| Literature DB >> 33293950 |
Bhuvan Saud1, Prajuna Bajgain1, Govinda Paudel1, Vikram Shrestha1, Dipendra Bajracharya2, Saroj Adhikari3, Gunaraj Dhungana1, Mamata Sherpa Awasthi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low immunity, comorbid clinical conditions, and metabolic disorders may be the underlying factors that determine the severity of infection. Diabetes increases the risk of infection and multiple organ damage. In Nepal, the actual burden of fungal infections has not been estimated or is in a limited progress. This study aimed to investigate the status of fungal infection in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals in Bhaktapur, Nepal.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33293950 PMCID: PMC7688373 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7949868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis ISSN: 1687-708X
Prevalence of fungi in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals from different samples.
| Fungi isolates | Oral wash | Toe sample | Urine sample | Nail sample | Hair sample | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM ( | NDM ( | DM ( | NDM ( | DM ( | NDM ( | DM ( | NDM ( | DM ( | NDM ( | |
|
| 20 (44.4%) | 2 (40.0%) | 7 (24.1%) | 1 (20.0%) | 5 (22.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 5 (11.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (17.2%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 4 (8.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (22.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (10.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 11 (50%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 3 (6.7%) | 2 (40.0%) | 3 (10.3%) | 2 (40.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) |
|
| 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (20.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) |
|
| 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (60.0%) | 1 (33.3%) |
|
| 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (17.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (50.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 4 (40.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Total | 45 | 5 | 29 | 5 | 22 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 3 |
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.526 | 0.372 | |||||
Relation between age group and distribution of fungal isolates in study subjects.
| Sites | Age group (in year) | DM | NDM |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral samples | Less than 35 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.00 |
| 36 to 45 | 6 (13.3%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| 46 to 55 | 21 (46.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| More than 56 | 18 (40.0%) | 3 (60.0%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Toe samples | Less than 35 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.00 |
| 36 to 45 | 5 (17.2%) | 1 (20.0%) | ||
| 46 to 55 | 10 (34.5%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
| More than 56 | 14 (48.3%) | 2 (40.0%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Urine samples | Less than 35 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.00 |
| 36 to 45 | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| 46 to 55 | 12 (54.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| More than 56 | 8 (36.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Nail samples | Less than 35 | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.469 |
| 36 to 45 | 1 (12.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 46 to 55 | 4 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| More than 56 | 3 (37.5%) | 2 (66.7%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Hair samples | Less than 35 | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.439 |
| 36 to 45 | 2 (20.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| 46 to 55 | 4 (40.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| More than 56 | 4 (40.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
Relation between education levels and the prevalence of fungi in diabetic and nondiabetic groups.
| Oral sample | Toe sample | Urine sample | Nail sample | Hair sample | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | NDM | DM | NDM | DM | NDM | DM | NDM | DM | NDM | |
| Uneducated | 21 (46.7%) | 5 (100.0%) | 13 (43.3%) | 4 (80.0%) | 6 (27.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (37.5%) | 2 (66.7%) | 3 (30.0%) | 2 (66.7%) |
| Preprimary level | 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (25.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Primary level | 6 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (13.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 1 (33.3%) |
| Lower secondary level | 9 (20.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (16.7%) | 1 (20.0%) | 3 (13.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Secondary level | 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Higher secondary level | 3 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (18.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (12.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Bachelor level | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Master level | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Total | 45 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 22 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 10 | 3 |
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.802 | 0.603 | |||||
Figure 1(a) Growth of Candida species in CHROMagar medium; (b) antibiotic susceptibility testing.
Antibiotic resistance pattern of Candida species isolated from both groups.
| Antifungal agents |
| Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| S | I | R | S | I | R | S | I | R | S | I | R | R | |
| Ketoconazole | 14 | 2 | 19 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 22 (28.9%) |
| Voriconazole | 33 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 6 (8.0%) |
| Amphotericin | 7 | 28 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 1 (1.3%) |
| Itraconazole | 24 | 8 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 5 (6.5%) |
| Miconazole | 30 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 8 (10.5%) |
| Fluconazole | 18 | 1 | 16 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 28 (36.8%) |
N = number, S = sensitive, I = intermediate, and R = resistant.