From Awareness to Action: Pioneering Solutions for Women&rsquo;s UTI Challenges in the Era of Precision Medicine

Emery Haley; Natalie Luke

doi:10.2147/IJWH.S477476

Back to Journals » International Journal of Women's Health » Volume 16

Perspectives

From Awareness to Action: Pioneering Solutions for Women’s UTI Challenges in the Era of Precision Medicine

Authors Haley E , Luke N

Received 16 July 2024

Accepted for publication 19 September 2024

Published 28 September 2024 Volume 2024:16 Pages 1595—1605

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S477476

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 5

Editor who approved publication: Dr Everett Magann

Download Article [PDF]

Emery Haley, Natalie Luke

Department of Clinical Research, Pathnostics, Irvine, CA, USA

Correspondence: Natalie Luke, Pathnostics, 15545 Sand Canyon Suite 100, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA, Tel +1-714-966-1221, Fax +1-714-966-1231, Email [email protected]

Abstract: This article aims to bring clinicians’ awareness to the widespread impact of urinary tract infection (UTI) on the lives of women and to the advances that offer hope for future improvements in the diagnosis and management of UTI. Thanks to physiological, anatomical, and lifestyle factor differences, women face heightened vulnerability to UTIs compared to men. In fact, women are four times more likely than men to develop a UTI and around half of these women encounter UTI recurrence, which is a significant source of both physical and psychosocial burdens. Despite the current shortcomings in diagnosis and management, emerging diagnostic technologies promise to identify UTIs more accurately and rapidly, offering women hope for a revolution in UTI management. Meanwhile, clinicians have the opportunity to reduce the psychosocial burden by recognizing the value of patients’ lived experiences and ensuring their care plan is in alignment with their patients’ goals and expectations for medical care.

Keywords: women’s health, urinary tract infection, urine culture, multiplex-polymerase chain reaction, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, mass spectrometry

UTI and the Ambiguity of the Clinical Diagnostic Spectrum

UTIs occur anywhere from the urethra to the kidneys, manifesting as cystitis or pyelonephritis based on the infection’s location.¹ The symptoms vary between individuals, but commonly cause physical discomfort and pose substantial psychosocial challenges, impacting women’s daily lives. UTIs can be conceptualized as falling into a diagnostic spectrum, with varying clinical signs and symptoms.² Signs and symptoms of UTI may overlap with other urologic diagnoses, such as incontinence, overactive bladder (OAB), or interstitial cystitis (IC), a.k.a. bladder pain syndrome (BPS).^3,4 Furthermore, distinguishing UTI symptoms can be a significant challenge, especially in long-term care facilities, where residents experience high rates of both asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) (up to 80%)^5,6 and cognitive impairment.⁷ For example, individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or other forms of cognitive impairments may be unable to clearly communicate their symptoms. In addition, many older individuals do not experience typical UTI symptoms, including urinary frequency, urinary urgency, and dysuria. In fact, atypical symptoms of UTI, which include nonspecific declines in cognitive or physical function, are frequently the only symptoms in elderly individuals.^8–10 Young children and individuals with disabilities, such as paralysis, are also likely to face diagnostic challenges due to difficulties in recognizing UTI symptoms. Therefore, advanced methods to distinguish infection and inflammation from healthy eubiosis are desperately needed to avoid unnecessary and potentially detrimental treatment resulting from confusing ASB with UTI in these vulnerable populations.

The diagnosis of a clinical UTI requires both the presence of symptoms and the confirmation of uropathogenic microorganisms in the urine. The term ASB has been used to describe the presence of bacteria in the urinary tract in the absence of any clinical urinary symptoms.⁵ The prevalence of ASB in non-catheterized individuals has been reported to range from < 1–50% depending on sex and age.¹¹ Historically, because healthy urine was presumed to be sterile, ASB was thought to require treatment.⁵ However, evidence that antibiotic treatment of ASB fails to produce a clinical benefit suggests that the presence of bacteriuria in the absence of symptoms should not be treated.^11–13 One exception relevant to women is during pregnancy, when treatment of ASB may be recommended to reduce risks of maternal pyelonephritis, pre-term labor, and/or low birth weight.¹⁴

Limitations in standard urine culture (SUC) have upheld the misconception that urine is sterile. SUC methodology is biased toward detecting classical gram-negative uropathogens, such as Escherichia coli (E. coli). Culture-independent, molecular-based methods have now revealed that SUC fails to reproducibly detect the majority of the urobiome.^15–18Advances in the analysis of microbial communities over the last decade have demonstrated that the urinary tract, particularly the bladder, is home to a resident microbiota, referred to as the urobiome.^13,19–22 The use of next-generation sequencing has revealed that the urobiome, while distinct, exhibits similarities to the microbiomes of the genital skin and/or vaginal mucosa.^23–25 The urobiome has also been shown to change in response to aging, hormonal changes, and antibiotic use.^26–28 Therefore, the pathogenesis of UTI may involve dysbiosis of the urobiome.²⁹ Further research toward an improved understanding of the role of dysbiosis in the pathogenesis of urologic conditions and how to restore eubiosis as part of treating these conditions is, therefore, essential.

Physical and Psychosocial Burden of UTIs in Women

Approximately 60% of women will experience a UTI in their lifetime³⁰ with a recurrence risk³¹ and a gender disparity that sees women four times more likely than men to develop a UTI.³² This discrepancy underlines the physiological and anatomical differences, alongside lifestyle factors, that contribute to the heightened vulnerability among women.³⁰ The higher prevalence of UTI in females^33,34 is largely attributed to differences in urinary tract and genital anatomy, with women having a shorter urethra located closer to the rectum relative to men.³⁰ Many UTIs occur in young, otherwise healthy, sexually active, adult females, given that sexual activity and the use of intravaginal birth control and menstrual products are considered risk factors for UTI development.³⁰ However, UTI is also the second-most common infection in community-dwelling elderly women and the number one cause of infection in elderly women residing in long-term care facilities or hospitals.³⁵ This high prevalence is associated with hormonal changes that occur during menopause and increase the risk of developing UTIs.³⁰ Similarly, UTI is the most common infection during pregnancy, being diagnosed in up to 60% of pregnancies, where it poses unique risks and challenges.^36–39 In addition, up to half of women who experience one UTI will develop another within six months, and this is referred to as recurrent UTI.³¹

Due to being one of the most prevalent infections in women, UTIs are also a leading cause of prescribed antibiotics.⁴⁰ Furthermore, most antibiotics being prescribed for UTI are ordered empirically, rather than as guided therapy.⁴¹ Many common uropathogens demonstrate clinically significant levels of resistance to first-line antibiotics, particularly internationally, and some have even been reported to be multidrug-resistant, which means that empirically prescribed antibiotics are increasingly likely to fail.^42–45 For example, while nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin are frontline choices for empiric treatment of UTIs, with low reported resistance rates in the USA, they have higher resistance rates in Norway and Asia, respectively.^44,45 Additionally, increasing antibiotic resistance to antibiotics used for UTI treatment, including trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole⁴⁶ and fluoroquinolones, especially ciprofloxacin,⁴⁷ has been reported leading to escalating healthcare expenditures and demonstrably higher mortality.^42,43 Certain groups of women have additional difficulty with empiric antibiotic selections. For example, elderly women, experience both high rates of polypharmacy and comorbid conditions that alter pharmacodynamics.^48,49 Likely due to differences in lifetime antibiotic exposures, elderly individuals, particularly post-menopausal women,⁵⁰ have also been demonstrated to have significantly different antimicrobial susceptibility patterns than younger age groups.^51,52 Another group that faces additional challenges with antibiotic selection is pregnant women, in whom additional considerations must be made for placental permeability and the fetal safety profile of the selected antibiotic.^36,39 Lastly, women experiencing recurrent or persistent/chronic UTI often face challenges with empiric therapy due to multi-drug resistant organisms and repeated antibiotic exposure.⁵³

The physical health consequences of UTI can be severe. UTI in pregnancy can result in premature rupture of membranes and low birth weight.⁵⁴ Pediatric UTIs can result in acute complications such as renal abscess, pyonephrosis, and pyelonephritis, as well as long-term health consequences, including renal scarring, hypertension, and renal insufficiency in adulthood.^33,55–61 When misdiagnosed or not effectively treated, UTIs can also result in severe health complications in adults, including infectious urolithiasis⁶² and urosepsis, which accounts for approximately 25% of all sepsis cases.³⁴ Complications from UTI also result in around 12,000 deaths annually in the US.⁶³ However, serious physical health complications of UTI are not the only factors that can have a significant impact on quality of life.

Awareness of the detrimental impacts of UTI on women’s quality of life has been gaining increasing appreciation since the turn of the millennium.^64,65 Understandably, quality-of-life outcomes are significantly poorer in women who experience failure of their initial antibiotic treatment.⁶⁶ Specifically, women with clinical treatment failure and/or UTI recurrence reported feelings of helplessness and dread.⁶⁷ Recurrent UTI, which occurs in up to half of women who experience one UTI,³¹ is one of the biggest sources of psychological burden due to UTI.⁶⁸ An international web-based survey of women with recurrent UTIs found that women reported taking an average of three sick days off of work and an average of 3 days of limited social activity each year due to UTIs.⁶⁹ Additionally, despite nearly seventy-five percent of the women reporting that they tried prophylaxis, the prospect of recurrence was a significant source of stress.⁶⁹ Investigation into the sources of this stress of recurrence revealed that fear of negative side-effects of antibiotics used to prevent and treat UTI, as well as frustration with the medical profession for ineffective management, were the two major concerns.⁷⁰ Another survey found that recurrent UTIs were not only associated with physical impact on sleep and healthy lifestyle, but with mental health burdens, such as anxiety and depression, and also with damage to women’s social relationships with colleagues, family, and friends.⁷¹ Furthermore, lower urinary tract symptom-induced depression has been found to worsen the perception of physical symptoms, resulting in a vicious cycle.⁷² A more recent study even found that self-esteem was significantly impacted and that social functions were more severely affected than physical functions in women with recurrent UTIs, emphasizing the need for future studies to include quality-of-life measures when determining the effectiveness of UTI management strategies.⁷³

Very recently, the Recurrent UTI Impact Questionnaire (RUTIIQ), was validated and optimized for assessing the patient-reported psychosocial impact of living with recurrent UTI symptoms and pain as a unique tool to improve patient-centered care.^74,75 Physician and patient perspectives of recurrent UTI demonstrate a number of commonly recognized areas for improvement. First, many physicians report feeling that they have insufficient knowledge of guideline recommendations for recurrent UTI management, especially for peri- and post-menopausal women.⁷⁶ They also express a need for increased education on UTI pathophysiology.⁷⁷ Second, similar to patients, physicians also recognize that symptoms have a significant impact on patients’ lives⁷⁸ and report feeling frustrated with the limited management options and recommendations for recurrent UTI.⁷⁷ However, physician and patient perspectives also had some areas of contrast. For example, patients report being more concerned with improving care for acute UTI episodes, while physicians report being primarily concerned with preventative measures and ongoing management of recurrent UTI as a chronic condition.⁷⁹ Physicians may also be inappropriately confident that recurrent UTI patients are satisfied with their medical care.⁸⁰ Indeed, clinicians should be aware that recurrent UTI is highly associated with healthcare disillusionment and should be prepared to not only offer creative prophylactic and treatment options but also emphasize the value of patients’ lived experiences and communicate with thoroughness and empathy to help ensure patients remain active participants in their own care.⁸¹

Limitations of Current Diagnostic Methods

Because point-of-care tests do not require being sent to a lab for testing, they are generally cheaper, easier, and faster. As such, the quest for new and improved point-of-care tests is continuous. However, none are currently sufficient for UTI diagnosis when used as independent tests.⁸² The most common in-office test used when a UTI is suspected is a dipstick urinalysis. These are moderately specific for UTIs but are significantly limited by low and highly variable sensitivity (10% to 80%).^83–86 The utility of dipsticks also varies with patients’ clinical presentations, urine specimen collection method,⁸⁷ and the infecting pathogen(s).^88–92 Dipsticks are more accurate with classical symptoms than atypical symptoms,⁹³ and less accurate in very young children and elderly adults compared to young adults.^94–97 Importantly, they are also more accurate in men than women,⁹⁸ and can be impacted by menstrual status.⁹⁹ Therefore, it is essential for clinicians to consider the individual patient’s age, sex, and clinical presentation when interpreting dipstick results.

Standard urine culture (SUC) has been regarded as the gold standard for UTI diagnostic testing for decades.¹⁰⁰ SUC methodology was optimized for the growth of gram-negative classically uropathogenic bacteria, especially E. coli, the most commonly identified organism in acute UTIs.¹⁰¹ However, several additional microbial species, such as gram-positive organisms, fastidious microbes, and fungi, have been demonstrated to contribute to urinary microbiome dysbiosis in symptomatic subjects diagnosed with UTI.¹⁶ Thanks to the low sensitivity of SUC, a significant proportion of cases of suspected UTIs end up with negative or other inconclusive results, leaving a diagnostic gap for healthcare providers as they manage these cases.^101,102 Recent publications have shown poor outcomes for patients with negative SUC results, and that more sensitive expanded culture conditions did grow microorganisms that were missed in these cases.¹⁰³ In those studies, even many SUC-positive cases experienced poor outcomes, possibly due to limitations in recognition of polymicrobial infections and the inability to assess pooled antibiotic susceptibility within polymicrobial infections.¹⁰⁴ This is a significant limitation given that recent research in the field has demonstrated that polymicrobial UTIs (with two or more uropathogens present) are common.^104–110 In published guidelines for SUC, there also remains a pressing need for consensus regarding the minimum microbial threshold for diagnosing a UTI.^111–119 Published guidance on thresholds for midstream voided urine vary from ≥ 10,000 to ≥ 100,000 colony forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) and from any microbial detection to ≥ 10,000 CFU/mL for urine collected by in-and-out catheter.¹²⁰ The commonly used diagnostic threshold of 100,000 CFU/mL has surprisingly scant and dated evidence to support it,^111–116 and the resulting confusion regarding a minimum threshold subsequently leads to uncertainty amongst clinicians, which can lead to increased use of empiric therapy or undertreatment of UTIs with lower microbial densities.¹²¹ SUC is usually followed by a standard antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) which frequently requires ≥ 3 days to return results, longer than most clinicians and patients are willing to delay treatment. Standard AST typically measures the susceptibility of up to two species in which colonies are grown in the presence of antibiotics. Additionally, AST typically relies on testing just three isolates of a given species, and therefore may fail to capture different strain phenotypes.¹²²

Innovative New Diagnostic Approaches

A growing number of sensitive diagnostic methods are being investigated, including metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), mass spectrometry, expanded quantitative urine culture (EQUC), and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (M-PCR) to improve testing accuracy.^123–125 These techniques can analyze a urine specimen for the presence of microbes that SUC cannot detect, thus providing a clinical picture different from the findings of SUC alone.^{18,101,102,106,126–130}

EQUC is a culture-dependent method that employs a wide array of environmental conditions to encourage the growth of microorganisms for identification and quantification but does not provide antibiotic susceptibility data.¹³¹ A prospective study comparing SUC and EQUC results from female patients with and without UTI symptoms showed that SUC missed 67% of identified uropathogens and 88% of non-E. coli uropathogens (including yeasts, gram-positive bacteria, anaerobic bacteria, and fastidious bacteria) with over half of subjects having uropathogens grown by EQUC but not SUC.¹⁰⁵ However, since the expanded conditions involve several different growth media with a variety of nutrients, both aerobic and anaerobic atmospheric conditions, longer incubation times, and other factors, EQUC is too laborious to be useful in routine clinical practice.

M-PCR based tests use extracted microbial DNA to rapidly identify infectious organisms with higher sensitivity and specificity than standard cultures.¹³² In the context of UTI, the identification of uropathogens in under 24 hours provides an opportunity to make more informed decisions regarding choices for empiric antibiotic therapies if local resistance rates of specific organism-antibiotic combinations are known.^133,134 One inherent limitation of M-PCR is that it can only identify a pre-determined set of organisms for which probes and primers are present in the assay. However, when an assay is optimally designed to include a wide range of known and potential uropathogens, it can provide identification of more gram-positive and -negative bacteria than SUC, as well as fastidious microorganisms and viruses, which do not grow under SUC conditions.^{127–129,135} The inherently high sensitivity of M-PCR-based methodologies and the technical reliance on detecting nucleic acids has also raised questions about whether microbes detected by M-PCR and missed by SUC reveal an active infection with living organisms. Positive M-PCR results have been reported to have high concordance with the identification of viable organisms cultured by EQUC methodology.¹⁰³ Organisms detected by M-PCR in the urine of UTI patients have also been associated with inflammation of the urinary tract, as would be expected of live, infectious organisms.^136–138 Furthermore, questions arose regarding how quantitative M-PCR reads compare to the standard units for bacterial quantification by SUC, via CFU/mL. Fortunately, M-PCR has been confirmed to produce quantitative results in reads/mL that directly correspond to the microbial load in cells/mL and correlate linearly 1:1 with the CFU/mL units used in SUC.¹³⁹

The second limitation of M-PCR-based diagnostic tests reliance on nucleic acid identification rather than culture is an inability to provide antibiotic susceptibility information. One approach to counter this limitation without resorting to performing SUC with AST in parallel is to design M-PCR assays to detect antibiotic resistance (ABR) genes. However, in UTI cases, a reported 40% discordance between ABR gene detection and susceptibility phenotypes demonstrates that the detection of an ABR gene may not translate into phenotypic resistance, nor can the absence of an ABR gene absence guarantee susceptibility.¹⁴⁰ Another approach taken by one company to address this limitation is to pair M-PCR with Pooled Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (P-AST), which measures the susceptibility of the entire community of cultivable organisms from a urine specimen. The P-AST method has multiple advantages. In addition to accounting for any effects of multi-species interactions that may alter susceptibility in polymicrobial infections, the community culture approach of P-AST can account for the presence of multiple strains of a single species, which can co-occur in a UTI and have varying susceptibilities (heteroresistance).^141–143

Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) offers a culture-free pathogen detection based on 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing. In comparison to M-PCR, mNGS microorganism detections are not limited by a pre-determined set of probes and primers.¹⁷ However, reliance on sequence reads results in an output of bacterial presence in terms of relative abundance (relative sequence reads) amongst detected species instead of quantitative values.¹⁴⁴ Sequencing results are also limited by the quality of the genomic reference libraries, which are publicly annotated and, therefore, difficult to trust for clinical accuracy.^145,146 To date, this technique has been primarily used in studies exploring the constituents of the urobiome; however, mNGS has also been studied for its utility in clinical UTI diagnostics.^{144,147–149} The advantages and limitations of mNGS relative to SUC are similar to M-PCR, because commercial mNGS testing typically utilizes a PCR test for microbial identity/density and the presence of antibiotic resistance genes as the first phase of analysis.^123,150 The second phase then utilizes 16S ribosomal RNA to detect virtually all microbial organisms, offering extreme sensitivity, but with limited speed.^123,150

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass-spectrometry delivers rapid and accurate identification of microorganisms and is available to clinical laboratories on two FDA-approved systems. The main disadvantage is that the method requires a pure culture of bacteria, meaning it is most commonly used as a supplemental method for identifying bacterial colonies isolated following SUC, and therefore, MALDI-TOF exhibits many of the same time and sensitivity limitations.¹²⁵ Furthermore, these systems do not generate antibiotic susceptibility results. Unlike M-PCR and mNGS, MALDI-TOF analysis is not currently performed directly on polymicrobial urine samples. However, recently developed proteomic libraries and the use of machine learning enabled mass-spectrometry to identify 15 of the most common uropathogens directly from urine in less than four hours, along with protein signatures for specific antibiotic resistances.^151–153 As such, direct-from-specimen mass-spectrometry holds potential promise for the future of clinical UTI diagnostics.

The immune response in the urinary tract involves pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukins (ILs), as well as bacteriostatic agents, such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL).^154–160 Since these can be measured from the same non-invasive urine sample used for microbial detection, soluble inflammatory biomarkers can be useful as a supplement to urine culture or molecular detection and quantitation methods for the diagnosis of UTI.^137,138,161 Such biomarkers are essential to accurately differentiating ASB from UTI, when symptoms cannot be clearly recognized or communicated.¹²¹ Biomarker testing can help avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment of ASB in individuals with difficulty communicating symptoms, such as the very young and those suffering with mental disabilities, such as dementia. However, biomarker testing is not a replacement for microbial identification and quantification or for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

The development of diagnostic tests with improved sensitivity and specificity combined with an increasing understanding of the urobiome is likely to lead to improved management of UTI and other dysbiosis-associated urologic conditions. Improved diagnostic speed and accuracy will reduce the prevalence of misdiagnoses, enabling better antibiotic stewardship and improving clinical outcomes.

Call to Action

Medical providers and researchers alike must recognize that women bear a disproportionate physical and psychosocial burden from UTIs, particularly due to missed diagnoses and failed treatments. Hope for a better future exists in advancements in understanding UTI pathogenesis and in the growing number of sensitive diagnostic methods being investigated, but we must be diligent in continuing to investigate and improve these methods. We must also strive to reduce the described discrepancies between patient and clinician perspectives, such as through shared decision-making or other communication improvement strategies. Together, advancements in diagnostic methodology and improving communication between clinicians and patients hold the potential to offer unprecedented relief to women suffering from UTIs.

Disclosure

Luke reports patents (11,053,532, 10/160,991, and 11,746,371) licensed to Pathnostics; patents (18,351,286, 18,351,385, 17,830,227, 18,451,748, 17,178,091) pending to Pathnostics and both Haley and Luke are employees of Pathnostics which offers the Guidance UTI test for diagnosis and the determination of treatment options for those with complicated or recurrent UTI’s. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Kolman KB. Cystitis and Pyelonephritis Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Prim Care. 2019;46(2):191–202. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2019.01.001

2. Trautner BW. Urinary tract infection as a continuum—implications for diagnostic and antibiotic stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;72(8):1339–1341. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa280

3. Larsen AW, Chen Y, Crandall KA, Icenhour CR, Valencia CA. Characterization of the Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome Microbiome in Clinically Diagnosed Patients. Clin Immunol Res. 2022;6(2). doi:10.33425/2639-8494.1047

4. Adelugba I, Siddiqui S, Aziz A, De EJB, Wolff G. Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: what Today’s Urologist Should Know. Curr Bl Dysfunct Rep. 2023;18(1):16–28. doi:10.1007/s11884-022-00676-1

5. Colgan R, Nicolle LE, McGlone A, Hooton TM. Asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2006;74(6):985–990.

6. BCBSNM. Reducing Urinary Tract Infections in Nursing Homes. Available from: https://www.bcbsnm.com/docs/provider/nm/reducing-uti-presentation-2021.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2023.

7. Chen P, Cai H, Bai W, et al. Global prevalence of mild cognitive impairment among older adults living in nursing homes: a meta-analysis and systematic review of epidemiological surveys. Transl Psychiatry. 2023;13(1):88. doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02361-1

8. Laborde C, Bador J, Hacquin A, et al. Atypical Presentation of Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infection in Older Patients: frequency and Prognostic Impact. Diagnostics. 2021;11(3):523. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11030523

9. Woodford HJ, Graham C, Meda M, Miciuleviciene J. BACTEREMIC URINARY TRACT INFECTION IN HOSPITALIZED OLDER PATIENTS—ARE ANY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA SENSITIVE ENOUGH? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(3):567–568. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03284.x

10. Limpawattana P, Phungoen P, Mitsungnern T, Laosuangkoon W, Tansangworn N. Atypical presentations of older adults at the emergency department and associated factors. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;62:97–102. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2015.08.016

11. Nicolle LE, Gupta K, Bradley SF, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis Official Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2019;2019:ciy1121. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1121

12. Nicolle LE. Asymptomatic bacteriuria When to screen and when to treat. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2003;17(2):367–394. doi:10.1016/s0891-5520(03)00008-4

13. Groah SL, Pérez-Losada M, Caldovic L, et al. Redefining Healthy Urine: a Cross-Sectional Exploratory Metagenomic Study of People With and Without Bladder Dysfunction. J Urol. 2016;196(2):579–587. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.088

14. Awad MM, Elsahar MI. Asymptomatic Bacterial Infection in Pregnancy: a new update. Med Pharm J. 2022;1(2):1–11. doi:10.55940/medphar20228

15. Wolfe AJ, Toh E, Shibata N, et al. Evidence of Uncultivated Bacteria in the Adult Female Bladder. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(4):1376–1383. doi:10.1128/jcm.05852-11

16. Brubaker L, Chai TC, Horsley H, Khasriya R, Moreland RB, Wolfe AJ. Tarnished gold—the “standard” urine culture: reassessing the characteristics of a criterion standard for detecting urinary microbes. Front Urol. 2023;3:1206046. doi:10.3389/fruro.2023.1206046

17. Thomas-White K, Brady M, Wolfe AJ, Mueller ER. The Bladder Is Not Sterile: history and Current Discoveries on the Urinary Microbiome. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep. 2016;11(1):18–24. doi:10.1007/s11884-016-0345-8

18. Hilt EE, McKinley K, Pearce MM, et al. Urine Is Not Sterile: use of Enhanced Urine Culture Techniques To Detect Resident Bacterial Flora in the Adult Female Bladder. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(3):871–876. doi:10.1128/jcm.02876-13

19. Wolfe AJ, Brubaker L. “Sterile Urine” and the Presence of Bacteria. Eur Urol. 2015;68(2):173–174. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.041

20. Mueller ER, Wolfe AJ, Brubaker L. Female urinary microbiota. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(3):282–286. doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000396

21. Nelson DE, Pol BVD, Dong Q, et al. Characteristic Male Urine Microbiomes Associate with Asymptomatic Sexually Transmitted Infection. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e14116. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014116

22. Fouts DE, Pieper R, Szpakowski S, et al. Integrated next-generation sequencing of 16S rDNA and metaproteomics differentiate the healthy urine microbiome from asymptomatic bacteriuria in neuropathic bladder associated with spinal cord injury. J Transl Med. 2012;10(1):1–17. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-10-174

23. Sze C, Pressler M, Lee JR, Chughtai B. The gut, vaginal, and urine microbiome in overactive bladder: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(5):1157–1164. doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05127-3

24. Perez-Carrasco V, Soriano-Lerma A, Soriano M, Gutiérrez-Fernández J, Garcia-Salcedo JA. Urinary Microbiome: yin and Yang of the Urinary Tract. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:617002. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2021.617002

25. Thomas-White K, Forster SC, Kumar N, et al. Culturing of female bladder bacteria reveals an interconnected urogenital microbiota. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1557. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03968-5

26. Curtiss N, Balachandran A, Krska L, Peppiatt-Wildman C, Wildman S, Duckett J. Age, menopausal status and the bladder microbiome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:126–129. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.06.011

27. Liu F, Ling Z, Xiao Y, et al. Characterization of the urinary microbiota of elderly women and the effects of type 2 diabetes and urinary tract infections on the microbiota. Oncotarget. 2017;8(59):100678–100690. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.21126

28. Mulder M, Radjabzadeh D, Hassing RJ, et al. The effect of antimicrobial drug use on the composition of the genitourinary microbiota in an elderly population. BMC Microbiol. 2019;19(1):9. doi:10.1186/s12866-018-1379-1

29. Jayalath S, Magana-Arachchi D. Dysbiosis of the Human Urinary Microbiome and its Association to DiseasesAffecting the Urinary System. Indian J Microbiol. 2022;62(2):153–166. doi:10.1007/s12088-021-00991-x

30. NIDDK. Definition & Facts of Bladder Infection in Adults. Available from: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/urologic-diseases/bladder-infection-uti-in-adults/definition-facts. Accessed April 2, 2024.

31. Peck J, Shepherd JP. Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021;48(3):501–513. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2021.05.005

32. MedlinePlus. Urinary Tract Infections|UTI|UTISymptoms. Available from: https://medlineplus.gov/urinarytractinfections.html. Accessed April 2, 2024.

33. Miller JM, Binnicker MJ, Campbell S, et al. A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of InfectiousDiseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and theAmerican Society for Microbiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67(6):e1–e94. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy381

34. Wagenlehner FM, Lichtenstern C, Rolfes C, et al. Diagnosis and management for urosepsis. Int J Urol. 2013;20(10):963–970. doi:10.1111/iju.12200

35. Matthews SJ, Lancaster JW. Urinary tract infections in the elderly population. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2011;9(5):286–309. doi:10.1016/j.amjopharm.2011.07.002

36. Baraka MA, AlLehaibi LH, AlSuwaidan HN, et al. Patterns of infections and antimicrobial drugs’ prescribing among pregnant women in Saudi Arabia: a cross sectional study. J Pharm Polic Pr. 2021;14(1):9. doi:10.1186/s40545-020-00292-6

37. Yazdi S, Alidousti K, Tirgari B, Jahani Y. Effect of integrated health promotion intervention and follow up on health issues (clothing way, food habits, urinary habits, sexual behavior habits) related to urinary tract infection among pregnant women. A randomized, clinical trial. J Prev Med Hyg. 2020;61(2):E194–E199. doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2020.61.2.1412

38. Johnson CY, Rocheleau CM, Howley MM, Chiu SK, Arnold KE, Ailes EC. Characteristics of Women with Urinary Tract Infection in Pregnancy. J Women Heal. 2021;30(11):1556–1564. doi:10.1089/jwh.2020.8946

39. Corrales M, Corrales-Acosta E, Corrales-Riveros JG. Which Antibiotic for Urinary Tract Infections in Pregnancy? A Literature Review of International Guidelines. J Clin Med. 2022;11(23):7226. doi:10.3390/jcm11237226

40. Grigoryan L, Nash S, Zoorob R, et al. Qualitative Analysis of Primary Care Provider Prescribing Decisions for Urinary Tract Infections. Antibiotics. 2019;8(2):84. doi:10.3390/antibiotics8020084

41. Waller TA, Pantin SAL, Yenior AL, Pujalte G. Urinary Tract Infection Antibiotic Resistance in the United States. Primary Care Clin Office Pract. 2018;45(3):455–466. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2018.05.005

42. Waller TA, Pantin SAL, Yenior AL, Pujalte GGA. Urinary Tract Infection Antibiotic Resistance in the United States. Prim Care. 2018;45(3):455–466. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2018.05.005

43. Paul R. State of the Globe: rising Antimicrobial Resistance of Pathogens in Urinary Tract Infection. J Glob Infect Dis. 2018;10(3):117–118. doi:10.4103/jgid.jgid_104_17

44. Fagan M, Lindbæk M, Grude N, et al. Antibiotic resistance patterns of bacteria causing urinary tract infections in the elderly living in nursing homes versus the elderly living at home: an observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0097-x

45. Aghamali M, Sedighi M, Bialvaei AZ, et al. Fosfomycin: mechanisms and the increasing prevalence of resistance. J Med Microbiol. 2018;68(1):11–25. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.000874

46. Sanchez GV, Babiker A, Master RN, Luu T, Mathur A, Bordon J. Antibiotic Resistance among Urinary Isolates from Female Outpatients in the United States in 2003 and 2012. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(5):2680–2683. doi:10.1128/aac.02897-15

47. Kot B. Antibiotic Resistance Among Uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Pol J Microbiol. 2019;68(4):403–415. doi:10.33073/pjm-2019-048

48. Falcone M, Paul M, Tiseo G, et al. Considerations for the optimal management of antibiotic therapy in elderly patients. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020;22:325–333. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2020.02.022

49. Rodriguez-Mañas L. Urinary tract infections in the elderly: a review of disease characteristics and current treatment options. Drugs Context. 2020;9:1–8. doi:10.7573/dic.2020-4-13

50. Miotla P, Romanek-Piva K, Bogusiewicz M, et al. Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Women with Positive Urine Culture: does Menopausal Status Make a Significant Difference? BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:4192908. doi:10.1155/2017/4192908

51. Erb S, Frei R, Sutter ST, et al. Basic patient characteristics predict antimicrobial resistance in E. coli from urinary tract specimens: a retrospective cohort analysis of 5246 urine samples. Swiss Méd Wkly. 2018;148(4546):w14660. doi:10.4414/smw.2018.14660

52. Huang L, Huang C, Yan Y, Sun L, Li H. Urinary Tract Infection Etiological Profiles and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns Varied Among Different Age Categories: a Retrospective Study From a Tertiary General Hospital During a 12-Year Period. Front Microbiol. 2022;12:813145. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.813145

53. Thänert R, Reske KA, Hink T, et al. Comparative Genomics of Antibiotic-Resistant Uropathogens Implicates Three Routes for Recurrence of Urinary Tract Infections. mBio. 2019;10(4):10–1128. doi:10.1128/mbio.01977-19

54. Ruman MU, Rhaman MM, Khan BGR. Risk factors of UTI in Pregnant Women and the Maternal and Perinatal Outcome in Pregnant Women attending CMH Dhaka. Sch J Appl Med Sci. 2020;08(03):790–795. doi:10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i03.005

55. Silva ACS, Oliveira EA, Mak RH. Urinary tract infection in pediatrics: an overview. J Pediatr. 2020;96(1):65–79. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2019.10.006

56. Malhotra SM, Kennedy WA. Urinary tract infections in children: treatment. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(3):527–534. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2004.04.013

57. Ma JF, Shortliffe LMD. Urinary tract infection in children: etiology and epidemiology. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31(3):517–526. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2004.04.016

58. Pylkkänen J, Vilska J, Koskimies O. The value of level diagnosis of childhood urinary tract infection in predicting renal injury. Acta Pædiatrica. 1981;70(6):879–883. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.1981.tb06244.x

59. Stokland E, Hellström M, Jacobsson B, Jodal U, Sixt R. Renal damage one year after first urinary tract infection: role of dimercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy. J Pediatr. 1996;129(6):815–820. doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70024-0

60. Jacobson SH, Eklöf O, Eriksson CG, Lins LE, Tidgren B, Winberg J. Development of hypertension and uraemia after pyelonephritis in childhood: 27 year follow up. Br Méd J. 1989;299(6701):703. doi:10.1136/bmj.299.6701.703

61. Gill DG, de Costa BM, Cameron JS, Joseph MC, Ogg CS, Chantler C. Analysis of 100 children with severe and persistent hypertension. Arch Dis Child. 1976;51(12):951. doi:10.1136/adc.51.12.951

62. Bichler KH, Eipper E, Naber K, Braun V, Zimmermann R, Lahme S. Urinary infection stones. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;19(6):488–498. doi:10.1016/s0924-8579(02)00088-2

63. NCBI. Complicated Urinary Tract Infections - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK436013/. Accessed January 13, 2023.

64. Ellis AK, Verma S. Quality of life in women with urinary tract infections: is benign disease amisnomer? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000;13(6):392–397. doi:10.3122/15572625-13-6-392

65. Thompson J, Marijam A, Mitrani-Gold FS, Wright J, Joshi AV. Activity impairment, health-related quality of life, productivity, and self-reported resource use and associated costs of uncomplicated urinary tract infection among women in the United States. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0277728. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277728

66. Ernst EJ, Ernst ME, Hoehns JD, Bergus GR. Women’s quality of life is decreased by acute cystitis and antibiotic adverse effects associated with treatment. Heal Qual Life Outcome. 2005;3(1):45. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-45

67. Grigoryan L, Mulgirigama A, Powell M, Schmiemann G. The emotional impact of urinary tract infections in women: a qualitative analysis. BMC Women Heal. 2022;22(1):182. doi:10.1186/s12905-022-01757-3

68. Renard J, Ballarini S, Mascarenhas T, et al. Recurrent Lower Urinary Tract Infections Have a Detrimental Effect on Patient Quality of Life: a Prospective, Observational Study. Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(1):125–135. doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0054-6

69. Wagenlehner F, Wullt B, Ballarini S, Zingg D, Naber KG. Social and economic burden of recurrent urinary tract infections and quality of life: a patient web-based study (GESPRIT). Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(1):107–117. doi:10.1080/14737167.2017.1359543

70. Scott VCS, Thum LW, Sadun T, et al. Fear and Frustration among Women with Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: findings from Patient Focus Groups. J Urol. 2021;206(3):688–695. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000001843

71. Maxwell K, Roberts L, Kramer M, Finlay K. Using the Working Model of Adjustment to Chronic Illness to explain the burden of recurrent urinary tract infection: a survey-based study. Int J Pharm Pr. 2021;29(1):i5–i6. doi:10.1093/ijpp/riab016.006

72. Anderson DJ, Aucoin A, Toups CR, et al. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Depression: a Review. Heal Psychol Res. 2023;11:81040. doi:10.52965/001c.81040

73. Naber KG, Tirán-Saucedo J, Wagenlehner FME, Group R. Psychosocial burden of recurrent uncomplicated urinary tract infections. GMS Infect Dis. 2022;10(01):1. doi:10.3205/id000078

74. Newlands AF, Roberts L, Maxwell K, Kramer M, Price JL, Finlay KA. Development and psychometric validation of a patient-reported outcome measure of recurrent urinary tract infection impact: the Recurrent UTI Impact Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2023;32(6):1745–1758. doi:10.1007/s11136-023-03348-7

75. Newlands AF, Kramer M, Roberts L, Maxwell K, Price JL, Finlay KA. Evaluating the quality of life impact of recurrent urinary tract infection: validation and refinement of the Recurrent UTI Impact Questionnaire (RUTIIQ). Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(4):902–914. doi:10.1002/nau.25426

76. Ingram A, Yudovich M, Payne N, Bellows F, Posid T. Knowledge is Key: viewpoints of New Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections Guidelines. Urology. 2021;158:45–51. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.08.035

77. Sadun T, Scott VCS, Ackerman AL, Anger JT, Kim JH. Changes in Education and Consistency Needed in Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection Care: patient and Expert Physician Perspectives. JU Open Plus. 2023;1(4). doi:10.1097/ju9.0000000000000016

78. O’Brien M, Marijam A, Mitrani-Gold FS, Terry L, Taylor-Stokes G, Joshi AV. Unmet needs in uncomplicated urinary tract infection in the United States and Germany: a physician survey. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):281. doi:10.1186/s12879-023-08207-x

79. Sanyaolu LN, Hayes CV, Lecky DM, et al. Patients’ and Healthcare Professionals’ Experiences and Views of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: qualitative Evidence Synthesis and Meta-Ethnography. Antibiotics. 2023;12(3):434. doi:10.3390/antibiotics12030434

80. Sadun TY, Scott VCS, Thum LW, et al. PD58-12 discrepancies in patient and physician perspectives of quality of care delivered to patients with recurrent urinary tract infections. J Urol. 2019;201(4):e1033. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000557180.42968.40

81. Maxwell K, Roberts L, Kramer M, Price J, Newlands A, Finlay KA. Psychosocial burden and healthcare disillusionment in recurrent UTI: a large-scale international survey of patient perspectives. Front Urol. 2023;3:1264299. doi:10.3389/fruro.2023.1264299

82. Tomlinson E, Jones HE, James R, et al. Clinical effectiveness of point of care tests for diagnosing urinary tract infection: a systematic review. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2024;30(2):197–205. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.10.005

83. Fernandes DJ, Jm D, Castelino DN. Utility of dipstick test (nitrite and leukocyte esterase) and microscopic analysis of urine when compared to culture in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2017;5(1):156–160. doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20175578

84. Chernaya A, Søborg C, Midttun M. Validity of the urinary dipstick test in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in adults. Dan Med J. 2021;69(1):1.

85. Khasriya R. Spectrum of bacterial colonization associated with urothelial cells from patients with chronic lower urinary tract symptoms. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(7):2054–2062. doi:10.1128/jcm.03314-12

86. Devillé W, Yzermans JC, van Duijn NP, Bezemer DP, van der Windt D, Bouter LM. The urine dipstick test useful to rule out infections. A meta-analysis of the accuracy. BMC Urol. 2004;4(1):1–14. doi:10.1186/1471-2490-4-4

87. Frazee BW, Enriquez K, Ng V, Alter H. Abnormal Urinalysis Results Are Common, Regardless of Specimen Collection Technique, in Women Without Urinary Tract Infections. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(6):706–711. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.02.020

88. Lotte R, Lotte L, Ruimy R. Actinotignum schaalii (formerly Actinobaculum schaalii): a newly recognized pathogen—review of the literature. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(1):28–36. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.10.038

89. Cattoir V. Actinobaculum schaalii: review of an emerging uropathogen. J Infect. 2012;64(3):260–267. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2011.12.009

90. Cattoir V, Kobal A, Legrand P. Aerococcus urinae and Aerococcus sanguinicola, two frequently misidentified uropathogens. Scand J Infect Dis. 2010;42(10):775–780. doi:10.3109/00365548.2010.485576

91. Pappas PC. Laboratory in the Diagnosis and Management of Urinary Tract Infections. Méd Clin North Am. 1991;75(2):313–325. doi:10.1016/s0025-7125(16)30456-4

92. Dadzie I, Quansah E, Dakorah MP, Abiade V, Takyi-Amuah E, Adusei R. The Effectiveness of Dipstick for the Detection of Urinary Tract Infection. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2019;2019:8642628. doi:10.1155/2019/8642628

93. Lachs MS, Nachamkin I, Edelstein PH, Goldman J, Feinstein AR, Schwartz JS. Spectrum Bias in the Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests: lessons from the Rapid Dipstick Test for Urinary Tract Infection. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(2):135–140. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-2-135

94. Gbinigie OA, Onakpoya IJ, Richards GC, et al. Biomarkers for diagnosing serious bacterial infections in older outpatients: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):190. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1205-0

95. Woodford HJ, George J. Diagnosis and Management of Urinary Tract Infection in Hospitalized Older People. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(1):107–114. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02073.x

96. Ducharme J, Neilson S, Ginn JL. Can urine cultures and reagent test strips be used to diagnose urinary tract infection in elderly emergency department patients without focal urinary symptoms? CJEM. 2007;9(2):87–92. doi:10.1017/s1481803500014846

97. Mori R, Yonemoto N, Fitzgerald A, Tullus K, Verrier‐Jones K, Lakhanpaul M. Diagnostic performance of urine dipstick testing in children with suspected UTI: a systematic review of relationship with age and comparison with microscopy. Acta Pædiatrica. 2010;99(4):581–584. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01644.x

98. Middelkoop SJM, van Pelt LJ, Kampinga GA, ter Maaten JC, Stegeman CA. Influence of gender on the performance of urine dipstick and automated urinalysis in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections at the emergency department. Eur J Intern Med. 2021;87:44–50. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2021.03.010

99. Morimoto M, Yanai H, Shukuya K, Chiba H, Kobayashi K, Matsuno K. Effects of Midstream Collection and the Menstrual Cycle on Urine Particles and Dipstick Urinalysis among Healthy Females. Clin Chem. 2003;49(1):188–190. doi:10.1373/49.1.188

100. Bonnet M, Lagier JC, Raoult D, Khelaifia S. Bacterial culture through selective and non-selective conditions: the evolution of culture media in clinical microbiology. Microbes Infect. 2020;34:100622. doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2019.100622

101. Price TK, Hilt EE, Dune TJ, Mueller ER, Wolfe AJ, Brubaker L. Urine trouble: should we think differently about UTI? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(2):205–210. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3528-8

102. Price TK, Dune T, Hilt EE, et al. The Clinical Urine Culture: enhanced Techniques Improve Detection of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(5):1216–1222. doi:10.1128/jcm.00044-16

103. Festa RA, Luke N, Mathur M, et al. A test combining multiplex-PCR with pooled antibiotic susceptibility testing has high correlation with expanded urine culture for detection of live bacteria in urine samples of suspected UTI patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2023;107(2):116015. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2023.116015

104. Korman HJ, Baunoch D, Luke N, et al. A Diagnostic Test Combining Molecular Testing with Phenotypic Pooled Antibiotic Susceptibility Improved the Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Non-E. coli or Polymicrobial Complicated Urinary Tract Infections. Res Rep Urol. 2023;15:141–147. doi:10.2147/rru.s404260

105. Vollstedt A, Baunoch D, Wojno K, et al. Multisite prospective comparison of multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing with urine culture for diagnosis of urinary tract infections in symptomatic patients. J Sur Urol. 2020;1:JSU–102.

106. Kline KA, Lewis AL. Gram-Positive Uropathogens, Polymicrobial Urinary Tract Infection, and the Emerging Microbiota of the Urinary Tract. Microbiol Spect. 2016;4(2). doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.uti-0012-2012

107. Vollstedt A, Baunoch D, Wolfe A, et al. Bacterial Interactions as Detected by Pooled Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing (P-AST) in Polymicrobial Urine Specimens. J Surg Urol. 2020;2020:1.

108. Pavlaki M, Poulakou G, Drimousis P, et al. Polymicrobial bloodstream infections: epidemiology and impact on mortality. J Glob Antimicrob Re. 2013;1(4):207–212. doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2013.06.005

109. Nityadarshini N, Mohapatra S, Gautam H, Jain V, Chaudhry R, Kapil A. Polymicrobial growth in standard urine culture: time to Act or Ignore? Trop Doct. 2022;52(2):335–336. doi:10.1177/00494755221076909

110. Dhamgaye S, Qu Y, Peleg Anton Y. Polymicrobial infections involving clinically relevant Gram‐negative bacteria and fungi. Cellular Microbiology. 2016;18(12):1716–1722. doi:10.1111/cmi.12674

111. Rubin RH, Shapiro ED, Andriole VT, Davis RJ, Stamm WE. Evaluation of New Anti-Infective Drugs for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15(1):S216–S227. doi:10.1093/clind/15.supplement_1.s216

112. Hovelius B, Mårdh PA, Bygren P. Urinary Tract Infections Caused by Staphylococcus Saprophyticus: recurrences and Complications. J Urol. 1979;122(5):645–647. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56541-6

113. McNulty C PHE/NHS Diagnosis of Urinary tract infections. 2010. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927195/UTI_diagnostic_flowchart_NICE-October_2020-FINAL.pdfov.uk. Accessed February 15, 2023.

114. Kouri T, Fogazzi G, Gant V, Hallander H, Hofmann W, Guder WG. European Urinalysis Guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2000;60(231):1–96. doi:10.1080/00365513.2000.12056993

115. Roberts FJ. Quantitative Urine Culture in Patients with Urinary Tract Infection and Bacteremia. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;85(5):616–618. doi:10.1093/ajcp/85.5.616

116. Kunin M. Urinary Tract Infections: Detection, Prevention, and Management. Kunin M ed.. Lea & Febiger; 1997.

117. Choe H, Lee S, Yang SS, et al. Summary of the UAA‐AAUS guidelines for urinary tract infections. Int J Urol. 2018;25(3):175–185. doi:10.1111/iju.13493

118. de Cueto M, Aliaga L, Alós JI, et al. Executive summary of the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infection: guidelines of the Spanish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (SEIMC). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2017;35(5):314–320. doi:10.1016/j.eimc.2016.11.005

119. Naber KG, Bergman B, Bishop MC, et al. EAU Guidelines for the Management of Urinary and Male Genital Tract Infections1. Eur Urol. 2001;40(5):576–588. doi:10.1159/000049840

120. Hilt EE, Parnell LK, Wang D, Stapleton AE, Lukacz ES. Microbial Threshold Guidelines for UTI Diagnosis: a Scoping Systematic Review. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2023;15:43–63. doi:10.2147/plmi.s409488

121. Patel R, Polage CR, Bard JD, et al. Envisioning Future UTI Diagnostics. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;74(7):1284–1292. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab749

122. Nicoloff H, Hjort K, Levin BR, Andersson DI. The high prevalence of antibiotic heteroresistance in pathogenic bacteria is mainly caused by gene amplification. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4(3):504–514. doi:10.1038/s41564-018-0342-0

123. Xu R, Deebel N, Casals R, Dutta R, Mirzazadeh M. A New Gold Rush: a Review of Current and Developing Diagnostic Tools for Urinary Tract Infections. Diagnostics. 2021;11(3):479. doi:10.3390/diagnostics11030479

124. Szlachta-McGinn A, Douglass KM, Chung UYR, Jackson NJ, Nickel JC, Ackerman AL. Molecular Diagnostic Methods Versus Conventional Urine Culture for Diagnosis and Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:113–124. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.009

125. Harris M, Fasolino T. New and emerging technologies for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections. J Lab Med. 2022;46(1):3–15. doi:10.1515/labmed-2021-0085

126. Davenport M, Mach KE, Shortliffe LMD, Banaei N, Wang T-H, Liao JC. New and developing diagnostic technologies for urinary tract infections. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(5):296–310. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2017.20

127. Sathiananthamoorthy S, Malone-Lee J, Gill K, et al. Reassessment of Routine Midstream Culture in Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(3):e01452–18. doi:10.1128/jcm.01452-18

128. Vollstedt A, Baunoch D, Wojno KJ, et al. Multisite Prospective Comparison of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing with Urine Culture for diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Symptomatic Patients. J Surg Urol. 2020;102:100002. doi:10.29011/jsu-102.100002

129. Wojno KJ, Baunoch D, Luke N, et al. Multiplex PCR Based Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Analysis Compared to Traditional Urine Culture in Identifying Significant Pathogens in Symptomatic Patients. Urology. 2019;136:119–126. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.018

130. Brecher SM. Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: what’s a Lab To Do? J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(5):1189–1190. doi:10.1128/jcm.00370-16

131. Barnes HC, Wolff B, Abdul-Rahim O, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Standard versus Expanded Cultures to Diagnose Urinary Tract Infections in Women. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1212–1221. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000001949

132. Elnifro EM, Ashshi AM, Cooper RJ, Klapper PE. Multiplex PCR: optimization and Application in Diagnostic Virology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13(4):559–570. doi:10.1128/cmr.13.4.559

133. Lehmann LE, Hauser S, Malinka T, et al. Rapid Qualitative Urinary Tract Infection Pathogen Identification by SeptiFast® Real-Time PCR. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e17146. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017146

134. Cybulski Z, Schmidt K, Grabiec A, et al. Usability application of multiplex polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of microorganisms isolated from urine of patients treated in cancer hospital. Radiol Oncol. 2013;47(3):296–303. doi:10.2478/raon-2013-0044

135. Pearce MM, Hilt EE, Rosenfeld AB, et al. The Female Urinary Microbiome: a Comparison of Women with and without Urgency Urinary Incontinence. mBio. 2014;5(4):e01283–14. doi:10.1128/mbio.01283-14

136. Haley E, Luke N, Mathur M, et al. Comparison Shows that Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Identifies Infection-associated Urinary Biomarker–positive Urinary Tract Infections That Are Missed by Standard Urine Culture. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;58:73–81. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.10.008

137. Haley E, Luke N, Mathur M, et al. The Prevalence and Association of Different Uropathogens Detected by M-PCR with Infection-Associated Urine Biomarkers in Urinary Tract Infections. Res Rep Urol. 2024;16:19–29. doi:10.2147/rru.s443361

138. Akhlaghpour M, Haley E, Parnell L, et al. Urine biomarkers individually and as a consensus model show high sensitivity and specificity for detecting UTIs. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24(1):153. doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09044-2

139. Festa RA, Opel M, Mathur M, et al. Quantitative multiplex PCR in copies mL–1 linearly correlates with standard urine culture in colonies mL−1 for urinary tract infection (UTI) pathogens. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2023;76(8). doi:10.1093/lambio/ovad085

140. Baunoch D, Luke N, Wang D, et al. Concordance Between Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Susceptibility in Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:3275–3286. doi:10.2147/idr.s323095

141. Moreno E, Andreu A, PÉREZ T, Sabaté M, Johnson JR, Prats G. Relationship between Escherichia coli strains causing urinary tract infection in women and the dominant faecal flora of the same hosts. Epidemiol Amp Infect. 2006;134(5):1015–1023. doi:10.1017/s0950268806005917

142. Willner D, Low S, Steen JA, et al. Single clinical isolates from acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections are representative of dominant in situ populations. mBio. 2014;5(2):e01064–13. doi:10.1128/mbio.01064-13

143. Qin J, Wu N, Bao J, et al. Heterogeneous Klebsiella pneumoniae Co-infections Complicate Personalized Bacteriophage Therapy. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;10:608402. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.608402

144. Hasman H, Saputra D, Sicheritz-Ponten T, et al. Rapid whole-genome sequencing for detection and characterization of microorganisms directly from clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(1):139–146. doi:10.1128/JCM.02452-13

145. Dixon M, Sha S, Stefil M, McDonald M. Is it Time to Say Goodbye to Culture and Sensitivity? The Case for Culture-Independent Urology. 2020;136:112–118. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.030

146. Dixon M, Stefil M, McDonald M, et al. Metagenomics in diagnosis and improved targeted treatment of UTI. World J Urol. 2020;38(1):35–43. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02731-9

147. Wang Y, Chen T, Zhang S, et al. Clinical evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in unbiased pathogen diagnosis of urinary tract infection. J Transl Med. 2023;21(1):762. doi:10.1186/s12967-023-04562-0

148. Liu M, Yang S, Wu S, et al. Detection of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes directly from urine samples in patients suspected of urinary tract infection by metagenomics nanopore sequencing: a large-scale multi-centre study. Clin Transl Med. 2023;13(4):e824. doi:10.1002/ctm2.824

149. Jia K, Huang S, Shen C, et al. Enhancing urinary tract infection diagnosis for negative culture patients with metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1119020. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1119020

150. Michael M, Darian K, Mark JE, Truls BE, David A, Vladimir M. A Head-to-Head Comparative Phase II Study of Standard Urine Culture and Sensitivity Versus DNA Next-generation Sequencing Testing for Urinary Tract Infections. Rev Urol. 2017;19(4):213–220. doi:10.3909/riu0780

151. Fondrie WE, Liang T, Oyler BL, et al. Pathogen Identification Direct From Polymicrobial Specimens Using Membrane Glycolipids. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):15857. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-33681-8

152. Roux-Dalvai F, Gotti C, Leclercq M, et al. Fast and Accurate Bacterial Species Identification in Urine Specimens Using LC-MS/MS Mass Spectrometry and Machine Learning*[S]. Mol Cell Proteom. 2019;18(12):2492–2505. doi:10.1074/mcp.tir119.001559

153. Neuenschwander FR, Groß B, Schubert S. Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing of Gram-Negative Bacteria Directly from Urine Samples of UTI Patients Using MALDI-TOF MS. Antibiotics. 2023;12(6):1042. doi:10.3390/antibiotics12061042

154. Martino FK, Novara G. Asymptomatic Bacteriuria or Urinary Tract Infection? New and Old Biomarkers. Int J Transl Medicine. 2022;2(1):52–65. doi:10.3390/ijtm2010006

155. Nanda N, Juthani-Mehta M. Novel Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection–-A systematic Review. Biomark Insights. 2009;4:S3155. doi:10.4137/bmi.s3155

156. Shahzad A, Knapp M, Lang I, Köhler G. Interleukin 8 (IL-8) - a universal biomarker? Int Arch Medicine. 2010;3(1):11. doi:10.1186/1755-7682-3-11

157. Horváth J, Wullt B, Naber KG, Köves B. Biomarkers in urinary tract infections – which ones are suitable for diagnostics and follow-up? Gms Infect Dis. 2020;8:24. doi:10.3205/id000068

158. Hosman IS, Roić AC, Lamot L. A Systematic Review of the (Un)known Host Immune Response Biomarkers for Predicting Recurrence of Urinary Tract Infection. Front Med. 2022;9:931717. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.931717

159. Masajtis-Zagajewska A, Nowicki M. New markers of urinary tract infection. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;471:286–291. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2017.06.003

160. Mohkam M. Novel Urinary Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Acute Pyelonephritis in Children. Iran J Kidney Dis. 2018;14(1):1–7.

161. Parnell LKD, Luke N, Mathur M, et al. Elevated UTI Biomarkers in Symptomatic Patients with Urine Microbial Densities of 10,000 CFU/mL Indicate a Lower Threshold for Diagnosing UTIs. Diagnostics. 2023;13(16):1–15. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13162688

Creative Commons License © 2024 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, 3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.