What is the prevalence of multidrug‑resistant uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) in India?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: February 11, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant UPEC in India

Multidrug resistance (MDR) in uropathogenic E. coli is alarmingly high in India, affecting 52.8% to over 75% of community-acquired isolates, with significant regional variation and concerning rates of ESBL production (44.8-54%) and emerging carbapenem resistance (4.3-5.1%).1, 2

National MDR Burden

The prevalence of multidrug-resistant UPEC in India represents a critical public health challenge:

  • Community-acquired infections show MDR rates exceeding 75% in recent molecular studies from suburban areas, with multiple-antibiotic resistance (MAR) index >0.2 in the majority of isolates 2

  • ESBL production is documented in 44.8-54% of community-acquired UPEC isolates nationally, with the highest rates (52.8%) specifically among E. coli 3, 1

  • Carbapenem resistance has emerged at 4.3-5.1% of community isolates, including NDM-5-producing strains and OXA-48 co-harboring isolates, representing a concerning trend 1, 2

Regional Variations

Geographic disparities in resistance patterns are substantial across India:

  • The heavily populated Gangetic plains (north and northwest India) demonstrate significantly higher resistance rates compared to other regions 3

  • South, West, and Northeast India maintain relatively better susceptibility profiles, though still concerning 3

  • One Delhi center recorded only 42% meropenem susceptibility, highlighting extreme regional variation even for last-line agents 3

Resistance Patterns to Common Antibiotics

The antibiotic susceptibility landscape reveals severe limitations for empiric therapy:

  • Fluoroquinolones retain only 31% susceptibility nationally, with >80% of isolates showing resistance in some studies 3, 2

  • Oral cephalosporins show only 26% susceptibility, with third-generation cephalosporins at 46% and fourth-generation at 52% 3

  • Co-trimoxazole demonstrates 49% susceptibility nationally, though some regions report >50% effectiveness 3, 1

  • Beta-lactams, first- and second-generation cephalosporins show the highest resistance rates, making them unsuitable for empiric use 1

Preserved Treatment Options

Despite widespread resistance, certain agents maintain clinical utility:

  • Fosfomycin retains 94-100% susceptibility (inter-center range 83-97%), representing the most reliable oral option 3, 1, 2

  • Nitrofurantoin shows 85% susceptibility nationally (range 61-97%), though 14% resistance among UPEC isolates is concerning in some areas 3, 1

  • Parenteral agents maintain better activity: piperacillin-tazobactam (81%), amikacin (88%), and meropenem (88%) nationally, though regional variation exists 3

Molecular Epidemiology

The genetic landscape reveals concerning clonal spread:

  • The epidemic ST131 clone carrying CTX-M-15 is prevalent, particularly in phylogroup B2 (>35% of isolates), with >80% of ESBL-producing isolates belonging to this clone 2

  • IncF plasmids are present in >85% of isolates, with >90% having MAR index >0.2, facilitating horizontal resistance gene transfer 2

  • Novel TEM alleles (TEM-253 and TEM-254) have been identified, indicating ongoing evolution of resistance mechanisms 2

Clinical Implications

This high MDR prevalence necessitates specific management approaches:

  • Empiric fluoroquinolone and third-generation cephalosporin use should be discouraged given resistance rates of 69% and 54% respectively 3

  • Local antibiograms are essential for guiding therapy, as inter-center susceptibility ranges vary dramatically (e.g., nitrofurantoin 61-97%) 3

  • Piperacillin/tazobactam and aminoglycosides serve as carbapenem-sparing parenteral options when oral therapy fails, though monitoring for resistance is critical 3

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.