Antimicrobials and UTIs: part 2- antimicrobial options (Proceedings)
May 01, 2011
Confirming the need for infection.
The lack of perceived toxicity to antimicrobials has contributed to our willingness to use antibiotics in the absence of convincing data supporting infection. Failure for infection to progress has been interpreted as therapeutic success...even if infection was not present in the first place. There is good reason to avoid indiscriminant antimicrobial use. Therapy can be successful in that an infection is eradicated, but resistance may still develop. However, lack of infection does not preclude the development of resistance when antimicrobials are used. Antimicrobial therapy should be used only when reasonable evidence of infection exists. Generally, a quantitative culture yielding less than 103 CFU/ml can be considered for no treatment unless mitigating circumstances indicate otherwise (ie, clinical signs consistent with UTI, immunesuppression that can lead to worsening of infection etc). In humans, the presence of bacturia is not necessarily an indication of the need for therapy. In order to avoid resistance, treatment generally is not indicated in asymptomatic bacturia except under certain conditions in which the patient is at risk, such as pregnancy, or invasive surgical procedures. On the other hand, bacterial UTI occurs much less frequently in cats than in dogs, and clinical signs indicative of cystitis in cats should not be interpreted as a need for antimicrobial therapy. Finally, culture may fail to identify infecting microbes, particularly if slow growing organisms or those requiring special media are present (eg, Mycoplasma or Ureaplasma).Likewise, for our veterinary medical patients, the risk of emerging resistance must be weighed against the risk of failing to treat. Clearly, if the decision is made to treat a UTI, then therapy must be aggressive, designed to kill invading pathogens as well as emerging mutants as rapidly as possible. In all but simple UTI, culture is indicated.