ArticlePDF Available

Urinary Tract Infections and Antimicrobial Sensitivity Patterns of Uropathogens Isolated from Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients Attending Some Hospitals in Awka "Urinary Tract Infections and Antimicrobial Sensitivity Patterns of Uropathogens Isolated from Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients Attending Some Hospitals in Awka

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background: Diabetic patients have been found to be prone to urinary tract infections, and there is a wide gap of information in developing countries regarding the prevalence and antibiotic sensitivity of the pathogens causing this infection. This study was carried out to determine the prevalence, predisposing factors and antibiotic sensitivity of organisms causing urinary tract infections among diabetic patients and non-diabetics in four hospitals in Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria. Method: A total of four hundred and sixty participants (230 diabetic patients and 230 non-diabetics) were enrolled in a cross-sectional study design with 249 males (54.13%) and 211 (45.87 %) females. Clean catch mid-stream urine samples were collected from all participants in sterile containers and analyzed macroscopically and microscopically. Each urine specimen was streaked onto Nutrient agar, MacConkey agar, Cysteine Lactose Electrolyte Deficient agar and Sabouraud's Dextrose agar, incubated at 37°C for 24h and identified using standard methods. The sensitivity of the isolates to different antibiotics was tested using Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. Data obtained were analyzed statistically. Result: The overall prevalence of urinary tract infections among diabetic patients, 63 (27.39%), was significantly higher than that among non-diabetics, 41 (17.83%) (p= 0.014). Gender and previous history of UTI were found to have significant association with urinary tract infection (0.000). Organisms isolated were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Citrobacter spp, Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Candida albicans. The isolates were sensitive to tested antibiotics with Gentamicin (10µg) and Ceftriaxone (30µg) as most effective against Gram negative bacteria isolates while Ampicillin (10µg) and Chloramphenicol (30µg) were most effective against Gram positive bacteria isolates. Conclusion: The prevalence of UTI is significantly higher in diabetics than in non-diabetics with E. coli being the most common isolate.The importance of antibiotic sensitivity testing before treatment is highly recommended.
Content may be subject to copyright.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353670376
Urinary Tract Infections and Antimicrobial Sensitivity Patterns of
Uropathogens Isolated from Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients Attending
Some Hospitals in Awka "Urinary Tract Inf...
ArticleinAmerican Journal of Microbiological Research · August 2021
DOI: 10.12691/ajmr-9-3-3
CITATIONS
3
READS
379
8 authors, including:
Chito Clare Ekwealor
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
39 PUBLICATIONS145 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Oluchi Alaribe
Kansas State University
1 PUBLICATION3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
C. M. Ogbukagu
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
15 PUBLICATIONS58 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Evelyn Kyrian-Ogbonna
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka
12 PUBLICATIONS65 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Evelyn Kyrian-Ogbonna on 03 August 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
American Journal of Microbiological Research, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 3, 83-91
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajmr/9/3/3
Published by Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/ajmr-9-3-3
Urinary Tract Infections and Antimicrobial Sensitivity
Patterns of Uropathogens Isolated from Diabetic and
Non-diabetic Patients Attending Some Hospitals in Awka
Ekwealor Chito Clare1,*, Alaribe Oluchi Juliet1, Ogbukagu Chioma Maureen1,
Alaribe James Romeo2, Kyrian-Ogbonna Evelyn Ada1
1Department of Applied Microbiology & Brewing, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria
2Department of Microbiology, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
*Corresponding author:
Received June 12, 2021; Revised July 19, 2021; Accepted August 02, 2021
Abstract Background: Diabetic patients have been found to be prone to urinary tract infections, and there is a
wide gap of information
in developing countries regarding the prevalence and antibiotic sensitivity of the pathogens
causing this infection. This study
was carried out to determine the prevalence, predisposing factors and antibiotic
sensitivity of organisms causing urinary tract
infections among diabetic patients and non-diabetics in four hospitals
in Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria. Method: A total of four hundred and sixty participants (230 diabetic patients and
230 non-diabetics) were enrolled in a cross-
sectional study design with 249 males (54.13%) and 211 (45.87 %)
females. Clean catch mid-stream urine samples were
collected from all participants in sterile containers and analyzed
macroscopically and microscopically. Each urine specimen
was streaked onto Nutrient agar, MacConkey agar,
Cysteine Lactose Electrolyte Deficient agar and Sabourauds Dextrose agar,
incubated at 37°C for 24h and identified
using standard methods. The sensitivity of the isolates to different antibiotics was
tested using Kirby-Bauer disc
diffusion method. Data obtained were analyzed statistically. Result: The overall prevalence of urinary tract
infections among diabetic patients, 63 (27.39%), was significantly higher than
that among non-diabetics, 41 (17.83%)
(p= 0.014). Gender and previous history of UTI were found to have significant
association with urinary tract
infection (0.000). Organisms isolated were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus
mirabilis,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Citrobacter spp, Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, Staphylococcus aureus,
Enterococcus faecalis, and Candida albicans. The isolates were sensitive to tested antibiotics with Gentamicin
(10µg) and
Ceftriaxone (30µg) as most effective against Gram negative bacteria isolates while Ampicillin (10µg)
and Chloramphenicol
(30µg) were most effective against Gram positive bacteria isolates. Conclusion: The
prevalence of UTI is significantly higher in diabetics than in non-diabetics with E. coli being the most
common
isolate.The importance of antibiotic sensitivity testing before treatment is highly recommended.
Keywords: urinary tract infection, diabetics, risk factors of UTI, non-diabetics, antibiotics
Cite This Article: Ekwealor Chito Clare, Alaribe Oluchi Juliet, Ogbukagu Chioma Maureen,
Alaribe James Romeo, and Kyrian-Ogbonna Evelyn Ada, Urinary Tract Infections and Antimicrobial Sensitivity
Patterns of Uropathogens Isolated from Diabetic and Non-diabetic Patients Attending Some Hospitals in Awka.”
American Journal of Microbiological Research, vol. 9, no. 3 (2021): 83-91. doi: 10.12691/ajmr-9-3-3.
1. Introduction
Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a group of metabolic
diseases
characterized by hyperglycemia, resulting from
defects in
insulin secretion, insulin action or both [1]. The
prevalence
of diabetes mellitus has increased over the past
decades, and global reports show that it is now
approaching
epidemic proportions [2,3,4]. In 2017, the
global prevalence
of diabetes among adults aged
20-70 years was 8.4% and
was responsible for 10.7% of
all cases of deaths worldwide
[5]. An estimated 463
million adults aged 2079 years are
living with diabetes
[4]. This represents 9.3% of the world’s population in this
age group. The prevalence is
expected to rise from 135
million in 1995 to 300 million in
the year 2025, 578
million (10.2%) by 2030 and to 700 million (10.9%) by
2045 [4]. According to WHO [3], the
number of people
with diabetes in Africa has increased
from 4 million in
1980 to 25 million in 2014, and the
number is expected to
reach 47.1 million by 2045 [4]. The
disease was
responsible for more than 366,200 deaths in
Africa in
2019 [4]. The estimated prevalence of diabetes is
2.4% in
rural areas, up to 5.9% in urban sub-Sahara Africa
[4]
and
between 8-13% in more developed areas such as
South
Africa [6].
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common
infection
among patients with diabetes mellitus [7,8], with
estimates of diabetics suffering from UTI reaching 10% of
American Journal of Microbiological Research 84
patients visiting hospitals [9]. It is more common among
diabetic patients than non-diabetics [10]. Evidence from
various epidemiological studies showed that UTI is more
common in females with diabetes than in non-diabetic
females [1,12,13].
The chronic hyperglycemia of diabetes is associated
with
long term damage, dysfunction, and failure of various
organs especially the eyes, genitourinary system, nerves,
heart, and blood vessels [14] and low immunity [15], and
these complications predispose diabetics to urinary tract
infections (UTIs) [4]. Other risk factors associated with
increased incidence of urinary tract infections among
diabetic patients include low socioeconomic status,
advancing age, [1], sexual intercourse, and type of
diabetes mellitus [2], metabolic control, and long term
complications [16]. UTI in diabetics is associated with a
number of serious side effects which include carcinoma of
the bladder, gram negative bacteriaemia, sepsis, pyrexia of
unknown origin, end point renal failure, hypertension or
hypotension, increased prematurity, low birth weight and
fetal death [6].
Generally, the common etiologic agents of UTI
include
Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Staphylococcus
aureus,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp.,
Enterococcus spp., Proteus spp., Citrobacter spp.,
Acinetobacter spp. [17], Staphylococcus saprophyticus,
Candida spp. and other pathogenic yeasts [18].
Escherichia coli causes 80-90% of acute uncomplicated
bacterial lower tract infections (cystitis) in young women
[17]
. These agents have also been reported to be
associated
with UTI in diabetic patients [6] [16,19].
Antimicrobial agents commonly used in UTI therapy
include beta-lactam antibiotics: Ampicillin, Amoxicillin;
Fluoroquinolones: Norfloxacin, Ciprofloxacin; third
generation Cephalosporins: Cephalexin, Cotrimoxazole,
Gentamycin and Nitrofurantoin [18,19]. Uropathogens
show wide differences in their susceptibility to these
antimicrobial drugs from place to place and time to time
[19]. Reports show that diabetic patients using antibiotics
experience more intense UTI when compared to those not
using the drugs [20]. This is as a result of the resistance
posed by uncontrolled use of these drugs, thereby
exposing
them to more serious infections. The aim of this
study,
therefore, was to determine the prevalence,
predisposing
factors and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of
the organisms
causing urinary tract infections among
diabetic patients
and non-diabetics in four hospitals in
Awka, Anambra
State, Nigeria.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
The study was a hospital based comparative cross-
sectional study conducted from April 2020 to
September
2020.
2.2. Study Area
The study was conducted in Awka, the capital city of
Anambra State in the South-East geopolitical zone of
Nigeria. It covers a land area of about 522 km2. Awka has
an estimated population of 301,657 as of the 2006
National
population census [21], and over 2.5million by
2018. Four
hospitals, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu
University
Teaching Hospital (COOUTH), Crest
Specialist Hospital,
Regina-Caeli Specialist Hospital and
Nnamdi Azikiwe University Medical Center, all in Awka
South Local
Government Area, were used. The study area
was an
appropriate location as it attends to many patients
from the
nine towns in the Local Government Area and
thus
minimizes sample bias due to the wide area covered.
2.3. Study Population
The study population comprised both adult male and
female diabetic patients and non-diabetics, aged between
20-80 years, attending both outpatients and inpatients of
the selected hospitals, between 8 April 2020 and 30
September 2020.
2.4. Specimen Collection
Socio-demographic data were collected from each
study
participant using a structured questionnaire. A
“clean-catch” midstream urine specimen was collected
following
the method described by [1]. About 20 ml of
urine
specimen collected in a sterile, dry, screw capped
and
wide-mouthed plastic container was labeled with
unique
sample number, date, and time of collection. The
specimens were then transported in ice-pack containers
to
the laboratory of Applied Microbiology and
Brewing,
Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, within 2h of
collection for further studies [22].
2.5. Isolation of Microorganisms
Using a sterile standard calibrated wire loop (0.002ml),
a loopful of each urine specimen was directly inoculated
onto Nutrient agar, Cysteine-lactose-electrolyte-deficient
(CLED) agar and MacConkey agar culture media by
streak plate method. The inoculated plates were incubated
at 37°C for 24h and examined for bacterial growth. The
approximate number of colonies were counted and the
number of bacteria (colony forming units (cfu) per
millimeter of voided urine) was estimated. A colony count
of more than 100,000 (≥105 cfu/ml) was considered a
significant bacterial count for positive urinary tract
infection [23]. Urine specimens inoculated on Sabouraud
Dextrose agar were examined macroscopically for yeast
growth after 48h incubation at 30°C. Significant
candiduria was determined as urine culture growth
≥104CFU/ml
.
2.6. Identification of Bacterial and Fungal
Isolates
A single colony was suspended into Nutrient broth and
streaked onto Nutrient agar plates for further identification
[24]
. The inoculated plates were incubated at 37°C for 24h.
Pure cultures of bacterial isolates were identified using
colony characteristics, Gram reaction and biochemical
reactions following standard procedures [23].The
morphological appearance of the fungal isolates were
noted as presumptive identification. Following standard
85 American Journal of Microbiological Research
procedures, the germ tube test and sugar fermentation tests
were carried out on all yeast isolates [25].
2.7. Antibiotic Sensitivity Tests
Antibiotic sensitivity tests were carried out on pure
cultures of bacterial isolates using Kirby-Bauer disc
diffusion method [24]. The isolates were tested against 13
antibiotics; Ampicillin (AMP) (30µg), Amoxicillin (AMX)
(30µg), Ceftriaxone (CEF) (30µg), Ciprofloxacin (CIP)
(10µg), Norfloxacin (NOR) (5µg), Nitrofurantoin (NIT)
(200µg), Gentamicin (GEN) (10µg), Oxacillin (OX)
(10µg), Tetracycline(TET) (10µg), Doxycycline (DOX)
(10µg), Chloramphenicol (CHL) (30µg), Erythromycin
(ERY) (10µg) and Cotrimoxazole (COT) (25µg). Using
sterile wire loop, colonies of each pure culture was
suspended in 3ml of physiological saline and the
suspension thoroughly mixed. One milliliter of the
suspension was transferred into a bijou bottle and diluted
with peptone water until the optical density of the
suspension matched that of 0.5 McFarland standard
solution [25]. The standardized test inoculum, (test
organism) was inoculated evenly over the entire surface of
Muller-Hinton agar (Oxoid), in triplicates using sterile cell
spreaders. The antibiotic-impregnated discs were placed
on
the surface of the culture media using sterile forceps,
and
after 24h incubation at 37°C, the diameters of the
zones of
growth inhibition were measured to the nearest
whole millimeter using a caliper. The zones of inhibition
were
interpreted as susceptible (S) or resistant (R)
following the
[25]
guideline.
2.8. Statistical Analysis
The data obtained from this study were analyzed using
the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
software for windows (version 25). Percentages,
frequencies,
and cross tabulations were used to summarize
descriptive
statistics. Pearson Chi-square test was
employed to
test the existence of association between
discrete variables.
P-value of <0.05 at 95% confidence
interval was
considered to indicate statistically significant
differences.
Odds ratio (OR); Crude Odds Ratio (COR)
and Adjusted
Odds Ratio (AOR) were used in the analysis.
Both
bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses
were employed to ascertain the degree of association
between the outcome variable (positive UTI) and
independent variables (socio-demographic characteristics
and
health related risk factors) [26].
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the
Study Participants
A total of 460 participants (230 diabetic patients and
230
non-diabetics) were included in the study. Of these,
249(54.13%) were males and 211 (45.87%) females. The
participants were aged between 20 to 80 years for both
diabetic and non-diabetic participants. The mean age of
the
diabetic group was 48.8±15.7. One hundred and
twenty-
three (53.48%) diabetic participants were males
while 107
(46.52%) were females. The socio-demographic
characteristics of diabetic and non-diabetic patients are as
shown in Table 1.
3.1.1. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection in
Diabetic
Patients and Non-Diabetics
The overall prevalence of UTI was 27.39% among
diabetic
patients and 17.83% among non-diabetic
participants.
There was significant difference between the
prevalence of UTI among diabetic and non-diabetic
participants (P =
0.014). Table 2 shows the prevalence of
UTI according to
socio-demographic characteristics in
diabetic patients and
non-diabetics.
3.1.2. Risk Factors Associated with UTI in Diabetic
Patients.
In the bivariate analysis, the prevalence of UTI was
significantly associated with gender, marital status, place
of residence, occupation, and previous history of UTI. No
significant association was observed betweenage,
educational
level, smoking habit and UTI in diabetic
patients. Inthe
multivariate analysis, the prevalence of UTI
was significantly
associated with gender and previous
history of UTI. The
female diabetic patients had higher
odds of UTI compared
with the males (Table 3). Similarly,
diabetic patients with
previous history of UTI had higher
odds of UTI compared
with those without any previous
history of UTI (Table 3).
However, marital status, place of
residence and occupation
were not significantly associated
with UTI (Table 3).
3.2. Spectrum of Uropathogens Associated
with
Diabetic Patients and Non-Diabetics.
Sixty-three bacteria and forty-one yeasts were recovered
from urine samples of diabetic and non-diabetic
participants,
respectively. Gram-negative bacteria were the
predominant
isolates from urine samples of 38 (60.32%)
diabetic and
21 (51.22%) non-diabetic participants.
Among the diabetic
group, eight bacteria and one yeast
species were isolated
from the urine cultures. The most
prevalent bacterial
isolates were Escherichia coli 25
(39.68%) while the least
isolate was Citrobacter spp. 1
(1.6%). Among the non-
diabetics, six bacteria and one
fungal species were isolated
from urine cultures. The most
prevalent was also
Escherichia coli 17 (41.46%), while the
least was
Enterococcus feacalis (2.44%) and Proteus
mirabilis
(2.44%). The prevalence of organisms isolated
from diabetic
and non-diabetic participants are presented
in Table 4.
3.3. Antibiotic Sensitivity Profile of Bacterial
Isolates
Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of the bacterial
isolates from diabetic and non-diabetic participants are
presented in Table 5a and Table 5b. Most of the isolates
showed
100% sensitivity to Ceftriaxone, Ciprofloxacin,
Gentamicin and Chloramphenicol while Escherichia coli,
which is the most predominant isolate among the diabetics,
showed high level of resistance to Amoxicillin (76%)
(Table 5a). Predominant gram-positive isolate, Coagulase
negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) showed sensitivity to
Ceftriaxone (83.3%), Nitrofurantoin (83.3%), Doxycycline
American Journal of Microbiological Research 86
(100%) and Erythromycin (100%) but
resisted Ciprofloxacin
(50%) and Oxacillin
(50%). Staphylococcus aureus isolates also showed 100%
sensitivity to Ampicillin,
Nitrofurantoin and
Chloramphenicol (Table 5b).
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of diabetic patients and non-diabetics attending some hospitals
Characteristics
Groups
Diabetics Non-diabetics
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Age (years)
20-29
34
14.78
34
14.78
30-39 42 18.26 41 17.83
40-49
48
20.87
50
21.74
50-59
43
18.70
51
22.17
60-69 34 14.78 34 14.78
70
29
12.61
20
8.70
Mean age
48.8
47.4
Gender
Male
123
53.48
126
54.78
Female
107
46.52
104
45.22
Marital status
Single
40
17.39
45
19.57
Married
151
65.65
156
67.83
Divorced
5
2.17
7
3.04
Widowed
34
14.78
22
9.57
Residence
Rural
48
20.87
27
11.74
Urban
182
79.13
203
88.26
Educational status
Informal education
20
8.70
20
8.70
Primary education
35
15.22
26
11.30
Secondary education 59 25.65 58 25.22
Tertiary education
116
50.43
126
54.78
Occupation
Private 43 18.70 58 25.22
Civil servant
60
26.09
74
32.17
Artisan
42
18.26
23
10.00
Trader 31 13.48 27 11.74
Retired
32
13.91
20
8.70
Student
22
9.57
28
12.17
Smoking habit
Smoker
27
11.7
15
6.52
Non-smoker
203
88.3
215
93.48
Previous history of UTI
Yes
43
18.7
45
19.57
No
187
81.3
185
80.43
UTI: urinary tract infection.
Table 2. Prevalence of urinary tract infection by socio-demographic characteristics in diabetic and non-diabetics attending
hospitals
Characteristics
Groups
Diabetics Non-diabetics
No. of
Particpts.
UTI UTI p value No. of
Particpts.
UTI UTI
Positive (%)
Negative (%)
Negative (%)
Age (years)
20-29
34
8 (23.5)
26 (76.5)
0.000
34
32 (94.1)
30-39
42
11 (26.2)
1 (73.8)
41
34 (82.9)
40-49 48 26 (54.2) 2 (45.8) 50 17 (34.0) 33 (66.0)
50-59 43 15 (34.9) 8 (65.1) 51 13 (25.5) 38 (74.5)
60-69 34 3 (8.8) 1 (91.2) 34 1 (2.9) 33 (97.1)
70
29
0 (0.0)
9 (100)
20
19 (95.0)
Mean age
48.8
47.4
Gender
Male 123 17 (13.8) 106 (86.2) 0.000 126 12 (9.5) 114 (90.5)
Female 107 46 (43.0) 61 (57.0) 104 29 (27.9) 75 (72.1)
87 American Journal of Microbiological Research
Characteristics
Groups
Diabetics
Non-diabetics
No. of
Particpts.
UTI
UTI
p value No. of
Particpts.
UTI
Positive (%) Negative (%) Positive (%) Negative (%)
Marital status
Single
40
6 (15.0)
34 (85.0)
0.001
45
41 (91.1)
Married 151 53 (35.1) 98 (64.9) 156 32 (20.5) 124 (79.5)
Divorced
5
2 (40.0)
3 (60.0)
7
7 (100.0)
Widowed
34
2 (5.9)
32 (94.1)
22
17 (77.3)
Residence
Urban
182
58 (31.9)
124 (68.1)
0.003
203
166 (81.8)
Rural
48
5 (10.4)
43 (89.6)
27
23 (85.2)
Educational status
Informal
20
4 (20.0)
16 (80.0)
0.063
20
18 (90.0)
Primary
35
4 (11.4)
31 (88.6)
26
26 (100.0)
Secondary
59
16 (27.1)
43 (72.9)
58
44 (75.9)
Tertiary
116
39 (33.6)
77 (66.4)
126
101 (80.2)
Occupation
Private
43
13 (30.2)
30 (69.8)
0.000
58
45 (77.6)
Civil servant
60
28 (46.7)
32 (53.3)
74
56 (75.7)
Artisan
42
10 (23.8)
32 (76.2)
23
20 (87.0)
Trader
31
7 (22.6)
24 (77.4)
27
23 (85.2)
Retired
32
1 (3.1)
31 (96.9)
20
19 (95.0)
Student 22 4 (18.2) 18 (81.8) 28 2 (7.1) 26 (92.9)
Smoking habit
Smoker
27
5 (18.5)
22 (81.5)
0.271
15
10 (66.7)
Non-smoker 203 58 (28.6) 145 (71.4) 215 36 (16.7) 179 (83.3)
UTI: Urinary tract infection, Particpts: Participants.
Table 3. Risk factors associated with UTI among diabetic patients attending hospitals
Variable
Categories
Bivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
UTI
UTI
Positive
Cases
Negative
Cases
No (%)
No (%)
COR
95% CI
p-value
AOR
95% CI
p-value
Age (in years)
20 – 29
8 (23.5)
26 (76.5)
0.998
….
0.998
30 – 39
11 (26.2)
31 (73.8)
0.998
….
0.998
40 – 49
26 (54.2)
22 (45.8)
0.998
….
0.998
50 – 59
15 (34.9)
28 (65.1)
0.998
….
0.998
60 – 69
3 (8.8)
31 (91.2)
0.998
….
0.998
70
0 (0)
0 (0.0)
….
Gender
Male
17 (13.8)
106 (86.2)
1
1
1
1
Female
46 (43.0)
61 (57.0)
4.702
2.481 – 8.911
0.000
8.575
3.108 – 23.663
0.000
Marital Status
Single
6 (15.0)
34 (85.0)
2.824
0.531 – 15.022
0.224
1.523
0.099 – 23.41
0.763
Married
53 (35.1)
98 (64.9)
8.653
1.995 – 105.284
0.004
4.209
0.441 – 40.16
0.212
Divorced
2 (40.0)
3 (60.0)
10.667
1.081 – 105.284
0.043
5.881
0.158–219.518
0.337
Widowed
2 (5.9)
32 (94.1)
1
1
1
1
Place of
Residence
Urban
58 (31.9)
124 (68.1)
1
1
1
1
Rural
5 (10.4)
43 (89.6)
0.249
0.094 – 0.660
0.005
0.498
0.100 – 2.495
0.397
Highest level of
Education
Informal
4 (20.0)
16 (80.0)
1
1
1
1
Primary
4 (11.4)
31 (88.6)
0.516
0.114 – 2.340
0.391
1.185
0.103 – 13.592
0.892
Secondary
16 (32.7)
43 (67.3)
1.488
0.432 – 5.127
0.529
1.800
0.244 – 13.266
0.564
Tertiary
39 (33.6)
77 (66.4)
2.026
0.634 – 6.472
0.233
1.900
0.260 – 13.878
0.527
Occupation
Private
13 (30.2)
30 (69.8)
1
1
1
1
Civil servant
28 (46.7)
32 (53.3)
2.019
0.885 – 4.608
0.095
1.375
0.434 – 4.349
0.588
Trader
10 (23.8)
32 (76.2)
0.721
0.275 – 1.889
0.506
0.868
0.175 – 4.293
0.862
Artisan
7 (22.6)
24 (77.4)
0.673
0.232 – 1.951
0.466
0.669
0.127 – 3.520
0.635
Retired
1 (3.1)
31 (96.9)
0.074
0.009 – 0.605
0.015
1.452
0.050 – 41. 85
0.828
Student
4 (18.2)
18 (81.8)
0.513
0.145 - 1.815
0.300
0.228
0.023 – 2.233
0.204
Smoking Habit
Smokers
5 (18.5)
22 (81.5)
0.568
0.205 – 1.572
0.276
1.601
0.387 – 6.616
0.516
Nonsmokers
58 (28.6)
145 (71.4)
1
1
1
1
Previous
history of UTI
Yes
29 (67.4)
14 (32.6)
9.321
4.455 19.502
0.000
14.038
4.969 39.655
0.000
No
34 (18.2)
153(81.8)
1
1
1
1
FBS Level
<126mg/dl
4 (16.7)
15 (83.3)
0.309
0.069 1.386
0.125
0.368
0.045 2.984
0.349
≥126mg/dl
37 (17.5)
175 (82.5)
1
1
1
1
COR: Crude Odds Ratio, AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI: Confidence Interval, FBS: Fasting Blood Sugar.
American Journal of Microbiological Research 88
Table 4. Prevalence of organisms isolated from urine culture of diabetic patients and non-diabetics
Isolates
Number (n = 230)
Total (%)
Diabetic
No (%)
Non-diabetic
No (%)
Gram negative bacteria
Escherichia coli
25 (39.68)
17 (41.46)
42 (40.38)
Klebsiellapneumoniae
5 (7.94)
3 (7.32)
8 (7.69)
Proteus mirabilis
4 (6.34)
1 (2.44)
5 (4.81)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
3 (4.76)
0 (0)
3 (2.88)
Citrobacterspp.
1 (1.59)
0 (0)
1 (0.96)
Gram positive bacteria
Staphylococcus aureus
9 (14.29)
9 (21.95)
18 (17.31)
CON Staphylococcus
12 (19.05)
7 (17.07)
19 (18.27)
Enterococcus feacalis.
2 (3.17)
1 (2.44)
3 (2.88)
Yeast
Candida albicans
2 (3.17)
3 (7.32)
5 (4.819)
CON – Coagulase negative.
Table 5a. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of gram negative bacterial isolates from urine of diabetic and non-diabetic
patients attending
hospitals
Isolates from diabetic patients
Isolates from non-diabetic participants
Antibiotics
tested
Pattern
Escherichia coli
(N = 25) (%)
K.. pneumoniae
(N = 5) (%)
P. aeruginosa
(N = 3) (%)
Proteus
mirabilis
(N = 4) (%)
Citrobacter sp.
(N = 1) (%)
Escherichia coli
(N = 17) (%)
K. pneumoniae
(N = 3) (%)
Proteus
mirabilis
(N = 1) (%)
AMX
S
6 (24)
2 (40)
0 (0)
4 (100)
1 (100)
10 (58.8)
2 (66.7)
1 (100)
R
19 (76)
3 (60)
3 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
7 (41.2)
1 (33.3)
0 (0)
CEF
S
25 (100)
5 (100)
3 (100)
4 (100)
1 (100)
15 (88.2)
3 (100)
1 (100)
R
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (11.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
CIP
S
25 (100)
4 (80)
0 (0)
1 (25)
0 (0)
17 (100)
3 (100)
0 (0)
R
0 (0)
1 (20)
3 (100)
3 (75)
1 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (100)
TET
S
19 (76)
2 (40)
0 (0)
1 (25)
0 (0)
9 (52.9)
1 (33.3)
0 (0)
R
6 (24)
3 (60)
3 (100)
3 (75)
1 (100)
8 (47.1)
2 (66.7)
1 (100)
GEN
S
25 (100)
5 (100)
3 (100)
4 (100)
1 (100)
17 (100)
2 (66.7)
1 (100)
R
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (33.3)
0 (0)
NIT
S
21 (84)
4 (80)
0 (0)
4 (100)
0 (0)
17 (100)
3 (100)
0 (0)
R
4 (16)
1 (20)
3 (100)
0 (0)
1 (100)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (100)
NOR
S
17 (68)
4 (80)
0 (0)
2 (50)
0 (0)
14 (82.4)
3 (100)
0 (0)
R
8 (32)
1 (20)
3 (100)
2 (50)
1 (100)
3 (17.6)
0 (0)
1 (100)
AMP
S
17 (68)
2 (40)
1 (33.3)
4 (100)
0 (0)
13 (76.5)
1 (33.3)
0 (0)
R
8 (32)
3 (60)
2 (66.7)
0 (0)
1 (100)
4 (23.5)
2 (66.7)
1 (100)
CHL
S
25 (100)
4 (80)
0 (0)
3 (75)
0 (0)
15 (88.2)
3 (100)
1 (100)
R
0 (0)
1 (20)
3 (100)
1 (25)
1 (100)
2 (11.8)
0 (0)
0 (0)
S: Sensitivity; R: Resistance; P. aeruginosa: Pseudomonas aeruginosa; K. pneumoniae; Klebsiella pneumoniae; AMP: Ampicillin; AMX: Amoxicillin;
CEF: Ceftriaxone; CIP: Ciprofloxacin; NOR: Norfloxacin; NIT: Nitrofurantoin; GEN: Gentamicin; TET: Tetracycline; CHL: Chloramphenicol.
Table 5b. Antimicrobial susceptibility profile of gram positive bacterial isolates from urine of diabetic and non-diabetic
patients attending
hospitals
Antibiotics
tested
Pattern
S. aureus (N = 9)
(%)
E. feacalis (N = 2)
(%)
S. aureus (N = 9)
(%)
CoNS (N = 7)
(%)
E. feacalis (N = 1)
(%)
AMP
S
9 (100)
2 (100)
9 (100)
NA
1 (100)
R
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
NA
0 (0)
CEF
S
7 (77.8)
2 (100)
8 (88.9)
6 (85.7)
1 (100)
R
2 (22.2)
0 (0)
1 (11.1)
1 (14.3)
0 (0)
CIP
S
5 (55.6)
2 (100)
4 (44.4)
5 (71.4)
1 (100)
R
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
5 (55.6)
2 (28.6)
0 (0)
TET
S
3 (33.3)
2 (100)
5 (55.6)
6 (85.7)
0 (0)
R
6 (66.7)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
1 (14.3)
1 (100)
DOX
S
5 (55.6)
2 (100)
5 (55.6)
5 (71.4)
1 (100)
R
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
2 (28.6)
0 (0)
NIT
S
7 (77.8)
1 (50)
9 (100)
7 (100)
1 (100)
R
2 (22.2)
1 (50)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
ERY
S
5 (55.6)
2 (100)
8 (88.9)
7 (100)
0 (0)
R
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0)
1 (100)
OX
S
4 (44.4)
2 (100)
6 (66.7)
4 (57.1)
1 (100)
R
5 (55.6)
0 (0)
3 (33.3)
3 (42.9)
0 (0)
CHL
S
9 (100)
2 (100)
NA
1 (100)
1 (100)
R
0 (0)
0 (0)
NA
0 (0)
0 (0)
COT
S
3 (33.3)
2 (100)
5 (55.6)
7 (100)
1 (100)
R
6 (66.7)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
S: Sensitivity; R: Resistance; S. aureus: Staphylococcus aureus; E. faecalis: Enterococcus faecalis; CoNS: Coagulase negative Staphylococcus,
AMP: Ampicillin; CEF: Ceftriaxone; CIP: Ciprofloxacin; NIT: Nitrofurantoin; OX: Oxacillin; TET: Tetracycline; DOX: Doxycycline;
CHL: Chloramphenicol; ERY: Erythromycin; COT: Cotrimoxazole.
89 American Journal of Microbiological Research
4. Discussion
Studies have demonstrated greater susceptibility of
diabetics than non-diabetics to urinary tract infections [27]
[12]
. The prevalence of urinary tract infections among
diabetic and non-diabetic patients, risk factors associated
with urinary tract infections in diabetics, spectrum of
uropathogens responsible for UTI in diabetic patients and
non-diabetics and the sensitivity patterns of the bacterial
isolates to antibiotics were investigated.
The findings from this study showed that the overall
prevalence of urinary tract infections among diabetic
patients (27.4%) was higher than those of non-diabetic
patients (17.8%). The high prevalence of UTI among
diabetic patients is in line with that of [28], who reported a
prevalence of 32.0% among diabetics and 22.0% in
non-
diabetics. It also agreed with the studies of [29,30],
in
which they recorded 25.2% and 33.8% UTI among
diabetic patients, respectively. In contrast, [2,24],
reported
lower prevalence rates of 19.5% and 13.8%,
respectively
among diabetic patients. Worku et al. [26],
also recorded a
low prevalence of 10.9% among diabetics
and 4.7%
among non-diabetics.
Some other researchers reported higher prevalence of
urinary tract infections among diabetic patients and
non-
diabetics. Prevalence rates of 40% to 50.7% have
been
reported among diabetics [10,11,13,31]. The high
prevalence rate could be attributed to emergence of
antibiotic resistant bacteria that cause urinary tract
infection in diabetics.
There was a significant difference (P < 0.5) in the
prevalence of UTI among diabetic patients when
compared
to non-diabetics and this finding supports the
work of
many other researchers [1,12,27,32].
Among diabetic patients, a significant difference in the
prevalence of UTI was observed among various age
groups. A higher prevalence of UTI was observed among
age group 40-49 years (54.2%) and age group 50-59
(34.9%) (Table 2). This result agrees with those of [33-34],
who observed a high prevalence in age groups 30-49 years
and 51-60 years, respectively. The result obtained is
contrary to that of [35], who observed an increase in UTI
with increasing order of age. The high prevalence of UTI
recorded among the age group 40-49 years could be due to
increased rate of sexual activity in this age group.
The incidence of urinary tract infections was found to
be
significantly higher in female diabetics (43.0%) than in
male patients (13.8%) (P = 0.000) (Table 2). This finding
is in line with the reports of [11,13], who reported higher
prevalence of UTI among female diabetics. A higher
prevalence of UTI was also observed among female
non-
diabetics (27.9%) than male non-diabetics (9.5%)
and this
result supports the works of other researchers
[6,30,36].
Contrary to our findings, [37], reported a higher
prevalence of UTI in male diabetic patients than in
females. The higher prevalence of UTI recorded among
female diabetic and non-diabetic patients may be caused
by decrease in normal vaginal flora (Lactobacilli), less
acidic pH of vaginal surfaces, poor hygienic condition,
short and wider urethra, and proximity to the anus [2].
Table 3 shows the assessment of the association
between
various risk factors and UTI in diabetic patients.
Age was one of the factors considered and the bivariate
logistic
regression analysis showed no significant
association
between age and incidence of UTI in diabetic
patients.
This finding agrees with the work of [24,30,38].
In
contrast to this result, [39], reported a significant
association between age of diabetic patients and UTIs. It
was observed (Table 3) that gender and previous history
of
UTI were associated with high prevalence of UTI in
diabetic patients. There was no significant association
betweeneducational status, smoking habit of patients and
the incidence of UTI in diabetic patients (Table 3).
However, [30] reported a significant association between
drinking habit, high level of glucose and high prevalence
of UTI.
The organisms causing UTI in diabetic patients were
similar to those in non-diabetics but with variations in the
number of isolates obtained (Table 4). This result
corroborates the reports of [40], who studied the impact of
diabetes mellitus on the spectrum of uropathogens in
patients with UTI. The incidence of Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Citrobacter spp. was found only among
diabetic patients (Table 4). This observation agrees with
the findings by [30]. The results (Table 4) also showed
that
the etiologic agents of UTIs in both diabetics and non-
diabetics were mainly bacterial species, and this is in
accordance with the report of [36]. Most of the isolates
from this study belonged to Gram-negative bacteria, with
Escherichia coli being the most predominant (40.38%).
This finding supports the reports of other researchers
[6,10,22,37,41]. The high incidence of Escherichia coli,
as
suggested by [10], could be attributed to the fact that
they
are commensals of the intestines and that infections
are
most likely to be by faecal contamination due to poor
hygiene. The findings, however, disagree with reports
by
[11] who observed that Coagulase-Negative
Staphylococcus was the most prevalent isolate accounting
for 37.5%.
Escherichia coli was responsible for 39.7% and 41.5%
of
urinary tract infections among the diabetic and
non-diabetic groups respectively, and this is in line with
the reports of [12]. Contrary to our findings, [40] reported
a
prevalence of 67.3% in diabetic patients and 61.8% in
non-
diabetic group. The lower isolation rate of E. coli in
this
study when compared with the findings of [40], could
be
attributed to the smaller sample size examined.
Klebsiella
pneumonia (7.7%) and Proteus mirabilis (4.8%)
were the
second and third most prevalent bacterial
isolates
respectively amongst Gram-negative bacteria.
The
prevalence of Klebsiella pneumoniae among diabetics
(7.94%) and non-diabetics (7.32%) supports the reports
of
[40]
. They isolated 9.3% of Klebsiella pneumoniae
among
diabetics and 7.3% among non-diabetics.
Jagadeeswaran et
al. [37], also isolated 8.6% of the
organism among
diabetics. Obeagu et al. [6], however,
reported a 31.42%
isolation of Klebsiella pneumoniae
among diabetics and
28.57% in non-diabetics. Similarly,
[12], also reported the
high rate of 20.14% of the organism
in diabetics and
19.40% in non-diabetics. The variations in
the isolation
rates may be as a result of the isolation media
used by the
researchers.
Table 4 shows a 6.34% isolation of Proteus mirabilis
among diabetics and 2.44% in non-diabetics, and the
result
is comparable with the report of [2], who isolated
7.65% of
the organism in diabetics. Contrary to our
American Journal of Microbiological Research 90
findings, [12],
recorded a 12.23% of the organism in
diabetics and
10.44% in non-diabetics, while [30], had
9.3% isolation in
diabetics.
As presented in Table 4, Coagulase Negative
Staphylococcus (18.27%) and Staphylococcus aureus
(17.31%) were the second and third most prevalent
Gram
positive bacterial isolates, respectively. This
result
supports the findings of [24] who observed CoNS
(24.2%)
and Staphylococcus aureus (18.2%) to be the
second and
third most common isolates, respectively.
Woldemariam et
al. [42], also reported Coagulase
Negative Staphylococcus
as the second most isolated
bacteria after E. coli. In
contrast, the second most common
isolate in the report by
[36]
, was Enterococcus feacalis
(10.9%). The isolation
rate of Coagulase Negative
Staphylococcus from diabetic
patients (19.04%) and
non-diabetics (17.07%) is as presented in Table 4. This
result is comparable with that of
[30]
. Gram-positive
bacteria are not common uropathogens
[2]
, however, due
to contamination, they have been found
to always invade
the urinary tract infection and cause UTI
[43]
. The
prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus among
diabetics
(14.29%) and non-diabetics (21.95%) (Table 4),
is higher
than that (0.8% in diabetics and 0.6% in non-
diabetics)
reported by [40]. The least isolated gram
positive bacteria
in this study were Enterococcus feacalis,
with a
prevalence rate of 3.17% in diabetics and 2.44% in
non-diabetics. This result agrees with that found by [3].
However, much higher results of 9.3% and 16.2% were
reported by [30] and [42] respectively.
Yeasts, particularly Candida spp. are a common
predisposing factor of UTI in diabetes mellitus patients
[43]
. Candida albicans isolated from diabetics (3.17%)
and non-diabetics (7.32%) are shown in Table 4. The
results obtained are comparable with 2.2% in diabetics
reported by [30]. However, higher rate of 17.9% was
reported by [42]. Mogaka et al. [39], reported an increase
in resistance of isolated bacterial organisms to available
antibiotics among diabetic patients. Tables 5a and
Table 5b show
that, a number of bacterial isolates from
diabetic and non-
diabetic patients were sensitive to the
tested antibiotics.
Most of the gram negative bacterial isolates
from diabetic
patients were sensitive to Beta-lactams,
Quinolones and
Aminoglycosides (Table 5a). Among the
antibiotics tested,
Gentamicin (10µg) and Ceftriaxone
(30µg) were found to be the most effective drugs against
gram negative bacterial
isolates. While this finding agrees
with the report of [2], it
disagrees with that of [44], who
observed quinolones to be
the most effective agents
against isolated gram negative
bacilli. This variation in
susceptibility may be due to
changing trends of
antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of
these urinary tract
pathogens from place to place [36].
In the present study, Tetracycline (10μg), Ampicillin
(30μg) and Amoxicillin(30μg) were the least effective
antimicrobials against gram negative bacterial isolates as
most of the organisms showed high level of resistance to
the antibiotics.
Most of the isolated gram positive organisms were
susceptible to the antibiotics tested (Table 5b). Ampicillin
and Chloramphenicol were found to be the most effective
drugs against gram positive bacterial isolates. While [39],
recorded 50.0% of resistance to Ampicillin and
Ciprofloxacin, [2], reported a lower resistance to
Ampicillin and Ciprofloxacin (20.0%), which is supported
by the result obtained in this study.
5. Conclusions
The prevalence of UTI was significantly higher in
diabetics than in non-diabetics. Gender and previous
history of UTI were observed to be risk factors of
UTI
among diabetic patients. Escherichia coli was
observed to
be the most prevalent bacterial isolate.
Routine urine
cultures and antibiotic sensitivity testing of
samples from
patients is indispensable in the prevention
and treatment of
UTI.
Ethical Consideration
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical
Research
Committee of Chukwuemeka Odimegwu
Ojukwu University
Teaching Hospital, Awka before
conducting the study.
References
[1] Acharya, D., Bogati. B., Shrestha, G. T. and Gyawali. P. Diabetes
mellitus and Urinary Tract Infection: Spectrum of Uropathogens
and their Antibiotic Sensitivity Pattern. Journal of Manamohan
Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 1(4):24-28. Feb 2015.
[2] Hamdan, H. Z., Eman, K., Amar, M. A., Onab, S. H., Sarah, O. S.
and Ishag, A. Urinary tract infections and antimicrobial sensitivity
among diabetic patients at Khartoum, Sudan. Annals of Clinical
Microbiology and Antimicrobials, 14(26):1-6. Apr 2015.
[3] World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Global report on
diabetes.
https://www.who.int/diabetes/global-report/en/(Accessed 7 March,
2019).
[4] International Diabetes Federation (IDF). (2019). Diabetes Atlas.
9th Edition, International Diabetes Federation, Belgium, 2019.
[5] International Diabetes Federation (IDF). Diabetes Atlas. 8th
Edition, International Diabetes Federation, Belgium, December,
2017.
[6] Obeagu, E. I., Ifediora, A. C., Akahara, I. C. and Eguzouwa, U. P.
Prevalence of urinary tract infection in diabetic patient attending
Umuahia health care facilities. Journal of Biological Innovation,
5(1): 68-82. Jan 2016.
[7] Gupta, U. P., Jaiswal, S., Thapa, L., Paraju1i, N. and Nepali, S.
Prevalence of UTI infection among suspected female patients
attending Manipal teaching hospital, Pokhra. Nepal Journal of
Microbiology and Virology, 3(2): 1-10, 2013.
[8] Prakash, D., Shekhar, P., Sharma, N., Adekhandi, S., Juyal, D. and
Gaurav, V. Diversity of uropathogens and their resistogram in
diabetic and non-diabetic patients in sub Himalayan region of
Uttarakhand, India: A case control study. International Journal of
Medicine and Public Health, 4(1): 15-119. Feb 2014.
[9] Flores-Mireles, A. L., Walker, J. N., Caparon, M. and Hultgren, S.
J. Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection
and treatment options. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 13(5):
269-84. May 2015.
[10] Akinnibosun, F. I. and Iriakpe, H. J. Prevalence of Uropathogens
in Diabetic Patients and their Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern.
Nigerian Journal of Microbiology, 30(1): 3235-3240. 2016.
[11] Anejo-Okopi, J. A., Okojokwu, O. J., Ramyil, S. M., Bakwet, P.
B., Okechalu, J., Agada, G., Bassi, P. A. and Adeniyi. S. D.
Bacterial and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of urinary tract
infection isolated from asymptomatic and symptomatic diabetic
patients attending tertiary hospital in Jos. Nigeria. Trends in
Medicine, 17: 1-5. Nov 2017.
91 American Journal of Microbiological Research
[12] Jameel, A., and Artoshi, D. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infections
and Their Antimicrobial Sensitivity among Diabetic and Non-
Diabetic Patients in Zakho. Science Journal of University of Zakho,
7(4): 25-131. Dec 2019.
[13] Shah, M. A., Kassab, Y. W., Anwar, M.F., Al-dahoul, H.K. and
Menon, S. Prevalence and associated factors of urinary tract
infections among diabetic patients. Health Science Journal, 13(2):
646. Apr 2019.
[14] Abdelhafiz, A. H., Russell, J. J., Key, A. and Sinclair, A. J. Older
people with diabetes - avoiding hospitalization. Diabetes
Management, 5(4): 1-16, 2015.
[15] Funfstuck, R., Nicolle, L. E., Hanefeld, M. and Naber, K. O.
Urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes mellitus. Clinical
Nephrology, 77:40-8. Jan 2012.
[16] Nitzan, O., Elias, M., Chazan, B. and Saliba, W. Urinary tract
infections in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: review of
prevalence, diagnosis, and management. Diabetes, Metabolic
Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, 8: 129-136. Feb
2015.
[17] Brooks, G. F., Caroll, K. C., Butel, J. S., Morse, S. A and Mietzner,
T. A. Cases and clinical correlations. Adelberg‘s and Jawetz
Melnick Medical Microbiology. 26th edition by McGraw-Hill
International Edition; Pp 800-801. 2013.
[18] Mgbakogu, R. A. and Eledo, B. O. Studies on Urinary Tract
Infection among Diabetics in Some Eastern States of Nigeria.
Advances in Life Science and Technology, 34: 4246. 2015.
[19] Santosh, K. and Siddiqui, S. Prevalence and Antibiogram of
Uropathogens from Patients Attending Tertiary Care Hospital: An
overview. International Journal of Medical Microbiology and
Tropical Diseases, 3(1):20-23. Mar 2017.
[20] Chukwuocha, U. M., Emerole, C. O., Njokuobi, T. N. and
Nwawume I. C. Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) Associated with
Diabetic Patients in the Federal Medical Center Owerri, Nigeria.
Global Advanced Research Journal of Microbiology, 1 (5):062-
066. Jun 2012.
[21] National Population Commission (NPC). (2006). The Nigeria
Population Census, 2006.
http://www.population.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_
content&view=artide&id=89 (Accessed on December, 2018).
[22] Ogbukagu, C. M., Anakwenze, V. N., Ekwealor, C. C., Ezemba, C.
C., and Ekwealor, I. A. Incidence of Urinary Tract Infections (UTI)
amongst Patients Attending Primary Health Centres in Anambra
State. Advances in Microbiology, 6:537-547. Jun 2016.
[23] Cheesbrough, M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical
Countries. Cambridge University Press, UK. 2010, 434.
[24] Nigussie, D. and Amsalu, A. Prevalence of uropathogen and their
antibiotic resistance pattern among diabetic patients. Turkish
Journal of Urology, 43(1)85-92. Jan 2017.
[25] Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance
Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests. Twenty-
second informational supplement. Clinical and Laboratory
Standards Institute, 32(3):M100S22. Jan 2014.
[26] Worku, S., Derbie, A., AlemnehSinishaw, M., Adem, Y. and
Biadglegne, F. Prevalence of bacteriuria and antimicrobial
susceptibility patterns among diabetic and nondiabetic patients
attending at Debre Tabor Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.
International Journal of Microbiology, 2017:8. Mar 2017.
[27] Akhand, A., Biswas, D., Tilkar, M., Tenguriya, M. and Tilkar, Y.
Comparative study of urinary tract infection in patients with or
without diabetes: A prospective study from central India.
International Journal of Medicine Research, 3(1):75-78. Jan 2018.
[28] Borj, M. R., Taghizadehborojeni, S., Shokati, A., Sanikhani, N.,
Pourghadamyari, H., Mohammadi, A, Abbariki, E.,
Golmohammadi, T. and Hoseiniharouni, S. M. Urinary tract
infection among diabetic patients with regard to the risk factors,
causative organisms and then antimicrobial susceptibility profiles.
International Journal of Life Science and Pharmaceutical
Research, 7(3): 38-47. Jul 2017.
[29] Al-Rubeaan, K., Moharram, O., Al-Naqeb, D. and Rubbean, H. A.
Prevalence of urinary tract infection and risk factors among Saudi
patients with diabetes. World Journal of Urology, 31(3):573-578.
June 2013.
[30] Mama, M., Manilal, A., Gezmu, T., Kidanewold, A., Gosa, F., and
Gebresilasie, A. Prevalence and associated factors of urinary tract
infections among diabetic patients in Arba Minch Hospital, Arba
Minch Province, South Ethiopia. Turkish Journal of Urology,
45910:56-62. Nov 2019.
[31] Yadav, K. and Prakash, S. Antimicrobial resistance pattern of
uropathogens causing urinary tract infection (UTI) among
diabetics. Biomedical Research International, 1: 07-15. Feb 2016.
[32] Schlievert, P. M., Salgado-Pabón, W. and Klingelhutz, A. J. Does
Staphylococcus aureus have a role in the development of Type 2
diabetes mellitus? Future Medicine, 10(10):1-5. Oct 2015.
[33] Oluwafemi, T. T., Akinbodewa, A. A., Ogunleye, A. and Adejumo,
O. A. Urinary tract infections and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of
uropathogens in a tertiary hospital in South West, Nigeria. Sahel
Medical Journal, 21: 18-22. May 2018.
[34] Zubair, K. U., Shah, A. H., Fawwad, A., Sabir, R. and Butt, A.
Frequency of urinary tract infection and antibiotic sensitivity of
uropathogens in patients with diabetes. Pakistan Journal of
Medical Sciences, 35(6): 1664-1668. Nov-Dec 2019.
[35] Gautam, S. and Sapkota, R.. Comparative study of isolates
associated with urinary tract infection among diabetic and non-
diabetic patients attending tertiary care hospital, Chitwan, Nepal.
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research, 5(2):
531. 2020.
[36] Seifu, W. D. and Gebissa, A. D. (2018). Prevalence and antibiotic
susceptibility of Uropathogens from cases of urinary tract
infections (UTI) in Shashemene referral hospital, Ethiopia. Bio-
Medical Central Infectious Diseases, 18: 30. Jan 2018
[37] Jagadeeswaran, G., Mohammad, Z. A. and Tolstoy, R. Urinary
tract infection in diabetics - a five year retrospective study on the
prevalence of bacterial isolates and its antibiotic susceptibility
patterns in a tertiary care hospital in South India. International
Journal of Contemporary Medical Research, 5(4):D33-D38. Apr
2018.
[38] Aswani, S. M., Chandrashekar, U., Shivashankara, K. and Pruthvi,
B. Clinical profile of urinary tract infections in diabetics and
non-diabetics. The Australasian Medical Journal, 7(1): 29-34. Jan
2014.
[39] Mogaka, V. M., Gatwiri, M. S. and Njoroge, W. (2018).
Uropathogens antibiotic resistance patterns among type 2 diabetic
patients in Kisii Teaching and Referral Hospital, Kenya. Pan
African Medical Journal, 30:286. Aug 2018.
[40] Bagir, G. S., Haydardedeoglu, F.E., Colakoglu, S., Bakiner, O. S.,
Ozsahin, K. A., and Ertorer, M. E. Urinary tract infection in
diabetes: Susceptible organisms and antibiogram patterns in an
outpatient clinic of a tertiary health care center. Medicine Science,
8(4): 881-6. Oct 2019.
[41] Gurjar, D., Mathur, A., Sai, R., Lakesar, A. and Saxena, P. Recent
trends in the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of urinary
pathogens in type II diabetes mellitus. International Journal of
Research in Medical Science, 6:1288-91. Mar 2018.
[42] Woldemariam, H. K., Geleta, D. A., Tulu, K. D., Aber, N. A.,
Legese, M. H., Fenta, G. M. and Ali, I. (2019). Common
uropathogens and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern among
diabetic patients. BMC Infectious Diseases, 19(1):43.
[43] Hirji, I., Guo, Z., Andersson, S., Hammar, N., and Gomez-
Caminero, A. Incidence of urinary tract infection among patients
with type 2 diabetes in the UK General Practice Research
Database (GPRD). Journal of Diabetes Complications, 26(6):
513-516. Nov-Dec. 2012.
[44] Yismaw, G., Asrat, D., Woldeamanuel, Y., and Unakal, C. G.
(2012). Urinary Tract Infection: Bacterial etiologies, drug
resistance profile and associated risk factors in diabetic patients.
European Journal of Experimental Biology, 2: 89-98.
[45] Ehinmidu, J. O. Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of urine bacterial
isolates in Zaria, Nigeria. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical
Research, 2(2):223-8. Dec 2003.
© The Author(s) 2021. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
View publication stats
... In this study, among the diabetic and non-diabetic individuals, urinary tract bacterial pathogens were observed in 28.0% and 26.0% of patients, respectively. This is similar to the study by Ekwealor et al. [46] where the overall prevalence of urinary tract infections among diabetic patients was 27.39%; however, contrary to the similarity observed in the current study, prevalence was significantly higher in diabetics than in non-diabetics (17.83%). This could be due to the difference in study populations. ...
... This could be due to the difference in study populations. In the study by Ekwealor et al. [46], the non-diabetic individuals comprised both hospital outpatients and inpatients, but the nondiabetics in the current study consisted of caregivers (i.e., workers or healthcare students on internship at the National Diabetes Management and Research Centre of the Hospital). ...
... The high prevalence rate in some studies could be attributed to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that cause urinary tract infections in diabetics in that population, as well as the study location and other risk factors that predispose diabetics to UTIs [46]. In a study by Ekwealor et al. [46], gender and previous history of UTI were found to have significant associations with urinary tract infection and this study also found gender and age to be associated with UTI among the groups. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Diabetes mellitus has some damaging effects on the genitourinary system and has been found to have adverse effects on the host immune system, resulting in higher risk of infections including urinary tract infections (UTI). Incidences of UTI caused by bacteria have been increasingly reported globally and the abuse of antibiotics leading to evolving resistant strains of antibiotics is a public health challenge for the management of this condition. Information on the difference in types of bacterial agents causing UTI in diabetic patients and non-diabetic individuals, and their susceptibility profiles, will facilitate effective management among these groups of patients. Therefore, this study aimed at determining the difference in prevalence of UTI, the causative bacteria, and their antimicrobial susceptibility profiles in diabetic patients and non-diabetic individuals at a diabetes management center. Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted amongst 100 diagnosed diabetic patients and 100 non-diabetic individuals. Urine sample was collected aseptically and analyzed microbiologically for the presence of urinary tract bacterial pathogens. Drug susceptibility testing was conducted on the isolates by the Kirby Bauer method to ascertain the antibiotic susceptibility patterns. Results: Among the diabetic and non-diabetic individuals, urinary tract bacterial pathogens were observed in 28.0% and 26.0% of samples, respectively. The organisms were in the following proportions for diabetic and non-diabetic individuals, respectively: E. coli (14/28, 50% and 8/26, 30.7%), S. aureus (2/28, 7.1% and 4/26, 15.4%), K. pneumoniae (4/28, 14.3% and 8/26, 30.7%), K. ozoenae (2/28, 7.14% and 0/26, 0%), K. oxytoca (0/28, 0% and 4/26, 15.4%) and C. urealyticum (6/28, 21.4% and 2/26, 7.69%). The difference between the proportions of bacteria isolated was, however, not statistically significant (p-value = 0.894). Bacteria isolated from both diabetic and non-diabetic individuals were highly susceptible to most of the antibiotics tested, especially nitrofurantoin, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and cefotaxime. Conclusion: This study has shown that similarities exist in prevalence of UTI, the causative bacteria, and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns amongst diabetic patients and non-diabetic individuals at a diabetes management center. These data will help in the management of UTI among these individuals.
... Evidence from various epidemiological studies showed that UTI is more common in females with diabetes than in nondiabetic females" [16], it is more common in diabetes because of a combination of host and local risk factors. Modification of the chemical composition of urine in diabetes mellitus can alter the ability of urine and support the growth of microorganisms [7,17]. ...
Article
Background: Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) is a common pathogenic inflammatory, distressing and occasionally life-threatening condition that affects people of all ages and genders, with difficulty in treatment due to the high rate of antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli is the primary cause of UTIs in humans both in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetic patients are more prone to urinary tract infection due to their immunocompromised system and hyperglycemia level compared to non- diabetic patients. Antibiotics are becoming less and less effective, therefore there is an urgent need to curtail this problem in order to have good administration of antibiotics to patients for effective treatment. Aim: To determine the multidrug resistance profile of uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) isolated from diabetic patients in some hospitals of Bauchi metropolis, Nigeria Methods: A total of 288 study participants were enrolled in the study, (194 diabetic and 94 non- diabetic patients). Clean catch mid-stream urine samples were collected from all the participants in sterile containers. Each urine sample was streaked onto CLED (cysteine lactose electrolyte deficient) agar, incubated at 370C for 24hours and the isolates were identified using standard methods. Data obtained were analyzed statistically. Results: A total of 64 UPEC were isolated from diabetic patients and 35 UPEC was isolated from non-diabetic patients. The age group of 31-40 had high frequency of occurrence in both the study participants, 18(28.1) in DM and 9(25.7) in NDM patients. While age group of 10-20 had 5(7.8) in DM and 2(5.7) in NDM patients and ≥ 71 years 2(3.1) in DM and 1(2.9) in NDM patients had the least. There was no significant difference between age group and the number of isolates as p> 0.05. Highest frequency of UPEC was found within the female 36(56.3) in DM and 20(57.1) in NDM patients than their male counterparts 28(43.8) in DM and 1(2.9). Type2 patients have high frequency of isolates compared to the Type 1 patients in Both the study participants. In the present study, 52 UPEC isolates from diabetic patients and 27 UPEC isolates from non-diabetic patients were resistant to 1 drug in 3 or more antimicrobial agents classes (multidrug resistance). The highest resistance was observed against ampicillin and piperacillin-tazobactams, while the least resistance was in imipenem. Conclusion: The study established that UPEC infection was more prevalent in diabetic than non-diabetic patients, and also more prevalent in the middle age group, female gender and Type2 diabetic patients. A high rate of multidrug resistance was observed in both the study participants, and this signals a tremendous problem in prescription of antibiotics to patients. The emergence of multi resistant strains of UPEC has added to the need for urgent development of more control measures and policies on the use of antibiotics.
... This observation was similar to the studies of Njunda et al. [32] in Cameroon who also recorded high prevalence among age group 41 -60 years. This was attributed to increased sexual activity in this age group [33]. Contrary to this, Walelgn et al. [34] in South Wollo, Northeast Ethiopia, Chita et al. [35] in the UK and Forson et al. [24] in Ghana obtained higher occurrence of UTIs among diabetic patients in the age group 61 -70 years. ...
... 9 History of previous urinary tract infection and duration of diabetes mellitus were the leading risk factors leading to infection in diabetics. 10 Similar to the results achieved from our trial, Raya et al found that Diabetic patients are more prone to urinary tract infections as compared to non-diabetic patients. The most common pathogen responsible for UTI in both diabetics and non-diabetics was Escherichia coli. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Emerging antibiotic resistance to commonly encountered urinary tract infections are the leading cause of treatment failure in our population. This study aims to identify the most common pathogen causing urinary tract infection in diabetics versus nondiabetics and their antibiotic susceptibility. Material and Method: This case control study was conducted Combined Military Hospital Mardan, August 2022-January 2023. Using a stratified sampling technique 90 patients were divided into Group DM and Group NDM with 45 participants in each group. History, demographic characteristics, symptomatology and empirical treatment prescribed was recorded for each patient and midstream urine sample was collected. Urine culture and sensitivity was performed to identify the organisms and antibiotic susceptibility of the causative agent. Recorded variables included the organisms identified and their sensitivity patterns. Results: Gender distribution revealed males were 17(37.8%) versus 12(26.7%) from Group DM and Group NDM with a mean age of the participants was 54.64 ± 9.74 years. Clinical features like history of UTI, history of catheterization, asymptomatic bacteriuria was seen more in diabetics as compared to non-diabetics with a p value of < 0.05. Escherichia coli was the most common causative organism found in 44 (48.5%) out of 90 patients in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Antibiotic susceptibility revealed increased sensitivity of Escherichia coli to Fosfomycin (88.6%) followed by nitrofurantoin (81.8%) and meropenem (75%). Conclusion: Escherichia coli is the most common isolate causing urinary tract infection in diabetic and non-diabetic patients which shows greatest sensitivity to Fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin and meropenem.
Article
Aim: To identify the main isolates in Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns in Federal Medical Centre Asaba as a guide to developing corresponding antibiogram to support empirical treatment of these infections. Study Design: A three - year retrospective cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria between 1st of January 2019 to 31st December 2022. Methodology: A three - year retrospective cross-sectional study carried out by reviewing laboratory records with a focus on identifying bacterial pathogens causing UTI as well as evaluating their antibiotics susceptibility in Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria. All Urine microscopy, culture and sensitivity results from the 1st of January 2019 to 31st December, 2022 were collected and reviewed. Results: A total number of 2113 results of subjects, 683 males and 1430 females, that attended the tertiary hospital from the 1st of January 2019 to 31st December 2022 were reviewed. The bacterial strains identified/isolated among the population studied were Staphylococcus aureus 907 (42.9%), Escherichia coli 866 (41.9%), Klebsiella spp 232 (11.0%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa 54 (2.6%), Proteus spp 31 (1.4%), Streptococcus spp 2 (0.1%) and Pantoea spp 1.The records revealed that the organisms were isolated more in female subjects (66.7%) than male subjects (33.3%), Staphylococcus aureus 285 males, 622 females, Escherichia coli 294 males, 592 females, Klebsiella spp 62 males, 170 females, Pseudomonas aeruginosa 29 males 25 females, Proteus spp 13 males, 18 females, Streptococcus spp 2 females. Pantoea spp 1 female as well. The highest percentages of resistance have been observed against tested antibiotics. Conclusion: Most of the isolates were extended spectrum β-lactamase producers and multidrug-resistant. We observed that Gram-negative bacteria were the main cause of UTIs where the predominant microorganism was E. coli.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an important medical and public health issue world widely. The incidence has been exponentially increased in Malaysia. Evidence revealed that diabetics are more prone to infections than non-diabetic patients. UTI is one of the infections that occur more frequently among DM patients. UTIs are considered as complicated and carry worst outcome when it occurs in DM patients. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the prevalence of UTI among DM patients and association of glycaemic control with UTIs.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Diabetes causes several abnormalities of the host defense system that might result in a higher risk of certain infections, including UTI. Furthermore, when diabetic patients acquire UTIs, it is more likely to be caused by unusual pathogens and antibiotic-resistant organisms. Aim of the Study: The present study was undertaken to determine types of isolates and microbial profile of UTI among diabetic and non-diabetic patients, Multidrug-resistant (MDR) producing bacterial isolates and to determine statistical significance between them by a recommended method. Methods: A prospective study was conducted from 13th February 2016 to 13th May 2016 in the CMCTH; Semi-quantitative cultures of Urine samples were performed with the threshold defined by Kass, 1960. The presence or absence of diabetes was confirmed after measuring blood sugar level by standard method. Results: Most of the cases of UTI in both groups were caused by gram-negative which accounts for 93.81% in diabetic and 95.74% in non-diabetic patients. UTI caused by Candida albicans and Proteus mirabilis was higher in diabetic patients. PIT was the most effective antibiotic in both groups (83.87% sensitive in diabetic whereas 87.78% sensitive in non-diabetic patients). A/S was least effective in both groups with a sensitive rate of less than 10.0% in both groups. Among 124 MDR isolates, 73 (31.06%) were from non-diabetic patients whereas 51 (52.57%) were from diabetic patients. Conclusion:Gram-negative bacilli were predominant uropathogen in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Quinolone and sulfonamides resistance gram-negative bacteria were higher in diabetic patients. The association of having UTI and being diabetic or non-diabetic was statistically significant (P<0.05).UTI in diabetic patients has a high rate of MDR pathogens. Keywords:- Urinary Tract Infection, UTI, Uropathogen, MDR, Diabetic , Non Diabetic
Article
Full-text available
Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common bacterial infections in diabetics and non-diabetics. Worldwide about one hundred fifty million people are infected with UTI each year. Indifference in diabetes management has been shown to increase the risk of complications. This may lead to different microbial infections including UTI. UTI is often treated with various broad-spectrum antibiotics due to concerns about infection with resistant organisms. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of UTI and antibiotic sensitivity pattern in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients attended the Zakho Emergency Hospital and Chamiskho Health Center at refugee camp in Zakho city. Methods: Midstream urine sample was collected from 316 patients attended Zakho Emergency Hospital and Chamiskho Health Center from September 2018 to January 2019 in Zakho city. Results: 316 samples were collected from diabetic and non-diabetics, 195 (61.70%) sample were collected from diabetics and 121 (38.30%) sample were collected from non-diabetic patients. The frequency of male and female was 101 (31.96%) and 215 (68.04%) respectively. The top five dominant bacteria isolated in this study were Escherichia coli (43.20%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.90%), Proteus mirabilis (11.65%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.73%) and Staphylococcus aureus (6.31%). The isolated bacteria were highly sensitive to meropenem (100%) followed by imipenem (97% sensitive) and less sensitive to ciprofloxacine, amikacin and nitrofurantoin. While most of the isolates were resistance to tetracycline (21% sensitive), ampicillin (22% sensitive) and piperacillin (28% sensitive). Conclusion: Analysis of the results showed that urinary tract infection is more prevalence in diabetic than non-diabetics and in female than male. Also, the most commonly isolated bacterium was E. coli. Most isolated pathogens show high resistance to tetracycline and ampicillin.
Article
Full-text available
We aimed to determine the influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on uropathogens and antibiotic resistance pattern in urinary tract infection (UTI) in our center. Three hundred fifty-five DM patients and 165 non-DM patients with UTI were included in this retrospective study. Urine samples were processed in the laboratory following standard protocol. Mean age was higher in DM group (63.9 ± 12.4 vs 59.6 ± 17.3 years, respectively, P = 0.001). Females showed much higher UTI prevalence in both groups (85.6% in DM vs 70.3% in non-DM group, P = 0.000). Mean HbA1c level on admission was 9.3% (78 mmol/mol). Mean duration of DM was 13.9 ± 8.5 yr. E.coli was the predominant uropathogen for both (67.3% in DM and 61.8% in non-DM group). Most isolated microorganisms were sensitive to nitrofurantoin (87.0% in DM, vs 83.6% in non-DM group, P = 0.265). Mean DM duration of higher than 10,5 years showed greatest risk of multidrug resistance (MDR) (AUC = 0.58, sensitivity of 63.7% and specificity of 50%, P = 0.019). Diabetic patients with UTI had poor glycemic control and long-standing DM. Nitrofurantoin was the most appropriate antimicrobial agent for empirical use. The MDR was higher in patients with DM lasting longer than 10.5 years. [Med-Science 2019; 8(4.000): 881-6]
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To determine the frequency of urinary tract infections and antibiotic sensitivity among patients with diabetes. Methods: This observational study was carried out in Microbiology Department of Baqai Institute of Diabetology and Endocrinology (BIDE), Baqai Medical University from April 2015 to June 2016. All patients with diabetes having symptoms of UTI attending out patients department of BIDE were analyzed. All samples received in the laboratory were processed according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern was determined by disc diffusion method. Results: A total number of 199 urine specimens, frequency of UTI were 24 (12.06%) in male and 175 (87.94%) in female. UTIs were highly found in (age group 51-60) 70 (35.18%). Escherichia coli was the most frequent pathogen (71%), followed by Klebsiellapneumoniae (7.48%), Proteus mirabilis (1.87%), Staphylococcus aureus (9.35%), Candida (5.61%) and Candidaalbicans were (2.80%). Majority of gram negative uropathogens were shown high sensitivity towards Imipenem and Piperacillin / Tazobactam followed by Nitrofurantion, Ceftriaxone, Levofloxacin, Ofloxacine, Ciprofloxacin, Norfloxacin, Cefixime, Nalidixic acid and Cephradine. Gram positive was most sensitive to Nitrofurantionand Vancomycin followed by Piperacillin / Tazobactam, Imipenem, Cephradine, Ceftriaxone, Norfloxacin and Cefixime. Conclusion: We observed the higher frequency of UTIs in female as compared to male participants due to poor hygiene. E.coli was the most frequent pathogen responsible for UTI in patients with diabetes, followed by Staphylococcus aureus.
Article
Full-text available
Background Urinary tract infection (UTIs) is a significant health problem in diabetic patients because of the multiple effects of this disease on the urinary tract and host immune system. Complicated UTIs occur most commonly in patients with abnormal genitourinary tract. Proper investigation and prompt treatment are needed to prevent morbidity and serious life threatening condition associated with UTI and diabetes co-morbidities. Objective To determine common uropathogens and antibiotic susceptibility patterns with associated risk factors among adult diabetic patients attending at St. Paul Specialized Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods A hospital based, cross-sectional study was conducted from April–July 2015. A total of 248 diabetic patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic UTI were investigated for common uropathogens. Clean catch mid-stream urine specimens were collected from each study subjects. Uropathogens were isolated and identified by using conventional standard techniques. Samples were cultured on Blood agar, MacConkey agar and Sabouraud Dextrose Agar. Antibiotic Susceptibility pattern was determined on Mueller-Hinton using Kirby –Bauer disc diffusion method. The collected data and the result of the laboratory were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results The overall prevalence of uropathogens among diabetic patients was 56/248(22.6%) of which 21/177(11.9%) and 35/71(49.3%) had asymptomatic and symptomatic UTI respectively. E. coli 13/56(23.2%), Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CONs) 7/56(12.5%), Enterococcus Spp.6/56 (10.7%), Candida albicans 10/56(17.9%) and Non-albicans Candida Spp. 9/56(16.1%) were the commonest isolated uropathogens. In this study uropathogens were significantly associated with being type II diabetes patient and having previous UTI history. Both gram positive and gram negative bacteria showed resistance to most tested antibiotics. Drug resistance to two or more drugs was observed in 81.1% of bacterial isolates. Conclusion High prevalence of uropathogens and increased rate of Multi-drug resistance was shown in this study. Therefore, continued surveillance on uropathogens prevalence and resistance rates is needed to ensure appropriate recommendations for the empirical treatment, develop rational prescription programs and make policy decisions.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common and grave health problem in the world. In fact, patients with diabetes mellitus have an immense risk for developing UTI. The development of resistance among uropathogens to antibiotics is a major crisis which limits the use of drug of choice for the treatment of UTI. On this view point, the aim of the present study is to elucidate the prevalence of UTI, associated factors, causative agents and their antimicrobial susceptibility amongst diabetic patients attending Arba Minch Hospital, Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Material and methods: A facility based cross-sectional study was carried out in diabetic patients visiting the Internal Medicine Unit of Arba Minch Hospital (AMH) during the study period (March to May 2016). Pre-tested structured questionnaire was used for collecting the data pertaining to socio-demographic characteristics and possible risk factors. In order to quantify the uropathogens, midstream urine samples were collected in sterile leak proof culture bottles and streaked onto diverse bacteriological media. All the positive urine cultures showing significant bacteriuria as per the Kass count (>105 organisms/mL) were further subjected to biochemical tests. The antimicrobial susceptibility test was performed to determine the resistance/susceptibility pattern of isolated uropathogens. Data entry and analysis were done using Statistical Package for Social Services, version 20. Results: In total, 239 diabetic patients were included in the study of which 60.2% (n=144) were females. A total of 81 (33.8%) diabetic patients had positive urine cultures. Sixty-eight (83.9%) female diabetic patients had significant bacteriuria (p=0.000). Fifty-two (64.1%) participants had drinking habit and 79 (97.5%) of respondents had higher glucose levels (≥126 mg/dL) (p=0.004 and p=0.003), respectively. According to the biochemical tests, in a total of 90 isolates from patients with significant bacteriuria, eight species of uropathogens such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella sp., Proteus sp., Citrobacter spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CNS), Enterococcus faecalis and yeast isolates were identified. The antibiogram evidenced that 79.6% (n=51) of Gram-negative bacteria were invariably resistant to amoxicillin and penicillin whereas 73.4% (n=47) and 65.6 % (n=42) of them were resistant to trimethoprim, erythromycin and chloramphenicol, respectively. Regarding the Gram-positive bacteria, high degree of resistance was exhibited towards penicillin and trimethoprim (100%, n=24) followed by amoxicillin (83.3%, n=20) and gentamicin (62.5%, n=15). Invariably, all the Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacilli were susceptible (100%) to amikacin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone and nitrofurantoin. Conclusion: The prevalence of UTI is higher in diabetic patients. Results revealed that the predominant pathogens of UTI were Gram-negative bacilli (Enterobacteriaceae), particularly E. coli. Significant bacteriuria had an association with the consumption of alcohol, gender and glucose level. Based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility tests, it might be inferred that the antibiotics such as amikacin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone and nitrofurantoin are the drugs of choice for the management of both Gram-negative and Gram-positive uropathogenic bacteria in the study area.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for urinary tract infections. Irrational use of antibiotics has led to the emergency of uropathogens resistant to available antibiotics. The main objective was to determine the bacterial causative agents of urinary tract infections and their antibiotic resistance patterns. Methods One hundred and eighty (180) type 2 diabetic patients were recruited to take part in the study. Urine samples were collected and cultured for urinary tract infections diagnosis and antibiotic sensitivity. Results A total of 35 isolates were obtained from the study. All the isolates were sensitive to gentamicin. All 21 (100%) isolates of E. coli were sensitive to gentamicin and cephalexin. All 10 (100%) K. pneumoniaeisolates were sensitive to gentamicin and nitrofurantoin. Out of the 21 E. coli isolates, five of them showed resistance to ampicillin, three E. coli isolates showed resistance to nitrofurantoin and another three E. coliisolates showed resistance to co-trimoxazole. Out of 10 K. pneumoniae isolates, two of them were found to be resistant to ampicillin, one K. pneumoniae isolate was resistant to cephalexin and two K. pneumoniaeisolates were resistant to co-trimoxazole. Out of the four P. mirabilis isolates, there were three cases where one isolate was each resistant to ampicillin, nitrofurantoin and co-trimoxazole. Conclusion There is a need to have a regular screening of bacterial isolates causing urinary tract infection in diabetic patients and their antibiotic sensitivity in order to have effective therapy. Present findings show that there is increased resistance to the commonly prescribed antibiotics.