Tag Archives: Escheria coli (E.coli)

Image result for pills wikipedia Hah!  A study that builds on what is already known by many women - that the non-prescription product D-mannose works for urinary tract infections (UTIs). D-mannose is amazingly effective for urinary tract infections caused by E. coli bacteria (up to 90% of UTIs), even infections that  keep recurring (30 to 50% of infections), and which don't respond to numerous antibiotics. D-mannose is effective because it attaches to E. coli bacteria, and prevents them from attaching to the walls of the urinary tract. But as women know, there are many (all effective) D-mannose products on the market - so the big pharmaceutical companies can't claim it as their own (with patents) for the big bucks $$$. So...this study is basically chemically reformulating the mannose sugar (which is in D-mannose) for a new product (mannosides) - one that they can claim as their own. Maybe it'll be a little better than ordinary D-mannose, and maybe not. Human studies are needed.

By the way, this study may be big news to physicians because most don't seem to know about D-mannose as a treatment for UTIs - they all seem to focus just on antibiotics and perhaps cranberry juice in treating UTIs. This may be because D-mannose is considered as an "alternative treatment". And I could find only one study that compares antibiotics and D-mannose for recurrent UTIs - and guess which one did a little better?  Yup...D-mannose (see post). From Medical Xpress:

New treatment reduces E. coli, may offer alternative to antibiotics

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections, and they tend to come back again and again, even when treated. Most UTIs are caused by E. coli that live in the gut and spread to the urinary tractA new study from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has found that a molecular decoy can target and reduce these UTI-causing bacteria in the gut. With a smaller pool of disease-causing bacteria in the gut, according to the researchers, the risk of having a UTI goes down...."This compound may provide a way to treat UTIs without the use of antibiotics."

Close to 100 million people worldwide acquire UTIs each year, and despite antibiotic treatment, about a quarter develop another such infection within six months. UTIs cause painful, burning urination and the frequent urge to urinate. In serious cases, the infection can spread to the kidneys and then the bloodstream, where it can become life-threatening. Most UTIs are caused by E. coli that live harmlessly in the gut. However, when shed in the feces, the bacteria can spread to the opening of the urinary tract and up to the bladder, where they can cause problems. Conventional wisdom holds that UTIs recur frequently because bacterial populations from the gut are continually re-seeding the urinary tract with disease-causing bacteria.

Hultgren, graduate student Caitlin Spaulding, and colleagues reasoned that if they could reduce the number of dangerous E. coli in the gut, they could reduce the likelihood of developing a UTI and possibly prevent some recurrent infections. First, the researchers identified genes that E. coli need to survive in the gut. One set of genes coded for a kind of pilus, a hairlike appendage on the surface of E. coli that allows the bacteria to stick to tissues, like molecular velcro. Without this pilus, the bacteria fail to thrive in the gut. Earlier studies found that the identified pilus attaches to a sugar called mannose that is found on the surface of the bladder. Grabbing hold of mannose receptors on the bladder with the pilus allows the bacteria to avoid being swept away when a person urinates. Bacteria that lack this pilus are unable to cause UTIs in mice.

Previously, Hultgren and co-author, James W. Janetka, PhD, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biophysics at Washington University, chemically modified mannose to create a group of molecules, called mannosides, that are similar to mannose but changed in a way that the bacteria latch onto them more tightly with their pili. Unlike mannose receptors, though, these mannosides are not attached to the bladder wall, so bacteria that take hold of mannosides instead of mannose receptors are flushed out with urine.

Since the researchers found that this same pilus also allows the bacteria to bind in the gut, they reasoned that mannoside treatment could reduce the number of E. coli in the gut and perhaps prevent the spread of the bacteria to the bladder. To test this idea, they introduced a disease-causing strain of E. coli into the bladders and guts of mice to mirror the pattern seen in people. In women with UTIs, the same bacteria that cause problems in the bladder usually also are found living in the gut.

The researchers gave the mice three oral doses of mannoside, and then measured the numbers of bacteria in the bladders and guts of the mice after the last dose of mannoside. They found that the disease-causing bacteria had been almost entirely eliminated from the bladder and reduced a hundredfold in the gut, from 100 million per sample to 1 million. .... researchers measured the composition of the gut microbiome after mannoside treatment. They found that mannoside treatment had minimal effect on intestinal bacteria other than the ones that cause most UTIs. This is in stark contrast to the massive changes in the abundance of many microbial species seen after treatment with antibiotics. Furthermore, since mannoside is not an antibiotic, it potentially could be used to treat UTIs caused by antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, a growing problem. 

Image result for washing hands OK,  the study results sound promising: that washing with cold water is as good as washing with warm or hot water for removing bacteria from the hands. And that type of soap didn't matter - both the anti-microbial soap and ordinary soap were equally effective. But...the researchers only looked at one strain of bacteria - E. coli (full name Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229)), and there are MANY microbes and viruses out there that cause problems. So I would view it as a nice start ( a preliminary study), but not the final word. From Science Daily:

Handwashing: Cool water as effective as hot for removing germs

We all know that washing our hands can keep us from spreading germs and getting sick. But a new Rutgers-New Brunswick study found that cool water removes the same amount of harmful bacteria as hot. ....In the Rutgers study, published in the June issue of the Journal of Food Protection, high levels of a harmless bacteria were put on the hands of 21 participants multiple times over a six-month period before they were asked to wash their hands in 60-degree, 79-degree or 100-degree water temperatures using 0.5 ml, 1 ml or 2 ml volumes of soap.

 "Also we learned even washing for 10 seconds significantly removed bacteria from the hands." While the study indicates that there is no difference between the amount of soap used, more work needs to be done to understand exactly how much and what type of soap is needed to remove harmful microbes from hands, said co-author Jim Arbogast, vice president of Hygiene Sciences and Public Health Advancements for GOJO. "This is important because the biggest public health need is to increase handwashing or hand sanitizing by food service workers and the public before eating, preparing food and after using the restroom," Arbogast said.

These findings are significant, particularly to the restaurant and food industry, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues guidelines, every four years, to states. Those guidelines currently recommend that plumbing systems at food establishments and restaurants deliver water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit for handwashing.

Schaffner said the issue of water temperature has been debated for a number of years without enough science to back-up any recommendation to change the policy guidelines or provide proof that water temperature makes a difference in hand hygiene. Many states, in fact, interpret the FDA guidelines as a requirement that water temperature for handwashing must be 100 degrees, he said. [Original study.]

Image result for ibd Exciting new research about what is going on in the gut microbiome (the community of microbes) of people with Crohn's disease - a debilitating intestinal bowel disease (IBD) which causes severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue. A number of earlier studies focused on gut bacteria and found dysbiosis (microbial community out of whack) in those with Crohn's disease.

This new research also looked at fungal species and found that there is an "abundance" of 2 species of bacteria (Serratia marcescens and Escherichia coli) and one fungal species (Candida tropicalis) and that these interact in the gut in persons with Crohn's disease. In persons with Crohn's disease the abundance of potentially pathogenic bacteria is increased (Escherichia coli, Serratia marcescens, and Ruminococcus gnavus), while beneficial bacteria (such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii) are decreased. From Science Daily:

Fungus in humans identified for first time as key factor in Crohn's disease

A Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine-led team of international researchers has for the first time identified a fungus as a key factor in the development of Crohn's disease. The researchers also linked a new bacterium to the previous bacteria associated with Crohn's. The groundbreaking findings, published on September 20th in mBio, could lead to potential new treatments and ultimately, cures for the debilitating inflammatory bowel disease, which causes severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, weight loss, and fatigue. "We already know that bacteria, in addition to genetic and dietary factors, play a major role in causing Crohn's disease," said the study's senior and corresponding author, Mahmoud A Ghannoum, PhD.

Both bacteria and fungi are microorganisms -- infinitesimal forms of life that can only be seen with a microscope. Fungi are eukaryotes: organism whose cells contain a nucleus; they are closer to humans than bacteria, which are prokaryotes: single-celled forms of life with no nucleus. Collectively, the fungal community that inhabits the human body is known as the mycobiome, while the bacteria are called the bacteriome. (Fungi and bacteria are present throughout the body; previously Ghannoum had found that people harbor between nine and 23 fungal species in their mouths.)

The researchers assessed the mycobiome and bacteriome of patients with Crohn's disease and their Crohn's-free first degree relatives in nine families in northern France and Belgium, and in Crohn's-free individuals from four families living in the same geographic area....The researchers found strong fungal-bacterial interactions in those with Crohn's disease: two bacteria (Escherichia coli and Serratia marcescens) and one fungus (Candida tropicalis) moved in lock step. The presence of all three in the sick family members was significantly higher compared to their healthy relatives, suggesting that the bacteria and fungus interact in the intestines. Additionally, test-tube research by the Ghannoum-led team found that the three work together (with the E. coli cells fusing to the fungal cells and S. marcescens forming a bridge connecting the microbes) to produce a biofilm -- a thin, slimy layer of microorganisms found in the body that adheres to, among other sites, a portion of the intestines -- which can prompt inflammation that results in the symptoms of Crohn's disease.

This is first time any fungus has been linked to Crohn's in humans; previously it was only found in mice with the disease. The study is also the first to include S. marcescens in the Crohn's-linked bacteriome. Additionally, the researchers found that the presence of beneficial bacteria was significantly lower in the Crohn's patients, corroborating previous research findings.

Here is an amazing short video for those interested in seeing how bacteria mutate and grow when exposed to antibiotics - and evolving to become superbugs. Researchers filmed an experiment that created bacteria a thousand times more drug-resistant than their ancestors. In the time-lapse video, a white bacterial colony (E.coli bacteria) creeps across an enormous black petri dish plated with vertical bands of successively higher doses of antibacterial drugs (antibiotics).

How they did it: The researchers imaged the E. coli bacteria every 10 minutes for 10 days as the microbes expanded across the plate. You can see that the bacteria paused briefly at the boundaries of increasingly stronger antibiotic concentrations until a mutant bacteria struck out into the stronger antibiotic territory. By challenging the bacteria with differing doses of antibiotic, the team demonstrated that E. coli evolve higher resistance more quickly if they first encounter an intermediate, rather than a high, concentration of antibiotic. It's a beautiful, yet horrifying video. NOTE: the bacteria grows on agar, which is a thick, clear substance that comes from seaweed and is used for growing bacteria in scientific research. From Harvard Medical School, on YOUTUBE:

From NPR:  WATCH: Bacteria Invade Antibiotics And Transform Into Superbugs

In the time-lapse video, a white bacterial colony creeps across an enormous black petri dish plated with vertical bands of successively higher doses of antibiotic. The colony pauses when it hits the first band of antibiotic, creating a stark border between the white colony and the black petri dish. Then the bacteria start to edge their way into the toxic soup. More dots appear and they start growing, racing to the next, stronger band of antibiotic. The bacteria are evolving. After almost two weeks of real time have passed, they've become resistant to the strongest completely taken over the kitchen-table-sized petri dish.

We know dangerous bacteria are getting stronger all the time and that it's our fault because of our excessive and indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Each year, 23,000 people in the U.S. die as a result of superbug infections. But we typically don't get to see superbugs created.... Their video and report were published Thursday in the journal Science. 

 Amazing!  Researchers found that the bacteria found in breast cancer patients and healthy patients are different. (See post on their earlier work on breast microbiome.) And not only that, but the types of bacteria (Lactobacillus and Streptococcus) that are more prevalent in the breasts of healthy women are considered "beneficial" and may actually protect them from breast cancer. Meanwhile, elevated levels of the bacteria Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis found in the breast tissue adjacent to tumors are the kind that do harm (e.g., known to induce double-stranded breaks in DNA) . This research raises the question: could probiotics (beneficial bacteria) protect breasts from cancer? From Science Daily:

Beneficial bacteria may protect breasts from cancer

Bacteria that have the potential to abet breast cancer are present in the breasts of cancer patients, while beneficial bacteria are more abundant in healthy breasts, where they may actually be protecting women from cancer, according to Gregor Reid, PhD, and his collaborators. These findings may lead ultimately to the use of probiotics to protect women against breast cancer. The research is published in the ahead of print June 24 in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology.

In the study, Reid's PhD student Camilla Urbaniak obtained breast tissues from 58 women who were undergoing lumpectomies or mastectomies for either benign (13 women) or cancerous (45 women) tumors, as well as from 23 healthy women who had undergone breast reductions or enhancements. They used DNA sequencing to identify bacteria from the tissues, and culturing to confirm that the organisms were alive. 

Women with breast cancer had elevated levels of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis, are known to induce double-stranded breaks in DNA in HeLa cells, which are cultured human cells. "Double-strand breaks are the most detrimental type of DNA damage and are caused by genotoxins, reactive oxygen species, and ionizing radiation," the investigators write. The repair mechanism for double-stranded breaks is highly error prone, and such errors can lead to cancer's development.

Conversely, Lactobacillus and Streptococcus, considered to be health-promoting bacteria, were more prevalent in healthy breasts than in cancerous ones. Both groups have anticarcinogenic properties. For example, natural killer cells are critical to controlling growth of tumors, and a low level of these immune cells is associated with increased incidence of breast cancer. Streptococcus thermophilus produces anti-oxidants that neutralize reactive oxygen species, which can cause DNA damage, and thus, cancer.

The motivation for the research was the knowledge that breast cancer decreases with breast feeding, said Reid. "Since human milk contains beneficial bacteria, we wondered if they might be playing a role in lowering the risk of cancer. Or, could other bacterial types influence cancer formation in the mammary gland in women who had never lactated? To even explore the question, we needed first to show that bacteria are indeed present in breast tissue." (They had showed that in earlier research.)

But lactation might not even be necessary to improve the bacterial flora of breasts. "Colleagues in Spain have shown that probiotic lactobacilli ingested by women can reach the mammary gland," said Reid. "Combined with our work, this raises the question, should women, especially those at risk for breast cancer, take probiotic lactobacilli to increase the proportion of beneficial bacteria in the breast? To date, researchers have not even considered such questions, and indeed some have balked at there being any link between bacteria and breast cancer or health."

Besides fighting cancer directly, it might be possible to increase the abundance of beneficial bacteria at the expense of harmful ones, through probiotics, said Reid. Antibiotics targeting bacteria that abet cancer might be another option for improving breast cancer management, said Reid. In any case, something keeps bacteria in check on and in the breasts, as it does throughout the rest of the body, said Reid. "What if that something was other bacteria--in conjunction with the host immune system?

 This new research suggests possible future treatments in treating urinary tract infections (UTIs) by manipulating the person's diet and so influencing gut microbes and urinary pH (how acidic is the urine). These possible future treatments are different than what others are looking for, which are bacteria (probiotics) that one can take to prevent or treat UTIs. (Earlier posts on treating UTIs are here and here,)

The researchers found that during UTIs, humans secrete siderocalin which helps the body fight infection by depriving bacteria of iron (a mineral necessary for bacterial growth), and that samples that were less acidic, and closer to the neutral pH of pure water, showed higher activity of the protein siderocalin and were better at restricting bacterial growth than the more acidic samples. The researchers found that the presence of small metabolites called aromatics, which vary depending on a person's diet, also contributed to variations in bacterial growth. Samples that restricted bacterial growth had more aromatic compounds, and urine that permitted bacterial growth had fewer. Stay tuned for follow-up research. 

One of the researchers, Dr. Jeffrey P. Henderson, pointed out that physicians already know how to raise urinary pH with things like calcium supplements, and alkalizing agents are already used in the U.K. as over-the-counter UTI treatments. But knowing how to encourage the metabolites is trickier, but will involve dietary changes. Some good food sources include those rich in antioxidants: coffee, tea, colorful berries, cranberries, and red wine.From Science Daily:

A person's diet, acidity of urine may affect susceptibility to UTIs

The acidity of urine -- as well as the presence of small molecules related to diet -- may influence how well bacteria can grow in the urinary tract, a new study shows. The research may have implications for treating urinary tract infections, which are among the most common bacterial infections worldwide. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) often are caused by a strain of bacteria called Escherichia coli (E. coli), and doctors long have relied on antibiotics to kill the microbes. But increasing bacterial resistance to these drugs is leading researchers to look for alternative treatment strategies.

"Many physicians can tell you that they see patients who are particularly susceptible to urinary tract infections," said senior author Jeffrey P. Henderson​, MD, PhD,...With this in mind, Henderson and his team, including first author Robin R. Shields-Cutler, a graduate student in Henderson's lab, were interested in studying how the body naturally fights bacterial infections. They cultured E. coli in urine samples from healthy volunteers and noted major differences in how well individual urine samples could harness a key immune protein to limit bacterial growth. "We could divide these urine samples into two groups based on whether they permitted or restricted bacterial growth," Henderson said. "Then we asked, what is special about the urine samples that restricted growth?"

The urine samples that prevented bacterial growth supported more activity of this key protein, which the body makes naturally in response to infection, than the samples that permitted bacteria to grow easily. The protein is called siderocalin, and past research has suggested that it helps the body fight infection by depriving bacteria of iron, a mineral necessary for bacterial growth. Their data led the researchers to ask if any characteristics of their healthy volunteers were associated with the effectiveness of siderocalin.

"Age and sex did not turn out to be major players," Shields-Cutler said. "Of all the factors we measured, the only one that was really different between the two groups was pH -- how acidic or basic the urine was."Henderson said that conventional wisdom in medicine favors the idea that acidic urine is better for restricting bacterial growth. But their results were surprising because samples that were less acidic, closer to the neutral pH of pure water, showed higher activity of the protein siderocalin and were better at restricting bacterial growth than the more acidic samples.

Importantly, the researchers also showed that they could encourage or discourage bacterial growth in urine simply by adjusting the pH, a finding that could have implications for how patients with UTIs are treated."Physicians are very good at manipulating urinary pH," said Henderson, who treats patients with UTIs. "If you take Tums, for example, it makes the urine less acidic. But pH is not the whole story here. Urine is a destination for much of the body's waste in the form of small molecules. It's an incredibly complex medium that is changed by diet, individual genetics and many other factors."

After analyzing thousands of compounds in the samples, the researchers determined that the presence of small metabolites called aromatics, which vary depending on a person's diet, also contributed to variations in bacterial growth. Samples that restricted bacterial growth had more aromatic compounds, and urine that permitted bacterial growth had fewer.

Henderson and his colleagues suspect that at least some of these aromatics are good iron binders, helping deprive the bacteria of iron. And perhaps surprisingly, these molecules are not produced by human cells, but by a person's gut microbes as they process food in the diet."Our study suggests that the body's immune system harnesses dietary plant compounds to prevent bacterial growth," Henderson said. "We identified a list of compounds of interest, and many of these are associated with specific dietary components and with gut microbes."

Indeed, their results implicate cranberries among other possible dietary interventions. Shield-Cutler noted that many studies already have investigated extracts or juices from cranberries as UTI treatments but the results of such investigations have not been consistent.

Image result for pills wikipedia My last post was about a recent Medscape article discussing whether probiotics can be used to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) (answer: probiotics are promising, but too little is known right now to recommend any). Two alternative treatments that the article did not discuss were drinking cranberry juice or taking cranberry supplements (studies are currently mixed regarding their effectiveness in UTIs - possibly due to varying cranberry products and doses used) and taking D-mannose supplements (whether as a powder or pill).

D-mannose is recommended on alternative medical sites as an effective treatment for UTIs caused by E.coli, including recurrent UTIs. Studies show that up to 90% of UTIs are caused by E. coli.The majority of both males and females writing comments about UTI treatments on these sites and for D-mannose product reviews (on Amazon) rave about D-mannose as the only treatment that worked for them after suffering from recurrent UTIs (antibiotics typically did not work well for them). D-mannose is a naturally occurring sugar found in a number of fruits, especially cranberries and blueberries. D-mannose is effective because it attaches to E. coli bacteria, and prevents them from attaching to the walls of the urinary tract. (Researchers write that D-mannose "inhibits bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells.") Persons taking D-mannose are also advised to drink plenty of water, which then flushes out the bacteria.

The typical dose of D-mannose for UTI treatment is 500 mg, in capsule or powder form, taken in a glass of water or juice, every few hours for five days (perhaps 5 or 6 tablets a day). Then continue taking for a few days after all symptoms go away to make sure all the bacteria are flushed out of the urinary tract. Many long-term recurrent UTI sufferers continue taking D-mannose at lower doses to prevent the UTIs from recurring. There are no known side-effects. D-mannose is easily found at stores such as Whole Foods and online (Amazon).

After doing a D-mannose and urinary tract infection search using PubMed (from Medline, the National Institute of Health), I found that currently there is only one published study looking at the use of D-Mannose in urinary tract infections.

The 2014 study by B. Kranjcec, D. Papes, and S. Altarac looked at the effectiveness of D-mannose powder for recurring urinary tract infections in women. 308 women with a history of recurrent UTIs were first treated with an antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) for an UTI, and then were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups for 6 months. The 3 groups were: D-mannose (2 g of D-mannose in 200 ml water daily), or prophylactic antibiotics (50 mg Nitrofurantoin daily) or a control group that didn't take anything (no prophylaxis). Results were that 98 patients (31.8%) had a recurrent UTI. Of those 98, 14.6% (15 women) were in the D-mannose group, 20.4% (21 women) in the Nitrofurantoin antibiotic group, and 60.8%  (62 women) in the no treatment (no prophylaxis) group. In other words, the D-mannose group did the best in preventing recurrences, even better than the antibiotic. From World Journal of Urology:

D-mannose powder for prophylaxis of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: a randomized clinical trial.

Overall 98 patients (31.8%) had recurrent UTI: 15 (14.6) in the D-mannose group, 21 (20.4) in Nitrofurantoin group, and 62 (60.8) in no prophylaxis group, with the rate significantly higher in no prophylaxis group compared to active groups (P < 0.001). Patients in D-mannose group and Nitrofurantoin group had a significantly lower risk of recurrent UTI episode during prophylactic therapy compared to patients in no prophylaxis group (RR 0.239 and 0.335, P < 0.0001). In active groups, 17.9% of patients reported side effects but they were mild and did not require stopping the prophylaxis. Patients in D-mannose group had a significantly lower risk of side effects compared to patients in Nitrofurantoin group (RR 0.276, P < 0.0001), but the clinical importance of this finding is low because Nitrofurantoin was well tolerated.

2 Comments

How does the medical profession currently view probiotics in the prevention and treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), especially recurrent infections? Answer: Only a few studies have been done, but what little is known is promising, which is good because traditional antibiotic treatment has problems (especially antibiotic resistance). The following article excerpts are from Medscape. Medscape is a popular web resource for physicians and health professionals. It features peer-reviewed original medical journal articles, CME (Continuing Medical Education), daily medical news, drug information, etc. To read the entire article without registering with Medscape (registration is free for everyone), just Google the title and then click on it. From Medscape:

Probiotics in Preventing Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Literature Review

Increasing antibiotic resistance and increasing resistance to commonly used antibiotics makes treatment and prevention of urinary tract infections difficult. Although more research is needed, probiotics should be considered a useful and safe alternative to antibiotics. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common bacterial infections in women, accounting for over 6 million primary care visits annually (Zak, 2014). Approximately 50% to 60% of women will develop a UTI in their lifetime...

Treatment is often complicated by the high rates of reoccurrence. Approximately 20% to 30% of women with a UTI will have a reoccurrence (Beerepoot, Geerlings, van Haarst, van Charante, & ter Riet, 2013)... Ikaheimo et al. (1996) found that in the primary care setting, 53% of women over 55 years of age and 36% of younger women will have a reoccurrence within a year. Women are diagnosed with recurrent UTIs if they have three UTIs with three positive urine cultures within a 12-month period or two infections in the previous six months (Al-Badr & Al-Shaikh, 2013).

Symptoms of UTIs include dysuria, frequency, urgency, nocturia, suprapubic pain, and hematuria, all of which significantly affect the quality of life. Contributing factors to UTIs include inadequate hydration, voiding patterns, diaphragm and spermicide use, tight undergarments, wiping technique, immuno-suppression, postmenopausal women, diabetes mellitus, and frequent sexual intercourse (Al-Badr & Al-Shaikh, 2013). Escheria coli (E. coli) causes the majority of UTIs in women, accounting for 75% to 95% of infections (Al-Badyr & Al-Shaikh, 2013; Nosseir, Lind, & Winkler, 2012). Recurrent UTIs are most often (~80% of time) caused by reinfection with the same pathogen (Al-Badyr & Al-Shaikh, 2013; Nosseir et al., 2012).

Continuous antibiotics are currently used as treatment and prophylaxis for recurrent UTIs. The literature recommends treating anywhere from 6 to 12 months to 2 to 5 years (Zak, 2014). However, the long-term effects of antibiotics are unknown. We are currently in an age of increasing antibiotic resistance, and increasing resistance to commonly used antibiotics, such as trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Gupta, Hooton, & Stamm, 2001), makes treatment and prevention of infections difficult. Therefore, finding safe and effective alternatives to preventing recurrent UTIs in women is imperative. 

The literature provides low-to-moderate evidence that probiotics are effective in preventing UTIs in women. Abdulwahab, Abdulazim, Nada, and Radi (2013) examined the effect of vaginal Lactobacillus from 100 healthy women on the growth of uropathogenic E. coli isolates from 100 women with recurrent UTIs. They found that the majority of Lactobacilli in healthy women without UTIs were L. acidophilus, L. fermentum, and L. delburekii. In addition, they found that all vaginal Lactobacilli strains (from asymptomatic women) could inhibit the growth of E. coli on the agar plate. The weakness of this study, however, is that it was done in a laboratory. 

Two studies went one step further by examining human prophylaxis with Lactobacilli, either orally or vaginally, as means to prevent recurrent UTIs. Beerepoot et al. (2012) compared the effects of oral L. rhamnosus and L. reuteri (109 CFU twice daily) with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX, 480 mg daily) on preventing recurrent UTIs in 252 postmenopausal women. In their randomized control trial, they found that after 12 months of prophylaxis, the mean number of symptomatic UTIs decreased form 7.0 (from the previous year) to 2.9 in the TMP-SMX group and from 6.8 to 3.3 in the Lactobacilli group.

Antibiotic resistance from E. coli (causing UTI and in urine and feces of asymptomatic women) to sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim and amoxicillin increased...after 12 months of TMP-SMX prophylaxis, 100% of urinary E. coli was found resistant to trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole. No antibiotic resistance occurred in the Lactobacilli group.

Stapleton et al. (2011) considered the effect of an intravaginal probiotic, L. crispatus, for prevention of recurrent UTIs in 100 premenopausal women. In their randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, they found that L. crispatus was associated with reduced symptomatic UTIs. Fifteen percent of women taking L. crispatus and 27% of women taking placebo experienced recurrent UTIs. 

Each of the three studies above examined different species of Lactobacilli. Abdulwahab et al. (2013) investigated the effects of L. acidophilus, L. fermentum, and L. delburekii. Beerepoot et al. (2012) studied L. rhamnosus and L. reuteri and Stapleton et al. (2011) investigated L. crispatus....However, all three studies provide evidence that even with different strains of Lactobacilli and different routes of receiving the probiotic, Lactobacilli can reduce recurrent UTIs in women.

The literature review reveals that Lactobacillus probiotics, taken either orally or vaginally, are likely effective in reducing recurrent UTIs in women. Lactobacilli may be especially useful for women with a history of recurrent, complicated UTIs or prolonged antibiotic use. Although Lactobacilli are found slightly less effective to antibiotics in reducing recurrent UTIs (at least in the dose and frequency studied), probiotics do not cause antibiotic resistance and may offer other health benefits due to vaginal re-colonization with Lactobacilli. In addition, long-term health effects of continual antibiotic use are still lacking. 

Future studies should examine optimum frequency, duration, species, and route of Lactobacilli... In an age of increasing antimicrobial resistance, other non-antibiotic methods of preventing recurrent UTIs, such as cranberry tablets, herbs, and acupuncture, should also be further studied, especially in comparative effectiveness research with Lactobacilli. 

EscherichiaColi NIAID.jpgE. coli bacteria.  Photo:Wikipedia, Rocky Mountain Laboratories