Open Access

Urinary tract infections and antimicrobial sensitivity among diabetic patients at Khartoum, Sudan

  • Hamdan Z Hamdan1Email author,
  • Eman Kubbara1,
  • Amar M Adam1,
  • Onab S Hassan2,
  • Sarah O Suliman3 and
  • Ishag Adam4
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials201514:26

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-015-0082-4

Received: 12 November 2014

Accepted: 23 March 2015

Published: 21 April 2015

Abstract

Background

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are more susceptible to urinary tract infection (UTI) than non-diabetics. Due to the emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) uropathogenic strains, the choice of antimicrobial agent is restricted. This study investigated the epidemiology of UTI, antimicrobial susceptibility, and resistance patterns of bacterial isolates from adult diabetic patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at Khartoum Hospital, Sudan during the period of March − September 2013. Consecutive patients (men and women) were approached to participate in the study, irrespective of UTI symptoms. Socio-demographic and clinical data were obtained from each participant using pre-tested questionnaires. Clean-catch, midstream urine samples were collected and cultured for UTI diagnosis and antimicrobial susceptibility. Symptomatic bacteriuria was defined as a positive urine culture (≥105 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL of a single bacterial species) from patients with symptoms associated with UTI; asymptomatic bacteriuria was defined as a positive urine culture from patients without symptoms associated with UTI.

Results

A total of 200 diabetic patients were enrolled, 121 (60.5%) men and 79 (39.5%) women; 193 (96.5%) had type II DM. The overall prevalence of UTI was 39 (19.5%). Among the total population, 17.1% and 20.9% had symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria, respectively. According to multivariate logistic regression, none of the investigated factors (age, sex, type of DM and duration) were associated with UTI. The predominant isolates were Escherichia coli (22, [56.4%]), and Klebsiella pneumoniae, [9, (23%)]. Eight of 22 E. coli, four of nine K. pneumoniae and one of five Enterococcus faecalis isolates originated from symptomatic patients. Six, four, three, and two of 22 E. coli isolates showed resistance to ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, nitrofurantoin, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, respectively. Two, two, one and one of nine K. pneumoniae isolates were resistant to ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, cephalexin, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. All 22 E. coli isolates were sensitive (100%) to gentamicin and cephalexin. All nine K. pneumoniae were sensitive to gentamicin (100%) and 88.8% were sensitive to cephalexin.

Conclusion

In Sudan, about one-fifth of diabetic patients have UTI. E. coli is the most frequent isolate followed by K. pneumoniae.

Keywords

DiabetesUrinary tract infectionBacteriuria E. coli K. pneumoniae Sudan

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a worldwide health problem, with an expected prevalence of 593 million by 2035 [1]. In Sudan, the prevalence of DM is 2.6%, including patients with poor glycemic control and about 67% with long-term complications of DM [2,3]. Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infection among patients with DM and is responsible for considerable morbidity, particularly if it is unrecognized or untreated [4,5]. In Ethiopia, the rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria among diabetic patients are an estimated 13.6% and 10.4%, respectively [6]. Risk factors for UTI among patients with and without DM have been identified e.g. obesity, female sex, and prostate syndrome in men [7,8]. Furthermore, glycosuria, low immunity, and bladder dysfunction, which are associated with DM, are considered particular risk factors for UTI [9,10]. Escherichia coli is the most commonly isolated organism in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients [11,12].

The prevalence of DM is increasing worldwide and the emergence of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) strains is escalating; hence, determining the prevalence of UTI among diabetic patients and investigating the sensitivity of bacterial isolates to antimicrobial agents is important for the epidemiologist, scientist, health planner, and clinician. To the best of our knowledge, there are no published data regarding the epidemiology of UTI among diabetic patients in Sudan. Thus, this study was conducted at the Khartoum Hospital, Sudan, to provide epidemiological data about UTI among diabetic patients in Sudan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at Khartoum Hospital during the period March − September 2013. The hospital, with a capacity of 208 beds, is the largest governmental and referral hospital in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, which receives referral cases from outside and within Khartoum state. Consecutive male and female patients with type I or type II DM who attended the referral clinic were approached to participate in the study, regardless of the presence or absence of UTI symptoms. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, known underlying renal pathology or chronic renal disease, or use of antimicrobial therapy during the previous month. After providing written informed consent, relevant clinical and socio-demographic characteristics were collected using pre-tested questionnaires. Every patient was asked about symptoms suggestive of UTI (e.g., urgency, dysuria, urinary frequency, loin pain, and nausea) and history of other medical disorders, such as hypertension and, for males, prostate enlargement. Each patient’s weight, height, and body mass index (BMI) were calculated, and hemoglobin and blood glucose were measured.

Specimen collection and processing

Participants were asked to provide a midstream urine sample according to the clean-catch procedure. Samples were collected using a sterile container that was refrigerated (4°C), transported in an ice-pack to the medical laboratory, and processed within 1 hour of collection. Using a standard quantitative loop, urine samples (1 μL and 10 μL) were used to inoculate Cysteine lactose electrolyte deficient (CLED) agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK), MacConkey, 5% Sheep Blood agar, and chromogenic UTI (Oxoid) agar plates. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37°C and the outcome was judged as significant/non-significant growth, or contaminated (discarded). Significant bacteriuria was defined as urine culture plates showing ≥105 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of single bacterial species. Symptomatic bacteriuria was defined as significant bacteriuria in addition to symptoms related to UTI, while asymptomatic bacteriuria was defined as significant bacteriuria in the absence of UTI symptoms. MDR bacteria were defined as isolates resistant to ≥2 antimicrobial agents.

Identification of species and antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Chromogenic culture plates were used for growth morphology, then isolates were Gram-stained and species confirmed by in-house biochemical testing [13]. Gram-negative organisms, e.g. E. coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, and Proteus mirabilis, were distinguished by microscopy. E. coli was identified as medium, pink-to-red colonies and confirmed by positive indole test, whereas K. pneumonia were large, pink-to-mauve colonies, which were confirmed by negative oxidase and indole tests. P. mirabilis was assessed as small pale-to-colorless colonies testing positive to indole and urease but negative to oxidase. Enterococcus faecalis was the only Gram-positive microorganism that was isolated and was identified by the presence of small, turquoise colonies with coccoid morphology, which tested negative for catalase and positive for bile esculin.

The disc diffusion method was used to determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates. Colonies were suspended in normal saline to 0.5 McFarland standard, and using disposable sterile swabs, the suspensions were inoculated on Muller-Hinton agar (Oxoid) and incubated for 18–24 h, according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines [14]. E. coli ATCC® 25922 and E. faecalis ATCC® 29212 were used as control strains. Antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance was determined by isolate growth zone diameter according to CLSI guidelines as shown in Table 1. All antibiotic discs were from Oxoid. Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was prescribed for symptomatic patients as empirical treatment before culture results were obtained. All patients were requested to return for urine culture results after 2 days and their treatment was evaluated.
Table 1

Antimicrobial specific disc content and inhibitory zone diameter tested against Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcus faecalis bacteria

Organism/antimicrobial

Disk content

Zone diameter

Enterobacteriaceae

R

S

Ampicillin

10 μg

≥17 mm

≤13 mm

Gentamicin

10 μg

≥15 mm

≤12 mm

amoxicillin-clavulanic acid

20 μg/10 μg

≥18 mm

≤13 mm

Cephalexin

30 μg

≥18 mm

≤14 mm

co-trimoxazole

1.25/23.75 μg

≥16 mm

≤10 mm

Nitrofurantoin

300 μg

≥17 mm

≤14 mm

E. faecalis

 

Ampicillin

10 μg

≥17 mm

≤13 mm

amoxicillin-clavulanic acid

20 μg/10 μg

≥18 mm

≤13 mm

Nitrofurantoin

300 μg

≥17 mm

≤14 mm

Ciprofloxacin

5 μg

≥21 mm

≤15 mm

Enterobacteriaceae include; E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. mirabilis.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered into the computer using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software for Windows version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and double-checked before analysis. Means and proportions of the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were calculated and compared between the culture-positive and -negative groups using student t and X 2 tests, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for the culture-positive group as dependent variables, and socio-demographic (age, sex and BMI) and clinical (duration of DM, type of DM, history of UTI, dysuria, urgency, hemoglobin and blood glucose levels) variables as independent parameters. Probability values of <0.05 were considered as statistically significant for all results.

Results

Two hundred patients with DM were recruited; seven (3.5%) had type I and 193 (96.5%) had type II DM. There were more males than females, 121 (60.5%) vs. 79 (39.5%). Among the 200 diabetic patients, 76 (38%) had symptoms suggestive of UTI. The overall prevalence of UTI was 19.5%.

The prevalence of bacteriuria among symptomatic and asymptomatic diabetic patients was 17.1% and 20.9%, respectively, with no significant between-group difference. Compared with 22.3% of males, only 15.1% of females had bacteriuria (P = 0.043). Mean ages (SD) of the bacteriuric and non-bacteriuric patients were 58.6 (9.9) and 57.9 (11.6) years, respectively, (P = 0.981). There was no significant difference in the socio-demographic and clinical data between bacteriuric and non-bacteriuric diabetic patients (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinical characteristics of patients and factors associated with UTI among diabetic patients using univariate and multivariate analyses

Variables

Patients with Bacteriuria

Patients without Bacteriuria

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

n= 39

n= 161

OR

95% CI

P

OR

95% CI

P

Age, years

58.6(9.9)*

57.9(11.6)*

1.0

0.9-1.0

0.641

1.0

0.9-1.0

0.548

Male sex

27(69.2)#

94(58.3) #

1.6

0.7-1.9

0.216

1.4

0.5-3.3

0.452

Body mass index, kg/m2

25.4(6.1)*

25.9(5.8)*

0.9

0.8-1.1

0.771

0.9

0.8-1.03

0.291

Duration of diabetes, years

16.7(11.7)*

14.4(8.5)*

1.0

0.9-1.1

0.412

1.0

0.9-1.0

0.422

Type II diabetes

35(89.7) #

158(98.1) #

6.0

1.2-28.1

0.022

4.3

0.6-27.5

0.121

History of UTI

5(12.8) #

18(11.1) #

1.1

0.4-3.3

0.773

1.2

0.3-3.8

0.721

Hemoglobin, g/dl

13.4(1.0)*

13.4(1.5)*

1.0

0.5-1.7

0.905

0.9

0.9-1.0

0.501

Blood glucose level, mg/dl

174.1(54.2)*

161 (42.1)*

1.0

0.9-1.0

0.433

0.9

0.9-1.0

0.248

Dysuria

13(33.3) #

63(39.1) #

0.7

0.3-1.6

0.504

0.7

0.3-1.6

0.448

Urgency

6(15.3) #

11(6.8) #

2.4

0.1-13.8

0.094

1.5

0.4-6.1

0.497

Data were shown as mean (SD) * or n (%) # as applicable. Abbreviations: OR, Odds Ratio; CI, confidence interval; P, probability value. All variables in the univariate analyses were added to multivariate analysis.

Risk factors for urinary tract infections

Using logistic regression, although univariate analysis showed an association between type of DM and UTI, multivariate analysis showed no association between type of DM and other investigated factors (age, sex, type of DM, duration of DM, symptoms and BMI) and UTI (Table 2).

Bacterial isolates and susceptibility to antimicrobials

Thirty-four (87.1%) and 5 (12.8%) of the 39 isolates were Gram-negative and -positive bacteria, respectively. The predominant organism isolated was E. coli (22 isolates, 56.4%). Other isolates were K. pneumoniae (9, 23.0%), E. faecalis (5, 12.8%), and P. mirabilis (3, 7.6%).

Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates

Gram-negative bacteria

Gram-negative bacteria (E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. mirabilis) were tested against six antimicrobial agents: ampicillin, gentamicin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, cephalexin, co-trimoxazole, and nitrofurantoin. All isolates (100%) were susceptible to gentamicin. E. coli (the predominant isolate) and P. mirabilis were 100% susceptible to cephalexin. Moreover, 8 out of the 9K. pneumonia isolates were susceptible to cephalexin (Table 3).
Table 3

Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria isolated from diabetic patients

Isolates

RXN

Antimicrobial agents (%)

AP

CN

A-C

CEX

SXT

NF

CIP

Gram-negative

E. coli (n = 22)

S

16 (72.7)

22 (100)

20 (90.9)

22 (100)

18 (81.8)

19 (86.3)

Nt

R

6 (27.2)

-

2 (9)

-

4 (18.1)

3 (13.6)

Nt

K. pneumonia (n = 9)

S

7 (77.7)

9 (100)

8 (88.8)

8 (88.8)

7 (77.7)

9 (100)

Nt

R

2 (22.2)

-

1 (11.1)

1 (11.1)

2 (22.2)

-

Nt

P. mirabilis (n = 3)

S

2 (66.6)

3 (100)

3 (100)

3 (100)

2 (66.6)

2 (66.6)

Nt

R

1 (33.3)

-

-

-

1 (33.3)

1 (33.3)

Nt

Total ( n= 34)

S

25 (73.5)

34 (100)

31 (91.1)

33 (97)

27 (79.4)

30 (88.2)

Nt

R

9 (26.4)

-

3 (8.8)

1 (2.9)

7 (20.5)

4 (11.7)

Nt

Gram-positive

 

E.faecalis (n = 5)

S

4(80)

Nt

5(100)

Nt

Nt

5(100)

4(80)

R

1(20)

Nt

-

Nt

Nt

-

1(20)

Key: S, Sensitive; R, Resistant; −, zero; Nt, Not tested; AP, ampicillin; CN, gentamicin; A-C, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid; CEX, cephalexin; SXT, co-trimoxazole; NF, nitrofurantoin; CIP, ciprofloxacin.

Gram-positive bacteria

E. faecalis (n = 5) were the only Gram-positive bacteria isolated in this study. As assessed against four antimicrobial agents, ampicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin, E. faecalis isolates were 100% susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and nitrofurantoin. Only 20% of the E. faecalis isolates were resistant to ampicillin and ciprofloxacin (Table 3).

Multi-drug-resistance patterns of the isolates

Multi-drug-resistance was observed in 11 (28.2%) of the total 39 isolates. Twenty-three percent (5/22) of the E. coli isolates showed multi-drug-resistance against two to four antimicrobial agents (Table 3). Twenty percent (1/5) of the E. faecalis isolates (the only Gram-positive bacteria), showed multi-drug-resistance against two antimicrobial agents (Table 4).
Table 4

Figure of bacteria resistance to two, three and four antimicrobial agents

Antibiogram

No. (%) of resistance

Organism

R2

R3

R4

Gram-negative

   

E. coli (n = 22)

3 (13.6)

1 (4.5)

1 (4.5)

K. pneumonia (n = 9)

2 (22.2)

-

1 (11.1)

P. mirabilis (n = 3)

-

1 (33.3)

-

Total ( n= 34)

5 (14.7)

2 (5.8)

2 (5.8)

Gram-positive

   

E. faecalis(n = 5)

1 (20)

-

-

R2–R4 = number of antimicrobial agents to which a given isolate was resistant.

Discussion

The main findings of the present study were that the prevalence of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and overall bacteriuria among diabetic patients was 17.1%, 20.9%, and 19.5%, respectively. E. coli was the most common organism isolated. The reported prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria in this study was higher than the 13.6% and 10.4% reported in Ethiopia, a neighboring country [6]. Sudanese diabetic patients have poor glycemic control, which may explain the high prevalence of UTI in this setting [2]. Poor control of DM increases the risk of UTI by 24% [15]. Generally, compared with non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients have a higher incidence of UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria [16,17]. However, we found that the prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria among pregnant women in our previous work was 12.1% and 14.7% respectively [12]. It is worth mentioning that in the current study, significant bacteriuria was defined as 105 CFU/mL regardless of patients’ symptoms. If a lower bacterial count, such as 103 CFU/mL associated with patients’ symptoms had been used, then a higher percentage of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria would have been obtained.

In the current study, none of the investigated factors (patient age, duration and type of DM) were associated with the prevalence of UTI. Similar findings were reported for diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia [7]. Previous studies have shown that older age, duration of DM, and level of DM control are risk factors for UTI among diabetic patients [4,18]. Likewise, BMI, history of UTI, and sexual intercourse have been reported as independent risk factors for UTI among diabetic patients [7,19,20]. In this study, in line with one previous report [7], no association between duration of DM and UTI was observed.

Diabetic patients are at increased risk of infection in general and, in particular, to UTI [21]. The susceptibility of diabetic patients to UTI could be explained by diminished neutrophil response, lower urinary cytokines, and leukocyte concentrations, which might facilitate the adhesion of microorganisms to uroepithelial cells [16,22,23]. Interestingly, sexual intercourse was reported as a risk factor for UTI in women regardless of their DM status [24,25]. It is difficult to investigate sexual practice in this setting (due to cultural and traditional regulations); if this had been investigated, perhaps different results might have been obtained.

In this study, 63 (39.1%) patients had dysuria without bacteriuria. Other diseases, such as tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which were not investigated in this study, could explain the dysuria without bacteriuria. The current study showed that E. coli was the most common organism isolated from both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and it was resistant mainly to ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, nitrofurantoin, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. This is in line with reports from Ethiopia, Libya, and Kenya [6,11,26]. Furthermore, this is in agreement with a recent report from Ethiopia, where over 60% of the isolated urinary E. coli was resistant to ampicillin [6]. Emergence of uropathogenic MDR E. coli was previously reported among pregnant women in the same region [12]. However, increasing evidence shows an increase in strains of MDR E. coli in diabetic and non-diabetic [27,28]. Niranjan and Malini claim that DM per se is a risk factor for infection by MDR E. coli [29]. This report is contradicted by other studies [30,31]. In our study, there was no association between DM and the development of UTI, and the number of MDR E. coli strains was small. Patients’ geographical region, lifestyle and health care factors may possibly be related to MDR E. coli [32]. K. pneumoniae was the second most commonly isolated organism, which is in agreement with a recent report from Nepal [33]. However, this order of isolated microorganisms does not differ from that reported in non-diabetic patients [34].

Conclusion

About one-fifth of diabetic patients had UTI in our study. In both symptomatic and asymptomatic diabetic patients with UTI in Sudan, E. coli was the most frequent isolate followed by K. pneumoniae. Multi-drug resistance was observed in 28.2% of the total isolates. Ninety-seven percent of the Gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to cephalexin, while all Gram-negative organisms showed 100% sensitivity to gentamicin.

Ethics

This study was approved by Al-Neelain Research Ethics Review Board, Sudan.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to all the patients for their cooperation.

Funding

The study was funded by the organization Zahybash for trading, Khartoum, Sudan.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Neelain University
(2)
Faculty of Pharmacy, Al-Yarmouk University College
(3)
Faculty of Medical Laboratory, Omdurman Al-Ahlia University
(4)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khartoum University

References

  1. Guariguata L, Whiting DR, Hambleton I, Beagley J, Linnenkamp U, Shaw JE. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(2):137–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Elbagir MN, Eltom MA, Elmahadi EM, Kadam IM, Berne C. A population based study of the prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in adults in northern Sudan. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(10):1126–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Elbagir MN, Eltom MA, Mahadi EO, Berne C. Pattern of long-term complications in Sudanese insulin-treated diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1995;30(1):59–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Patterson JE, Andriole VT. Bacterial urinary tract infections in diabetes. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1997;11(3):735–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Schneeberger C, Kazemier BM, Geerlings SE. Asymptomatic bacteriuria and urinary tract infections in special patient groups: women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2014;27(1):108–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Yeshitela B, Gebre-Selassie S, Feleke Y. Asymptomatic bacteriuria and symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTI) in patients with diabetes mellitus in Tikur Anbessa Specialized University Hospital, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia Ethiop Med J. 2012;50(3):239–49.Google Scholar
  7. Al-Rubeaan KA, Moharram O, Al-Naqeb D, Hassan A, Rafiullah MR. Prevalence of urinary tract infection and risk factors among Saudi patients with diabetes. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):573–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ribera MC, Pascual R, Orozco D, Pérez Barba C, Pedrera V, Gil V. Incidence and risk factors associated with urinary tract infection in diabetic patients with and without asymptomatic bacteriuria. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2006;25(6):389–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Funfstuck R, Nicolle LE, Hanefeld M, Naber KG. Urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin Nephrol. 2012;77:40–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Nicolle LE. Urinary tract infection in diabetes. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18:49–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghenghesh KS, Elkateb E, Berbash N, Abdel Nada R, Ahmed SF, Rahouma A, et al. Uropathogens from diabetic patients in Libya: virulence factors and phylogenetic groups of Escherichia coli isolates. J Med Microbiol. 2009;58(8):1006–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamdan HZ, Ziad AH, Ali SK, Adam I. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections and antibiotics sensitivity among pregnant women at Khartoum North Hospital. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2011;18(10):2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray PR, Baron EJ, Pfaller MA, Tenover FC, Yolken RH. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. 6th ed. Washington DC: American Society of Microbiology Press; 1995. p. 1482.Google Scholar
  14. CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2007. Approved standard. Document M100-S17.Google Scholar
  15. Hirji I, Guo Z, Andersson SW, Hammar N, Gomez-Caminero A. Incidence of urinary tract infection among patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD). J Diabetes Complications. 2012;26(6):513–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillausseau PJ, Farah R, Laloi-Michelin M, Tielmans A, Rymer R, Warnet A. Urinary tract infections and diabetes mellitus. Rev Prat. 2003;53(16):1790–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Geerlings SE. Urinary tract infections in patients with diabetes mellitus: epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;31 Suppl 1:S54–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammar N, Farahmand B, Gran M, Joelson S, Andersson SW. Incidence of urinary tract infection in patients with type 2 diabetes. Experience from adverse event reporting in clinical trials. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(12):1287–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown JS, Wessells H, Chancellor MB, Howards SS, Stamm WE, Stapelton A, et al. Urologic complication of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;8(1):177–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin TL, Chen GD, Chen YC, Huang CN, Ng SC. Aging and recurrent urinary tract infections are associated with bladder dysfunction in type 2 diabetes. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;51:381–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Muller LM, Gorter KJ, Hak E, Goudzwaard WL, Schellevis FG, Hoepelman AI, et al. Increased risk of common infections in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:281–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Valerius NH, Eff C, Hansen NE, Karle H, Nerup J, Soeberg B, et al. Neutrophil and lymphocyte function in patients with diabetes mellitus. Acta Med Scand. 1982;211:463–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoepelman AI, Meiland R, Geerlings SE. Pathogenesis and management of bacterial urinary tract infections in adult patients with diabetes mellitus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2003;22 Suppl 2:35–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Geerlings SE, Stolk RP, Camps MJ, Netten PM, Collet TJ, Hoepelman AI. Risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infection in women with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(12):1737.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Scholes D, Hooton TM, Roberts PL, Gupta K, Stapleton AE, Stamm WE. Risk factors associated with acute pyelonephritis in healthy women. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(1):20–7.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kayima JK, Otieno LS, Twahir A, Njenga E. Asymptomatic bacteriuria among diabetics attending Kenyatta National Hospital. East Afr Med J. 1996;73(8):524–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Aswani SM, Chandrashekar U, Shivashankara K, Pruthvi B. Clinical profile of urinary tract infections in diabetics and non-diabetics. Australas Med J. 2014;7(1):29–34.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Baral P, Neupane S, Marasini BP, Ghimire KR, Lekhak B, Shrestha B. High prevalence of multidrug resistance in bacterial uropathogens from Kathmandu, Nepal. BMC Res Notes. 2012;19(5):38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Niranjan V, Malini A. Antimicrobial resistance pattern in Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infection among inpatients. Indian J Med Res. 2014;139(6):945–8.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Meiland R, Geerlings SE, De Neeling AJ, Hoepelman AI. Diabetes mellitus in itself is not a risk factor for antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from patients with bacteriuria. Diabet Med. 2004;21:1032–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Papazafiropoulou A, Daniil I, Sotiropoulos A, Petropoulou D, Konstantopoulou S, Peppas T, et al. Urinary tract infection, uropathogens and antimicrobial resistance in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009;85:e12–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nicolas-Chanoine MH, Jarlier V, Robert J, Arlet G, Drieux L, Leflon-Guibout V, et al. Patient’s origin and lifestyle associated with CTX-M-producing Escherichia coli: a case–control-control study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e30498.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Simkhada R. Urinary tract infection and antibiotic sensitivity pattern among diabetics. Nepal Med Coll J. 2013;15(1):1–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kung CH, Ku WW, Lee CH, Fung CP, Kuo SC, Chen TL, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors of community-onset urinary tract infection caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a medical center in Taiwan: A prospective cohort study. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2013;S1684–1182(13):00151–5.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Hamdan et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement