a minimum treatment duration of 14 days with glycopeptides or linezolid is recommended in the guidelines [Liu et al. 2011 CID-IDSA guidelines].

In an in vitro study daptomycin, a lipopeptide antibiotic [24], was considered to be as effective as linezolid or vancomycin (LoE 2b, GoR C). Unfortunately, there has been no clinical study with daptomycin in the field of urology, so it should be studied in clinical trials in the future.

In the clinical situation, it is almost impossible to eradicate urinary MRSA completely from the catheterized urinary tract. Exchange of the urinary catheter is one possible procedure to eradicate urinary MRSA, but the complicated urinary tract condition generally makes eradication of MRSA difficult, because it is closely associated with biofilm formation on the urinary catheter. An in vitro study [25] revealed that treatment with vancomycin or rifampicin to reduce biofilm growth was ineffective and treatment with linezolid was also ineffective [26] (LoE 2b, GoR C). Another study [17] revealed that clarithromycin had an inhibitory action on the glycocalyx and biofilm of MRSA and that combination therapy with vancomycin and clarithromycin might be efficacious for UTI caused by MRSA (LoE 2b, GoR C).

To date, there have been no well performed clinical trials for the treatment of UTI caused by HA-MRSA or for the inhibition of MRSA biofilm formation on urinary catheters. Current treatments for these conditions tend to be in general empirical.

9 CA-MRSA

CA-MRSA has been especially noted as a pathogen causing skin and soft-tissue infections in the community. In the field of urology, a few special genital or perineal infections might be related to CA-MRSA. However, there has been an epidemic of CA-MRSA in recent years. Therefore, we should know how to diagnose and treat the skin and soft-tissue infections caused by this pathogen.

Use of genetic markers may make it possible to discriminate between CA- and HA-MRSA [27] (LoE 4, GoR A). In the United States, CA-MRSA has the staphylococcal cassette chromosome (SCC) mec type IV and the gene for Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) [27] (LoE 4, GoR A).

10 Balanoposthitis caused by CA-MRSA

There has been just one published case clearly caused by MRSA to date [28]. The history revealed that in an insulin dependent diabetic male balanoposthitis was caused by HA-MRSA. In contrast we treated one case with balanoposthitis caused by CA-MRSA as determined by clinical history (no inpatient or outpatient history), although SCC mec type IV and the gene for PVL could not be examined (LoE 3, GoR C).

To date, skin infections caused by CA-MRSA have not been a critical issue in urology. However, impetigo, folliculitis, furuncles, and abscesses caused by CA-MRSA are epidemic worldwide. We should be aware that such infections could occur also in urology in the future.

11 Treatment for CA-MRSA skin and soft-tissue infections

There are four US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anti-MRSA drugs: vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, and tigecycline. Vancomycin is a standard drug for SSI caused by CA-MRSA [27]. Therefore, clinical trials were carried out by comparing the other drugs with vancomycin. An open-label clinical trial revealed that the cure rate for CA-MRSA infections was higher in the group treated with linezolid (88.6%) than in that with vancomycin (66.9%) [29]. Double-blinded clinical trials revealed that daptomycin and tigecycline were equally effective for skin and soft-tissue infections caused by CA-MRSA [30], [31] (LoE 1b, GoR A). In addition, oral antimicrobial agents such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline, minocycline, rifampin, clindamycin, and fusidic acid are also recommended; however, clinical trials in the field of urology are lacking.

12 Prevention

 Prevention of both UTI and surgical site infection caused by MRSA is most important especially in the urology ward of healthcare settings. There are several educational guidelines for prevention of UTI and surgical site infection [32], [33] (LoE 1a, GoR A). These guidelines are commonly available for almost all nosocomial pathogens of HAI including HA-MRSA. Although those are not the guidelines for the prevention of particular MRSA transmission, the detailed content can also cover the field of urology. It is strongly recommended that urologists peruse these guidelines.

13 Further research

There is a lack of comprehensive studies of MRSA infection in the field of urology, although UTI caused by MRSA is an important origin of HAI and surgical site infections.

14 Conclusions

Urinary MRSA is a potential reservoir for HAI. If the rate of MRSA infection is high or increasing, active surveillance might be important for effective prevention of outbreaks. The pathogenesis of urinary MRSA is multifactorial and toxins causing urinary tract infections have not been clearly determined yet. MRSA is frequently associated with SSI of open urological surgery and preoperative MRSA bacteriuria is considered to be one of the risk factors for SSIs in urological surgery.

There is a lack of data on the treatment of UTI caused by MRSA with glycopeptides, e.g. vancomycin, and with other agents, such as linezolid and daptomycin. In an in vitro study, treatment with vancomycin, rifampicin, or linezolid was ineffective to reduce biofilm growth. Clarithromycin had an inhibitory effect on the glycocalyx and biofilm of MRSA in contrast to the agents mentioned before. Therefore a combination therapy with vancomycin and clarithromycin might be efficacious for the treatment of UTI caused by MRSA. Daptomycin and tigecycline were equally effective for SSI caused by CA-MRSA. There are several educational guidelines for prevention of UTI and SSI.


References

[1] Jevons MP. “Celbenin”-resistant staphylococci. Br Med J. 1961 Jan 14; 1(5219): 124–5. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.5219.124-a
[2] Jevons MP, Coe AW, Parker MT. Methicillin resistance in staphylococci. Lancet. 1963 Apr 27;1(7287):904-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(63)91687-8
[3] Matsukawa M, Kunishima Y, Takahashi S, Takeyama K, Tsukamoto T. Staphylococcus aureus bacteriuria and surgical site infections by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2001 Apr;17(4):327-9, discussion 329-30. DOI: 10.1016/S0924-8579(00)00358-7
[4] Kyoda Y, Takahashi S, Takeyama K, Masumori N, Tsukamoto T. Decrease in incidence of surgical site infections in contemporary series of patients with radical cystectomy. J Infect Chemother. 2010 Apr;16(2):118-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10156-010-0032-1
[5] Shigemura K, Tanaka K, Okada H, Nakano Y, Kinoshita S, Gotoh A, Arakawa S, Fujisawa M. Pathogen occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of urinary tract infection cases during a 20-year period (1983-2002) at a single institution in Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2005 Oct;58(5):303-8.
[6] Abrams P, Khoury S, Grant A. Evidence-based medicine overview of the main steps for developing and grading guideline recommendations. Prog Urol. 2007 May;17(3):681-4.
[7] Nathwani D, Morgan M, Masterton RG, Dryden M, Cookson BD, French G, Lewis D; British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Working Party on Community-onset MRSA Infections. Guidelines for UK practice for the diagnosis and management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections presenting in the community. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 May;61(5):976-94. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn096
[8] Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Tenover FC, McDonald LC, Horan T, Gaynes R; National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Changes in the epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units in US hospitals, 1992-2003. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;42(3):389-91. DOI: 10.1086/499367
[9] Lescure FX, Biendo M, Douadi Y, Schmit JL, Eveillard M. Changing epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and effects on cross-transmission in a teaching hospital. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006 Mar;25(3):205-7. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-006-0104-4
[10] Kuehnert MJ, Hill HA, Kupronis BA, Tokars JI, Solomon SL, Jernigan DB. Methicillin-resistant-Staphylococcus aureus hospitalizations, United States. Emerging Infect Dis. 2005 Jun;11(6):868-72. DOI: 10.3201/eid1106.040831
[11] Nillius D, von Müller L, Wagenpfeil S, Klein R, Herrmann M. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Saarland, Germany: The Long-Term Care Facility Study. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 13;11(4):e0153030. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153030
[12] Thiruchelvam N, Yeoh SL, Keoghane SR. MRSA in urology: a UK hospital experience. Eur Urol. 2006 May;49(5):896-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.020
[13] Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, Richet HM, Jarvis WR, Boyce JM, Farr BM; SHEA. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003 May;24(5):362-86.
[14] Baba-Moussa L, Anani L, Scheftel JM, Couturier M, Riegel P, Haïkou N, Hounsou F, Monteil H, Sanni A, Prévost G. Virulence factors produced by strains of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from urinary tract infections. J Hosp Infect. 2008 Jan;68(1):32-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.10.010
[15] Muder RR, Brennen C, Rihs JD, Wagener MM, Obman A, Stout JE, Yu VL. Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from the urinary tract: association of isolation with symptomatic urinary tract infection and subsequent staphylococcal bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Jan;42(1):46-50. DOI: 10.1086/498518
[16] Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Pathogenesis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jun;46 Suppl 5:S350-9. DOI: 10.1086/533591
[17] Sano M, Hirose T, Nishimura M, Takahashi S, Matsukawa M, Tsukamoto T. Inhibitory action of clarithromycin on glycocalyx produced by MRSA. J Infect Chemother. 1999 Mar;5(1):10-15. DOI: 10.1007/s101560050002
[18] Ando E, Monden K, Mitsuhata R, Kariyama R, Kumon H. Biofilm formation among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from patients with urinary tract infection. Acta Med Okayama. 2004 Aug;58(4):207-14. DOI: 10.18926/AMO/32090
[19] Takeyama K, Matsukawa M, Kunishima Y, Takahashi S, Hotta H, Nishiyama N, Tsukamoto T. Incidence of and risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with radical cystectomy with urinary diversion. J Infect Chemother. 2005 Aug;11(4):177-81. DOI: 10.1007/s10156-005-0391-1
[20] Hamasuna R, Betsunoh H, Sueyoshi T, Yakushiji K, Tsukino H, Nagano M, Takehara T, Osada Y. Bacteria of preoperative urinary tract infections contaminate the surgical fields and develop surgical site infections in urological operations. Int J Urol. 2004 Nov;11(11):941-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2004.00941.x
[21] Yamamoto S, Kanamaru S, Kunishima Y, Ichiyama S, Ogawa O. Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in urology: a multi-center prospective study. J Chemother. 2005 Apr;17(2):189-97. DOI: 10.1179/joc.2005.17.2.189
[22] Wagenlehner FM, Naber KG. New drugs for Gram-positive uropathogens. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004 Sep;24 Suppl 1:S39-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2004.02.002
[23] Gemmell CG, Edwards DI, Fraise AP, Gould FK, Ridgway GL, Warren RE; Joint Working Party of the British Society for Joint Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Hospital Infection Society and Infection Control Nurses Association. Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Apr;57(4):589-608. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkl017
[24] Wagenlehner FM, Lehn N, Witte W, Naber KG. In vitro activity of daptomycin versus linezolid and vancomycin against gram-positive uropathogens and ampicillin against enterococci, causing complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy. 2005 May;51(2-3):64-9. DOI: 10.1159/000085611
[25] Jones SM, Morgan M, Humphrey TJ, Lappin-Scott H. Effect of vancomycin and rifampicin on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Lancet. 2001 Jan 6;357(9249):40-1. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03572-8
[26] Raad I, Hanna H, Jiang Y, Dvorak T, Reitzel R, Chaiban G, Sherertz R, Hachem R. Comparative activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline against catheter-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus bacteremic isolates embedded in biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 May;51(5):1656-60. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00350-06
[27] Stryjewski ME, Chambers HF. Skin and soft-tissue infections caused by community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Jun;46 Suppl 5:S368-77. DOI: 10.1086/533593
[28] Herieka E, Fisk P. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) balanoposthitis in an insulin dependent diabetic male. Sex Transm Infect. 2001 Jun;77(3):223. DOI: 10.1136/sti.77.3.223
[29] Weigelt J, Itani K, Stevens D, Lau W, Dryden M, Knirsch C; Linezolid CSSTI Study Group. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Jun;49(6):2260-6. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.6.2260-2266.2005
[30] Arbeit RD, Maki D, Tally FP, Campanaro E, Eisenstein BI; Daptomycin 98-01 and 99-01 Investigators. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Jun;38(12):1673-81. DOI: 10.1086/420818
[31] Ellis-Grosse EJ, Babinchak T, Dartois N, Rose G, Loh E; Tigecycline 300 cSSSI Study Group; Tigecycline 305 cSSSI Study Group. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections: results of 2 double-blind phase 3 comparison studies with vancomycin-aztreonam. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Sep;41 Suppl 5:S341-53. DOI: 10.1086/431675
[32] Tenke P, Kovacs B, Bjerklund Johansen TE, Matsumoto T, Tambyah PA, Naber KG. European and Asian guidelines on management and prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008 Feb;31 Suppl 1:S68-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.07.033
[33] Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;20(4):250-78; quiz 279-80. DOI: 10.1086/501620

The ZB MED – Information Center for Life Sciences, Germany, together with the European Association of Urology (EAU) provided the opportunity to publish a “Living Textbook” on “Urogenital Infections and Inflammations” in an open access form. This “Living Textbook” represents also an update of the Textbook on Urogenital Infections published 2010 by the International Consultation on Urological Infections and the EAU: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html.

The “Living Textbook” will cover infections and inflammations of the kidney, the urinary tract, as well as the male and female genital tract considering pathogenesis, diagnostics, treatment, prophylaxis and future aspects. The “Living Textbook” will be structured into about 26 Sections each with two section co-chairs responsible for peer review of the chapters of each section. Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

The editors hope that this “Living Textbook” may become a useful instrument for physicians of different specialties taking care about patients suffering from these diseases.

Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen (Norway),

Florian ME Wagenlehner (Germany),

Yong-Hyun Cho (South Korea),

Tetsuro Matsumoto (Japan),

John N Krieger (USA),

Daniel Shoskes (USA),

Kurt G. Naber (Germany).

Publishing at PUBLISSO

Your chapter will be published at the PUBLISSO platform (https://books.publisso.de).

Information for corresponding authors

It is necessary for all corresponding authors to register at PUBLISSO.
To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

After registration, please complete your user profile. Information from your user profile will appear in the published chapter and the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52). If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.
(If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board, but stay registered, you can disable this feature in your profile settings. In this case, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.)

We kindly ask you to provide the co-authors email addresses in the manuscript so that we can contact them in case of queries.

Information for co-authors

After publication of your chapter, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter.

If you also want to be displayed in the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52), we kindly ask you to register at PUBLISSO. If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.

To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board of the book, you do not have to register. Your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.

Support

If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact the PUBLISSO editorial office:

E-Mail: livingbooks@zbmed.de
Phone: +49 221 478-7093

General

The textbook will be structured in sections with two co-chairs each. Each section will start with an introductory chapter written by the two respective co-chairs presented like an editorial commentary in regard to the following chapters (see proposed contents of the book). The two co-chairs of each section will also peer review all chapters in their section and stimulate a consensus discussion within their section together with the authors and the main editors if needed.

Chapters

Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

Manuscript

Each manuscript should have up to approximately 3,000 words (excluding abstract, tables/figures and references). The abstract should count about 300 words.

Structure

The outline of each chapter should be structured as follows (similar as in the edition 2010, which can be downloaded for free: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html):

  1. Abstract
  2. Summary of recommendations*/key notes*
    (*which ever term is more appropriate)
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Further research
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgement
  9. Conflict of interest of each author
  10. References

Citation style

As a citation style, the Vancouver style is preferred.

Please mark your references in the text with square brackets ([1], [2], ...).

Summary of recommendations

We would like to have the Summary of recommendations at the beginning after the abstract (as in the edition 2010). However, we do not expect as in the edition 2010, that each recommendation is also specified according to Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation, because such a claim would not only need a systematic literature search (see below), but also a structured discussion in a defined group of experts.

Systematic literature search

A systematic literature search should be performed, at least of PUBMED/MEDLINE but ideally of several relevant databases in addition (like Cochrane CENTRAL) to find recent, high quality systematic reviews and/or primary research studies. It is not expected to perform for all chapters a de novo systematic review, if such reviews are already published recently, but it still may be indicated for some items. For questions relating therapy, it should be focused on evidence from (systematic reviews of) randomized controlled trials if available.

The method of the systematic literature search needs to be fully described in the section “Methods”, e.g.:

“A systematic literature search was performed for the last ... (usually 10) years in MEDLINE, Cochrane etc. with the following key words ... and the following limitations: e.g. UTI, age (adult?), ... clinical studies ... English ... abstract available ... only peer reviewed ...

A total of ... publications were identified, which were screened by title and abstract ... After exclusion of duplicates ... a total of ... were included into the review (analysis), supplemented by citations or known to the authors ... ”.

Clinical topics

Clinical topics should be focused on the importance to clinical practice according to the up to date scientific knowledge as presented in the literature. It should relate to questions/complaints/symptoms of patient/population concerning definition, diagnosis, therapy/prevention, intervention, and outcome in comparison, if different approaches are feasible. Please choose patient-important outcomes and focus on those, which you deem critical for decision-making.

Level of evidence and grade of recommendations

Any recommendation should be based on the level of evidence and the grade of recommendation. For this purpose the following system, modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine should be used (EAU guidelines 2015):

Level of evidence (LE)

Level Type of evidence
1a Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials
1b Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial
2a Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomization
2b Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study
3 Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case reports.
4 Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities.

Grade of Recommendations (GoR)

Grade Nature of recommendations
A Based on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations and including at least one randomised trial
B Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials
C Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality

Comments (EAU guidelines 2015)

The aim of assigning a LE and grading recommendations is to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the recommendation given.

It should be noted that when recommendations are graded, the link between the level of evidence and grade of recommendation is not directly linear. Availability of randomized controlled trials may not necessarily translate into a grade “A” recommendation where there are methodological limitations or disparity in published results.

Alternatively, absence of high level evidence does not necessarily preclude a grade A recommendation, if there is overwhelming clinical experience and consensus. In addition, there may be exceptional situations where corroborating studies cannot be performed, perhaps for ethical or other reasons and in this case unequivocal recommendations are considered helpful for the reader. The quality of the underlying scientific evidence - although a very important factor – has to be balanced against benefits and burdens, values and preferences and costs when a grade is assigned.

Since the same rating system should be used in all chapters, for the sake of brevity the same sentence could be used in “Methods” for all manuscripts, because the rating system will be described in details in the Preface of the book:

“The studies were rated according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations graded according to a system used in the EAU guidelines modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine [1].”

References

[1] European Association of Urology. Guidelines. Methodology section. 2015 ed. Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2015. p. 3. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-79754-80-9. Available from: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Extended-Guidelines-2015-Edn..pdf

The Living Handbook of Urogenital Infections and Inflammations is issued by:

European Association of Urology
att. Maurice Schlief, EAU executive manager business affairs

P.O.Box 30016
NL-6803 AA Arnhem, The Netherlands

Phone: 0031-26-38.90.680
E-mail: m.schlief@uroweb.org

Editor in Chief

responsible for the contents according to § 5 TMG and § 55 Abs. 2 RStV (Germany):

Kurt G. Naber, MD, PhD
Assoc. Professor of Urology

Technical University of Munich
Karl-Bickleder-Str. 44c
94315 Straubing, Germany

E-mail: kurt.naber@nabers.de

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington Section of Urology

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Yong-Hyun Cho MD, PhD

St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea Department of Urology

more

Tetsuro Matsumoto MD, PhD

University of Occupational and Environmental Health Department of Urology

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital Urology Department

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Punit Bansal MD, PhD

R G Stone and Super Specialty Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Riccardo Bartoletti

University of Pisa
Department of Translational Research and New Technologies

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital
Urology Department

more

PD Dr. med. Gernot Bonkat

University Basel
alta uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry (COB)

more

Prof. Tommaso Cai MD

Santa Chiara Regional Hospital
Dept. of Urology

more

Dr Leyland Chuang

Ng Teng Fong Hospital, National University Health System
Department of Medicine

more

Prof. Milan Cizman

University Medical Centre
Department of Infectious Diseases

more

Alison Crawford MSc

Queen's University
Department of Psychology

more

Pfofessor Svetlana Dubrovina MD, PhD

Rostov Medical State University
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dr Valerie Huei Li Gan MBBS (S'pore), MRCS (Edin), MMed (Surg), FAMS (Urology)

Singapore General Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Philip Hanno

University of Pennsylvania

more

Ass prof MD Gundela Holmdahl

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Udo B. Hoyme

HELIOS Hospital Erfurt Ltd.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics

more

David Hunstad

Washington University School of Medicine
Pediatrics / Molecular Microbiology

more

Gitte M. Hvistendahl

Aarhus University Hospital

more

Prof. Michael KOGAN M.D., PhD

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Urology

more

Dr Akihiro Kanematsu

Hyogo College of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Frieder Keller

University Hospital Ulm
Department Internal Medicine 1, Nephrology

more

Professor Katarzyna Kilis-Pstrusinska PhD, MD

Wroclaw Medical University
Department of Pediatric Nephrology

more

MD, PhD Tae-Hyoung Kim

Chung-Ang University
Urology

more

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington
Section of Urology

more

Prof Ekaterina Kulchavenya

Novosibirsk Research TB Institute, Novosibirsk State Medical University

more

Dr Christina Kåbjörn Gustafsson

Ryhov Hospital Jönköping
Pathology

more

Dr. Bela Köves

South Pest Teaching Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Dr. med. Giuseppe Magistro

Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich
Department of Urology

more

Vittorio Magri

ASST-North
Urologic Clinic

more

András Magyar

South-Pest Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Professor Emeritus Brian Morris

University of Sydney
School of Medical Sciences

more

Baerbel Muendner-Hensen

ICA-Deutschland e.V.

more

Stephen F. Murphy

Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
Department of Urology

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Prof. Yulia Naboka

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Microbiology

more

Dr. J. Curtis Nickel MD

Queen's University
Department of Urology

more

Professor Ralph Peeker MD PhD

University of Gothenburg
Department of Urology

more

Tamara Perepanova

N.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology

more

Prof. Gianpaolo Perletti M. Clin. Pharmacol.

University of Insubria
Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences

more

Felice Petraglia

Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence
Obstetrics and Gynecology

more

Michel Pontari

Temple University School of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Dr. Jörgen Quaghebeur PhD. Med. Sci.

University Hospital Antwerp and University Antwerp
Department of Urology

more

Yazan F. Rawashdeh

Aarhus University Hospital
Paediatric Urology Section, Department of Urology

more

Professor Claus Riedl MD

-
Urology

more

Matthew Roberts

The University of Queensland
Faculty of Medicine

more

PD Dr. med Guido Schmiemann MPH

Institut für Public Health und Pflegeforschung, Universität Bremen
Abteilung Versorgungsforschung

more

Caroline Schneeberger MD PhD

Academic Medical Center (AMC)

more

Prof. Dr. med. Peter Schneede

Klinikum Memmingen
Department of Urology

more

Aaron C. Shoskes

Des Moines University Medical College of Ostheopathic Medicine

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Prof. Dr. Roswitha Siener

University of Bonn
University Stone Centre, Department of Urology

more

Sofia Sjöström

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Mathew Sorensen

University of Washington School of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Prof. Dr. Dr. Walter Ludwig Strohmaier FEBU

Regiomed-Klinikum Coburg. Medical School Regiomed
Urology and Paediatric Urology

more

Satoshi Takahashi

Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine
Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine

more

Professor Paul Anantharajah Tambyah

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Hospital
Department of Medicine

more

Peter Tenke

Jahn Ferenc South Pest Teaching Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Praveen Thumbikat


Department of Urology

more

Dr. Jose Tiran Saucedo

IMIGO / Universidad de Monterrey
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dominic Tran-Nguyen

Des Moines University

more

Dean Tripp

Queen's University
Psychology, Anesthesia & Urology

more

Prof. SEONGHEON WIE

The Catholic University of Korea, St. Vincent's Hospital
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen
Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Assoc. Prof. Christian Wejse

Aarhus University, Aarhus University Hospital
Department of Infectious Diseases/Center for Global Health, Dept of Public Health

more

Prof. Dr. Mete Çek

Trakya University, School of Medicine
Urology

more