<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AID</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Advances in Infectious Diseases</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-2648</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/aid.2022.122018</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AID-117139</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Epidemiological, Clinical, Paraclinical and Evolutionary Aspects of Urinary Tract Infection in Diabetics Hospitalized at the Department of Medicine of Abass Ndao Hospital from January 01, 2018, to December 31, 2018
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ndeye</surname><given-names>Fatou Ngom</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Djiby</surname><given-names>Sow</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Demba</surname><given-names>Diedhiou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michel</surname><given-names>Assane Ndour</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cheikh</surname><given-names>Tacko Diop</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fulgence</surname><given-names>Abdou Faye</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ousseynou</surname><given-names>Ka</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anna</surname><given-names>Sarr</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Maimouna</surname><given-names>Ndour Mbaye</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Community Health, Faculty of the Health and Sustainable Development, Alioune Diop University of Bambey, Bambey, Senegal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Faculty of Medicine, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Internal Medicine Department, Abass Ndao Hospital, Dakar, Senegal</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health, and Sustainable Development, Alioune Diop University of Bambey, Bambey, Senegal</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>29</day><month>04</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>203</fpage><lpage>215</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>10,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>14,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>17,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a major public health problem because of its morbidity and mortality. It occurs with increased frequency during diabetes. The objective of this work was to study the frequency and etiologies of urinary tract infections in diabetics hospitalized at the department of medicine of Abass Ndao Hospital. 
  Patients and Methods: This work was a cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical study conducted from January 01, 2018, to December 31, 2018. It focused on hospitalized diabetic patients with urinary tract infection. Epidemiological, clinical, and evolutionary data of UTI were evaluated. 
  Results: One hundred and twenty-eight (128) diabetic patients had a cytobacteriological urine exam (CUE). 44 of who had a positive CUE (34.4%). The age group [60 - 69] years was the most represented (31.8%). Women predominated (61.4%) with a sex ratio (m/f) of 0.63. Abdominal pain was the most frequent reason for consultation, followed by polydipsia. Fever was recorded in 21 patients (47.7%). Type 2 diabetes was found in most patients (70.5%). Glycemia above 2g/l was found in 34 patients (89.5%). Anemia accounted for more than half of the patients with 29 cases (65.9%). Leukocytosis was noted in 28 patients (63.6%) and a positive CRP in 33 patients (75%). An increase in urea-creatinine was noted in 23 cases (52.3%). The results of the CUE revealed 
  <em>Escherichia coli</em> as predominant (43.2%, n = 19), followed by
  <em> Candida</em> with 22.7% (n = 10). Antibiotic therapy was given to all patients. The mostly used antibiotic in the treatment of UTI was Cefotaxime 27.3% (n = 12). Older age and female gender were associated with the presence of
  <em> E. coli</em>. Four (4) deaths were recorded (9%). They were all male over the age of 65. 
  Conclusion: UTI in diabetes is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The development and implementation of a prevention and management program are essential.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Urinary Tract Infection</kwd><kwd> Diabetes</kwd><kwd> Risk Factors</kwd><kwd> Mortality</kwd><kwd> Senegal</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Diabetes is a public health problem due to its increased morbidity and mortality. It is a chronic metabolic disease, associated with a failure of the biological mechanisms of glycemia regulation, characterized by its evolution, most often insidious, leading to a delay in diagnosis responsible for the occurrence of complications. These infections are frequent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref1">1</xref>]. These complications can be chronic degenerative but also acute metabolic or infectious complications, requiring long and expensive treatment. These acute complications deserve particular attention, including urinary tract infection [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref2">2</xref>].</p><p>Urinary tract infection (UTI) corresponds to the aggression of a tissue of the urinary tract by one or more microorganisms generating an inflammatory response and symptoms of varying nature and intensity depending on the terrain. UTIs are also a major public health problem, due to their morbidity and mortality, and their frequency, which ranks them, after respiratory infections, the second most common indication for antibiotic prescription [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref3">3</xref>]. UTIs occur with increased frequency in diabetes. The mechanisms are known and are due to the influence of hyperglycemia on neutrophils, increased bacterial adherence, decreased secretion of cytokines and bacterial quiescence. They are often asymptomatic but can be considered as a reason for diabetic imbalance. Moreover, they can take different forms and can be located in the lower urinary tract (cystitis, urethritis) or upper urinary tract (pyelonephritis). It is a complication that can be avoided by primary prevention. This motivated us to carry out this study with the general objective of determining the frequency and describing the epidemiological, clinical, paraclinical, therapeutic and evolutionary aspects of urinary tract infection in diabetics at the Abass Ndao Hospital in Dakar.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The study was conducted at the department of medicine of Abass Ndao Hospital in Dakar. This service is composed of 2 departments namely the Marc Sankal&#233; Diabetes Center and the Internal Medicine Hospitalization Service with a capacity of 34 beds.</p><p>This was a retrospective descriptive cross-sectional study of diabetic subjects hospitalized at the internal medicine department of Abass Ndao Hospital in Dakar with a urinary tract infection. The recruitment of our patients was done over a year from 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2018.</p><p>All diabetic patients hospitalized in internal medicine during the recruitment period from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, who presented a urinary tract infection and presented a complete file were included in our work. A standard questionnaire was established to serve as a basis for data collection for the patients included in the study. It covered marital status, clinical manifestations, biological and biochemical analyses, diabetes, and urinary tract infection. Data were collected from the records of patients meeting the inclusion criteria and hospitalized during the study period. The questionnaires were filled out from the hospitalization records reporting the clinical and paraclinical elements of the patients.</p><p>The data collected included:</p><p>- Socio-economic profile: age, gender, occupation, marital status, address.</p><p>- The study of diabetes mellitus: it was interested in the type of diabetes, its duration, existence or not of other cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, age, alcoholism). Sedentary lifestyle was not evaluated because it was not recorded in the patients’ files.</p><p>- Clinical manifestations.</p><p>- Paraclinical aspects: complete blood count (CBC), creatininemia, C reactive protein (CRP), HbA1c, lipidic balance, renal function, and micro albuminuria, CUE, scanner, magnetic resonance imaging (IRM), prostate ultrasound, retroviral serology (SRV), electrocardiogram (ECG).</p><p>The data were entered using Microsoft Office Excel and analyzed by epi info 2000 version 3.3.2. In the analysis, a descriptive and analytical study was made.</p><p>Ethical considerations: data were collected anonymously and treated confidentially.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>Frequency</p><p>One hundred and twenty-eight (128) diabetic patients had performed a CUE. Among them, 44 patients had a positive CUE, i.e. a frequency of 34.4%.</p><p>Epidemiological Aspects</p><p>The mean age was 55 years with extremes ranging from 15 to 87 years. The age range [60 - 69] was more representative with 14 patients or 31.8%. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the distribution of patients by age group (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The study population consisted of 27 women (61.4%) with a sex ratio (m/f) of 0.63. The patients were mainly from Dakar, 41 patients or 93.2%. Married people were more represented with 25 patients (56.8%). Housewives were in the majority with 14 cases (31.8%), followed by the unemployed with 10 patients (22.7%).</p><p>Regarding the antecedents, we noted 1 case of alcoholism (2.3%) and 2 cases of genital infection (4.5%). Among the risk factors, arterial hypertension was</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients by age group</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Age range</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 - 39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 - 49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >50 - 59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 - 69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >70 - 79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80+</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>found in 12 patients, i.e. a frequency of 27.3%; overweight concerned 20 cases, i.e. 45.4%. We recorded 6 patients with urinary catheters, i.e. 13.6%.</p><p>Clinical and Paraclinical Aspects</p><p>Clinically, the average time between the onset of symptoms and consultation was more than 7 days in most patients. Abdominal pain was the most frequent reason for consultation with 13 cases or 29.5%, followed by polydipsia with 12 cases or 27.3%.</p><p>Fever was recorded in 21 patients or 47.7%.</p><p>The study of diabetes showed that type 2 was the most frequent with 31 cases or 70.5%. The level of blood sugar was higher than 2 g/l in 34 patients (77.3%). Most of our patients had diabetes evolving for more than 10 years with 19 cases or 43.18%. In this study, hyperglycemia dominated with 17 cases (38.6%).</p><p>Leukocytosis was noted in 28 patients or 63.6%, anemia in more than half of the patients with 29 cases or 65.9% and thrombocytosis in 18 patients or 40.9%. CRP was elevated in 33 patients (75%). Elevated creatinine and urea levels were noted in 23 patients (52.3%) with impaired renal function.</p><p>Urinary Tract Infection</p><p>The results of the CUE revealed Escherichia coli as predominant with 19 cases or 43.2%, followed by Candida with 10 cases or 22.7% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>The ECG revealed that out of 37 patients checked, only 9 had no abnormality, i.e. 24.32%. We also had 1 case of infarction or 3%. Only 1 patient had an ultrasound of the prostate and showed an increase in the size of the prostate.</p><p>Antidiabetic</p><p>Metformin (Glucophage) was the mostly most used oral treatment with 17 cases (38.63%), followed by insulin with 14 cases (31.8%).</p><p>Antibiotics</p><p>Antibiotic therapy concerned all patients having a positive CUE. Dual therapy was used in 33 patients (75%). The mostly used antibiotic in the treatment of UTI was Cefotaxime with 12 patients or 27.3%. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the distribution of the population according to the antibiotic used for treatment.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients according to the germs found</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Germs</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Escherichia coli</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Candida (albicans or non-albicans)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Klebsiella pneumoniae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Escherichia coli + Klebsiella oxytoca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Klebsiella pneumoniae + Candida (albicans or non-albicans)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Staphylococcus aureus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acinetobacter spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudomonas spp. + Flavobacterium spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Staphylococcus saprophyticus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of population by antibiotic used for treatment</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >ATB</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amoxicillin-clavulanic acid</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cefotaxime</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceftazidime</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gentamicin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ciprofloxacin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fosfomycin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sulfonamide</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amikacin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Imipenem</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cefepime</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The most used TBA families were beta-lactams (36.4%) in monotherapy with 11 cases or 25% and in dual therapy with 5 cases or 11.4%; followed by fluoroquinolones with 11 cases or 25%.</p><p>The duration of hospitalization between 7 and 15 days included more patients with 23 cases or 63.9%.</p><p>Analytic Study</p><p>The predominant bacterium Escherichia coli was found more in patients over 60 years of age, i.e. 13 cases for 24.5%. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows the distribution of patients according to bacteria and age.</p><p>The predominant germ Escherichia coli is more present in women 15 cases or 19.7% than in men 6 cases or 11.8%. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> shows the distribution of patients according to the bacterium involved and gender.</p><p>Older age and female gender were associated with the presence of E. Coli UTI.</p><p>On the evolutionary level, four (4) deaths were recorded, i.e. 9.09; distributed</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients according to bacteria and age</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Age 60</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;60 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;60 years old</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Acinetobacter spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.583</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Candida (albicans or non-albicans)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.542</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.1%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Escherichia coli</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.040</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Klebsiella oxytoca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.662</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Klebsiella pneumoniae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.446</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Pseudomonas spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.417</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Flavobacterium spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.417</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Staphylococcus aureus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.172</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Staphylococcus saprophyticus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.583</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients according to the bacteria involved and gender</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >SEX</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >M</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Acinetobacter spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.598</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Candida (albicans or non-albicans)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.332</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Escherichia coli</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.236</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Klebsiella oxytoca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.356</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Klebsiella pneumoniae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.408</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Pseudomonas spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.402</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Flavobacterium spp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.402</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Staphylococcus aureus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.644</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Staphylococcus saprophyticus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Workforce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.402</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>between Escherichia coli (n = 1), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 1), Candida (n = 1) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 1). They were all male over the age of 65. Comorbidities such as gas gangrene, cerebrovascular accident and foot ulcer were noted.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>During the study period we found a hospital frequency of 34.4%. Lower frequencies were found in Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia with respectively 10.9; 13%, 19.5%, 24.74%; 25.3%; 25.9% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref4">4</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref10">10</xref>]. Elsewhere in China, Ke He found a frequency of 11.2% of urinary tract infection in diabetics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref11">11</xref>]. On the other hand, in India higher prevalence was found at a proportion of 42% and 45% respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref13">13</xref>].</p><p>The female gender was the most represented with 61.4% of cases, i.e. a ratio of 0.6. This finding is consistent with data found in the literature 41.1% versus 7.2% in men, 64.6% and 61.19% respectively in Morocco and Tunisia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref15">15</xref>]. In developed countries such as France, prevalence of urinary tract infection in diabetic women are around 2/3 (76.2%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref17">17</xref>]. In women, in addition to the anatomy of the pelvis, certain periods of life such as menopause or pregnancy, due to changes in hormonal status, favor the penetration of germs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref17">17</xref>].</p><p>This frequency increases with age. It affects patients over 50 years of age in more than one third of cases. The age group mostly affected in our study was the sixties (31.8%), the average age was 55.11 &#177; 18.86 years. Our results were like those found in some studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref9">9</xref>]. Age increases the frequency of infection, with 6% at 60 years of age and 10% at 70 years of age in women, and 4% in men over 60 years of age. Studies confirm this prevalence, which increases with age and in women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref10">10</xref>].</p><p>In our study, type 2 diabetes was in the majority with 31 cases or 70.46%. This finding is identical to what is described in the literature. This rate is lower than those observed in other studies, notably in Mali and France, which were 51.35% and 54% respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref19">19</xref>]. On the other hand, other authors have found higher proportions 80% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref20">20</xref>].</p><p>We recorded 6 patients with urinary catheters, i.e. 13.64%. Urinary catheterization is the cause of 80% of nosocomial infections and the risk increases by 5% per day of catheterization. It is therefore important to verify the absence of urinary tract infection before each procedure, to prescribe antibiotic prophylaxis in certain situations and to monitor any post-procedure fever. Studies have shown the role of the urinary catheter remaining in place for too long with the possibility for microorganisms to colonize the catheter lumen or along the outside of the catheter and infect the bladder or kidneys, leading to a catheter-associated urinary tract infection [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref22">22</xref>].</p><p>In a 2011 point-in-time prevalence survey, researchers identified urinary tract infections (UTIs) as the fourth most common healthcare-associated infection (HAI), accounting for more than 12% of infections in U.S. acute care facilities (n = 504). Over 67% of these identified UTIs were associated with indwelling urinary catheters [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref23">23</xref>]. They estimated that of approximately 721,800 annual nosocomial infections, 93,300 urinary tract infections and 35,600 catheter-associated urinary tract infections occur in acute care hospitals in the United States [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref23">23</xref>]. The length of time a urinary catheter remains in the bladder directly affects the development of bacteriuria. The longer it is in place, the higher the risk of developing a urinary tract infection. And when contaminated urine flows through a catheter, microorganisms can attach to the catheter and be continually bathed by the warm nutrients in the urine. As a result, a protective gel can form and become a bacterial biofilm along the outer or inner surface of the catheter [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref24">24</xref>].</p><p>In all the literature cited above, urinary catheterization was a factor in the incidence of urinary tract infection in diabetics, so the low rate found in our study could be explained by the low use of urinary catheters in the study.</p><p>Diabetes has long been considered a predisposing factor for urinary tract infections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref25">25</xref>]. Longer duration of diabetes may lead to an increased prevalence of chronic diabetic complications, more frequent hospitalizations, and urinary tract catheterization, all of which lead to an increased prevalence of UTIs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref26">26</xref>]. Female gender and type 2 diabetes have been identified as significant risk factors for UTIs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref27">27</xref>].</p><p>Abdominal pain was the most frequent reason for consultation with 13 cases or 29.5%, followed by polydipsia with 12 cases or 27.3%. We also recorded urinary burning 11.4% and fever in 21 patients or 47.73%. However, other symptoms such as dysuria, increased frequency of micturition, hematuria and back pain are also strong evidence for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref16">16</xref>]. In addition, fever may also be predominant (18.6%), followed by burning of the urine (8.6%) and dysuria/pollakiuria (4.3%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref15">15</xref>]. Fever was recorded in 47.73% of patients in our study. UTI in diabetics can be either symptomatic or asymptomatic. Several studies have shown that the presence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (BA) is predictive of symptomatic infections in diabetics, as well as in patients without diabetes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref30">30</xref>].</p><p>The infection was bacterial in 77.28% of cases and fungal in 22.7%. The results of the ECBU had revealed Escherichia coli as predominant with 47.7% of isolates, followed by Candida albicans or not with (22.7%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae in 13.6%. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref28">28</xref>]. In contrast in 2014 had found that E. coli was the majority (73%), followed by enterococci (6.6%) and Klebsiella (5.6%) in France [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref29">29</xref>]. In Nepal (2013), UIS is dominated by E. coli (52%), followed by K. pneumoniae (14.29%), and P. aeruginosa (9.52%), Proteus (8.52%), Enterococcus (8.52%) and Acinetobacter (4.76%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref30">30</xref>].</p><p>The study conducted at the Endocrinology Department of the Bourguiba University Hospital of Monastira had found a predominance of E. coli (56.7%), followed by Klebsiella (29.9%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref31">31</xref>], on the other hand others isolated 70.2% Escherichia coli, 6% Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella pneumoniae (2.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2.7%) in 1995 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref32">32</xref>]. A retrospective study carried out in the bacteriology laboratory of the Mohammed V Military Teaching Hospital in Rabat, on the bacteria isolated from 648 “positive” CUE 2011, showed that among the isolated germs 85.36% were enterobacteria with a predominance of Escherichia coli (51.06%), Gram-positive bacteria accounted for 7.31% of bacterial isolates On his part Legarzic and colleagues found Escherichia coli dominant (63.6%,) Klebsiella pneumoniae 6.3% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref33">33</xref>], as well as Fisher and Deguine isolated Escherichia coli 63.6%, Klebsiella pneumoniae 6.3%, Proteus mirabilis 1.65% in France in 1997 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref34">34</xref>]. But Abbou C et al. found 5% Klebsiella pneumoniae, 8% Pseudomonas aeruginosa and 5% Proteus mirabilis in France in 1994 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref35">35</xref>]. Etienne M et al. stated that fungal infections of the urinary tract are rare in community medicine, but common in hospitals where 10% - 30% of urine cultures isolate Candida species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref36">36</xref>]. Thomas L et al. explain in their article that mycosis, and candiduria particularly, is an increasingly common problem encountered by the practicing urologist. Moreover, its prevalence has increased and represented 22% of nosocomial urinary tract infections (UTI) from 1986 to 1989 and then 40% from 1992 to 1997. This fungal infection was associated with high acuity care, indwelling catheters, diabetes mellitus, antibiotic and steroid use, and urinary tract disease [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref37">37</xref>]. Thus, in most studies E. coli is predominant confirming our results.</p><p>The distribution of bacterial species during UTI in diabetics has been found in other works. In a recent study, the predominance of Escherichia coli (47.83%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (19.57%) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (4.34%) was confirmed. Several authors have found similar results. However, the presence of candida is also frequent in diabetics. Similar results have been observed in Tunisia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref6">6</xref>]. This predominance of E. coli is found in cases of urinary tract infection even outside diabetes. Its presence is associated with age and sex in our study. This finding is comparable to other studies carried out elsewhere in Africa indicating 40% - 46% isolation of E. coli [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref40">40</xref>]. The high prevalence of E. coli in the female sex could be due to the proximity of the anus to the vagina, the inherent virulence but also its ability to adhere to the urinary tract and the association with other microorganisms moving from areas of the perineum contaminated with fecal microbes to the warm and moist environment of the female genitalia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref42">42</xref>].</p><p>The antibiotic mostly used in the treatment of UTI in our study was cefotaxime with 12 patients or 27.3%. We also noted the use of dual therapy in some patients 11.4%. Amoxicillin + clavulanic acid was prescribed in 11.36% (n = 5); while ciprofloxacin and imipenem each 6 cases or 13.6%. Other antibiotics were used but weakly such as ceftazidime 9.09%, gentamicin 6.8%, Fosfomycin 4.5%, sulfonamide 2.3%, amikacin 6.8% and cefepime 9.1%. Antibiotic treatment for UTI is becoming increasingly difficult due to the increase in antimicrobial resistance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref43">43</xref>]. In addition, antibiotic treatment exerts collateral effects such as intestinal dysbiosis that can create niches for colonization by multidrug-resistant pathogens, which may eventually dominate the intestinal microflora [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref44">44</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117139-ref47">47</xref>]. Patient treatment depends on the causative bacteria, microbial ecology, and sensitivity of the patient’s strain. Most patients (63.9%) have a hospital stay of between 7 and 15 days. This duration is like the results found in other similar African studies.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Urinary tract infections are very often found in diabetics. E coli is the most common germ found. On the other hand, its frequency is much more observed in diabetics not controlled by treatment. So good control of diabetes remains one of the best strategies for preventing urinary tract infections.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Limitations of the Study</title><p>We encountered difficulties during this study, particularly regarding the completeness of the clinical data.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank all patients whose data were used in this study. We also acknowledge the staff from Abasse Ndao who contributed to recording and entering data.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>NGOM Ndeye Fatou, Sow Djiby: design, data collection, data curation, statistical analysis, writing original draft and manuscript review. Other authors: design, writing, manuscript review and editing. All the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors certify that they have no affiliation with or involvement in any organisation or entity with a non-financial interest or stake in the subject matter of this manuscript. The authors did not receive any specific funding for this work.</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Ngom, N.F., Sow, D., Diedhiou, D., Ndour, M.A., Diop, C.T., Faye, F.A., Ka, O., Sarr, A. and Mbaye, M.N. (2022) Epidemiological, Clinical, Paraclinical and Evolutionary Aspects of Urinary Tract Infection in Diabetics Hospitalized at the Department of Medicine of Abass Ndao Hospital from January 01, 2018, to December 31, 2018. Advances in Infectious Diseases, 12, 203-215. https://doi.org/10.4236/aid.2022.122018</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.117139-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gorter, K.J., Hak, E., Zuithoff, N.P., Hoepelman, A.I. and Rutten, G.E. (2010) Risk of Recurrent Acute Lower Urinary Tract Infections and Prescription Pattern of Antibiotics in Women with and without Diabetes in Primary Care. Family Practice, 27, 379-385. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmq026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Diabetes Federation (2013) IDF Diabetes Atlas. 5th Edition, 2013 Update. International Diabetes Federation, Brussels.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Grimaldi, A. (2000) Université Pierre et Marie Curie Diabétologie: Question d’Internat, 1999-2000. No. 330, 13-14, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 101-129. https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/read/17617270/universite-pierre-et-marie-curie-diabetologie-questions-dinternat</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Larabi, K., Masmoudi, A. and Fendri, C. (2003) Bacteriological Study and Resistance Phenotypes of Germs Responsible for Urinary Tract Infections in a University Hospital Center in Tunis: About 1930 Cases. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 33, 348-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0399-077X(03)00180-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yeshitela, B., Gebre-Selassie, S. and Feleke, Y. (2012) Asymptomatic Bacteriuria and Symptomatic Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) in Patients with Diabetes Millitus in Tikur Anbessa Specialized University Hospital, Addis Abada, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Medical Journal, 50, 239-249.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hasni, Y., Marmouch, H., Graja, S., Jmel, M., Sayadi, H., Khochtali, I. and Mahjoub, S. (2013) Urinary Tract Infections and Diabetes at the Department of Internal Medicine and Diabetology Endocrinology, EBS Fattouma Bourguiba, Monastir, Tunisie. P104. XXIIIème Congress of the Tunisian Society of Infectious Pathology, Tunis, 18-20 Avril 2013, Tunisian Journal of Infectiology, 7, S1-S138.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Traoré, H., Kéita, B., Kéita, S., Diallo, F., Dembelé, M., et al. (1994) Clinical and Bacteriological Study of Urinary Tract Infection in the Internal Medicine Department at the National Point G Hospital, Bamako. Medecine d’Afrique noire, 41, 336-342.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Epok, J.C. (1998) Epidemiological and Etiological Aspects of Urinary Tract Infections at the Point G National Hospital. Thesis Pharm, University of Mali, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Rubean, K.A., Moharram, O., Al-Naqeb, D., Hassan, A. and Rawullah, M. (2013) Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection and Risk Factors among Saudi Patients with Diabetes. World Journal of Urology, 31, 573-578.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Graja, S., Jmal, M., Hasni, Y., Marmouch, H.S.H. and Mahjoub, S. (2013) Type 2 Diabetes and Infections. Department of Internal Medicine and Diabetology Endocrinology, EBS Fattouma Bourguiba, Monastir, Tunisie. XXIIIème Congress of the Tunisian Society of Infectious Pathology, Tunis, 18-20 Avril 2013, Tunisian Journal of Infectiology, 7, S1-S138, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ando.2013.07.593</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">He, K., Hu, Y., Shi, J.-C., Zhu, Y.-Q. and Mao, X.-M. (2018) Prevalence, Risk Factors and Microorganisms of Urinary Tract Infections in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Retrospective Study in China. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 14, 403-408. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S147078</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Janifer, J., Geethalakshmi, S., Satyavani, K. and Viswanathan, V. (2009) Prevalence of Lower Urinary Tract Infections in Type 2 Diabetic Subjects in South India. Indian Journal of Nephrology, 19, 107-111. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-4065.57107</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramana, B.V. and Chaudhury, A. (2012) Prevalence of Uropathogens in Diabetic Patients and Their Resistance Pattern in a Tertiary Care Center in South India. International Journal of Biological and Medical Research, 3, 1433-1435.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Radi, L., Daoudi, A., Nassib, M., Chadli, A., El Ghomari, H. and Farouqi, A. (2008) Urinary Tract Infection and Diabetes. Diabetes &amp; Metabolism, 34, A40-A10.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Toumi, A., Aouam, A., Ben Brahim, H., Marmouch, H., Loussaief, C. and Chakroun, M. (2014) Bacteriological Profile of Urinary Tract Infections in Diabetic Subjects. Annales d’Endocrinologie, 75, 372-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ando.2014.07.428</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Mouy, D., Lepargneur, J.P., Bandler, H., Larribet, G., Declercq, G., et al. (1997) Enterobacteriaceae Isolated from Urinary Tract Infections in Clinical Practice: étude AFORCOPIBIO 1995. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 27, 642-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0399-077X(97)80216-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Buzelin</surname><given-names> J.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1998</year>)<article-title>Female Urinary Incontinence</article-title><source> What Assessment? What Treatment? Annales d’Urologie</source><volume> 32</volume>,<fpage> 83</fpage>-<lpage>88</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maiga, I.I., Epok, J., Diarra, I., Fongoro, S., Rochereau, A. and Maiga, M.K. (2000) Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Infections at Point G Hospital (Bamako). Mali Medical, 15, 21-24.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Avril, J.L. and Carlet, J. (1998) Les infections nosocomiales et leur prévention. Ellipses, Paris, 687 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mallaret, M.P., Bosseray, A. and Micoud, M. (1996) Nosocomial Infections. Encycl Med Chir, Maladies Infectieuses, Paris, 1-6.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Clayton, J.L. (2017) Indwelling Urinary Catheters: A Pathway to Health Care-Associated Infections. AORN Journal, 105, 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2017.02.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magill, S.S., Edwards, J.R., Bamberg, W., Beldavs, Z.G., Dumyati, G., Kainer, M.A., et al. (2014) Multi-State Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 1198-1208. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306801</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nicolle, L.E. (2014) Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections. Antimicrobial Resistance &amp; Infection Control, 3, Article No. 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-3-23</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Weinberg, A.E., Patel, C.J., Chertow, G.M. and Leppert, J.T. (2014) Diabetic Severity and Risk of Kidney Stone Disease. European Urology, 65, 242-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bonadio, M., Boldrini, E., Forotti, G., Matteucci, E., Vigna, A., Mori, S., et al. (2004) Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Women with Diabetes: Influence of Metabolic Control. Clinical Infectious Disease, 38, 41-45. https://doi.org/10.1086/381755</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhanel, G.G., Nicolle, L.E. and Harding, G.K. (1995) Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria and Associated Host Factors in Women with Diabetes Mellitus. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21, 316-322. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/21.2.316</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Rubeaan, K.A., Moharram, O., Al-Naqeb, D., Hassan, A. and Rafiullah, M.R. (2013) Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infections and Risk Factors among Saudi Diabetic Patients. World Journal of Urology, 31, 573-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0934-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Broeren, M.A., Bah&amp;sigmaf;eci, S., Vader, H.L. and Arents, N.L. (2011) Screening for Urinary Tract Infections with the Urinary Flow Cytometry Sysmex UF 1000i. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 49, 1025-1029. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01669-10</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Geerlings, S.E., Stolk, R.P., Camps, M.J., Netten, P.M., Hoekstra, J.B., Bouter, K.P., et al. (2000) Asymptomatic Bacteriuria Can Be Considered a Complication in Diabetic Women. Diabetes Mellitus Women Asymptomatic Bactériurie. Utrecht-Study Group. Diabetes Care, 23, 744-749. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.23.6.744</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El Yaagoubi, Chekbab, A., Tangi, R. and Chadli, M. (2011) Bacteriological and Susceptibility of Strains Isolated from UTIs at the Mohammed V Military Instruction Hospital: About 648 Cases a Propos de 648. Moroccan Society of Medical Microbiology, Rabat.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Malmartel, A. (2014) Study of Variation in ECBU results in Urinary Tract Infections in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Observational and Analytical Study. Medical Thesis, Faculty of Medicine PARIS DESCARTES, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Simkhada</surname><given-names> R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>Urinary Tract Infection and Antibiotic Sensitivity Pattern among Diabetics</article-title><source> Nepal Medical College Journal</source><volume> 15</volume>,<fpage> 1</fpage>-<lpage>4</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Legarzic, J., Tas, A. and Avril, J.L. (1998) Community-Acquired and Nosocomial Gram-Negative Urinary Tract Infections in Geriatrics. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 28, 505-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0399-077X(98)80020-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fischer and Deguine</surname><given-names> J. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1997</year>)<article-title>Female Urinary Tract Infection: Results and Interpretation</article-title><source> Option/Bio</source><volume> 513</volume>,<fpage> 1</fpage>-<lpage>9</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abbou, C. and Lobel, B. (1994) Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies in Infectiology Urology. Annales d’Urologie, 30, 151-152.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Etienne, M. and Caron, F. (2007) Management of Fungal Urinary Tract Infections. La Presse Médicale, 36, 1899-1906. (In French) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2006.12.033</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thomas, L. and Tracy, C.R. (2015) Treatment of Fungal Urinary Tract Infection. Urologic Clinics of North America, 42, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.05.010</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kayima, J.K., Otieno, L.S., Twahir, A. and Njenga, E. (1996) Asymptomatic Bacteriuria among Diabetics Attending Kenyatta National Hospital. East African Medical Journal, 73, 524-526.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moges, A.F., Genetu, A. and Mengistu, G. (2002) Antibiotic Sensitivities of Common Bacterial Pathogens in Urinary Tract infections in Gondar Hospital, Ethiopia. East African Medical Journal, 79, 140-142. https://doi.org/10.4314/eamj.v79i3.8893</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Wanyama, J. (2003) Prevalence, Bacteriology and Microbial Sensitivity Patterns among Pregnant Women with Clinically Diagnosed Urinary Tract Infections in Mulago Hospital Labour Ward. M.Ed. Dissertation of Wanyama, Makerere University, Kampala.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Mayanja, R., Kiggundu, C., Kaddu-Mulindwa, D., et al. (2005) Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriruria and Associated Factors among Women Attending Antenatal Clinics in Lower Mulago Hospital. M.Ed. Dissertation of Mayanja, Makerere University, Kampala.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andabati, G. and Byamugisha, J. (2010) Microbial Aetiology and Sensitivity of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria among Ante-Natal Mothers in Mulago Hospital, Uganda. African Health Sciences, 10, 349-352.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McLaughlin, S.P. and Carson, C.C. (2004) Urinary Tract Infections in Women. Medical Clinics of North America, 88, 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-7125(03)00148-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Van Tyne, D. and Gilmore, M.S. (2014) Friend Turned Foe: Evolution of Enterococcal Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance. Annual Review of Microbiology, 68, 337-356. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-091213-113003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miller, W.R., Munita, J.M. and Arias, C.A. (2014) Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance in Enterococci. Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, 12, 1221-1236. https://doi.org/10.1586/14787210.2014.956092</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Benhiba, I., Bouzekraoui, T., Zahidi, J., Noureddine, E., Ait Said, L., Warda, K. and Zahlane, K. (2015) Epidemiology and Antibiotic Resistance of Enterobacterial Urinary Tract Infections in Adults in the University Hospital of Marrakech and Therapeutic Implications. Uro Ando1, 4.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117139-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Agence fran&amp;sigmaf;aise de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé (2008) Recommendations for Good Practice: Diagnosis and Antibiotic Therapy of Community-Acquired Bacterial Urinary Tract Infections in Adults. http://www.infectiologie.com/site/medias/_documents/consensus/afssaps-infurinaires-adulte-recos.pdf</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>