Laboratory-based versus population-based surveillance of antimicrobial resistance to inform empirical treatment for suspected urinary tract infection in Indonesia

Copyright: © 2020 Sugianli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) enables monitoring of trends in AMR prevalence. WHO recommends laboratory-based surveillance to obtain actionable AMR data at local or national level. However, laboratory-based surveillance may lead to overestimation of the prevalence of AMR due to bias. The objective of this study is to assess the difference in resistance prevalence between laboratory-based and population-based surveillance (PBS) among uropathogens in Indonesia. We included all urine samples submitted to the laboratory growing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in the laboratory-based surveillance. Population-based surveillance data were collected in a cross-sectional survey of AMR in E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolated from urine samples among consecutive patients with symptoms of UTI, attending outpatient clinics and hospital wards. Data were collected between 1 April 2014 until 31 May 2015. The difference in percentage resistance (95% confidence intervals) between laboratory- and population-based surveillance was calculated for relevant antibiotics. A difference larger than +/- 5 percent points was defined as a biased result, precluding laboratory-based surveillance for guiding empirical treatment. We observed high prevalence of AMR ranging between 63.1% (piperacillin-tazobactam) and 85% (ceftriaxone) in laboratory-based surveillance and 41.3% (piperacillin-tazobactam) and 74.2% (ceftriaxone) in population-based surveillance, except for amikacin and meropenem (5.7%/9.8%; 10.8%/5.9%; [laboratory-/population-based surveillance], respectively). Laboratory-based surveillance yielded significantly higher AMR prevalence estimates than population-based surveillance. This difference was much larger when comparing surveillance data from outpatients than from inpatients. All point estimates of the difference between the two surveillance systems were larger than 5 percent points, except for amikacin and meropenem. Laboratory-based AMR surveillance of uropathogens, is not adequate to guide empirical treatment for community-based settings in Indonesia.