Prospective Research to Compare Urinary Tract Infections Between Diabetics and Non-Diabetics

Abstract

Aim: the aim of the present study to evaluate the urinary tract infections in diabetics and nondiabetics patients.
Methods: This prospective, comparative study was conducted in the Department of General
Medicine, Vardhman institute of medical sciences, Pawapuri, Nalanda, Bihar, India. All
patients were screened for UTI through a midstream 5-ml urinary sample. Urinary culture
analysis, for identification of the pathogen, was performed only for patients who were found
to be infective on urine microscopy. During the study period, 100 diabetic patients were
recruited. For every diabetic patient, a non-diabetic patient was included.
Results: Among 100 patients in the diabetic group, there were 44 (44%) males and 56(56%)
females. Their mean age was 57 ± 10 years. Non-diabetic patients were relatively younger with
a mean age of 49 ± 11 years. There were more women (n = 63; 63%) than men (n = 37; 37%)
in the non-diabetic group. In diabetes group, 20 (20%) patients were identified with culture
positive UTI as compared to 10 (10%) participants in non-diabetic group. In both groups, UTI
was more common in female gender. Diabetic group had an overall twice risk of UTI (p = 0.01;
OR: 2.24; CI: 1.13, 3.81) and female gender in diabetic group had a risk of almost five times
(p = 0.01; OR: 5.11; CI: 1.22, 21.16) that of the non-diabetic group of developing urinary tract
infection. Almost 30% patients in the diabetic group with culture-proven UTI were
asymptomatic as compared to only 10% in the non-diabetic group (p = 0.04; OR: 7.89; CI: 0.82, 65.18). E. coli was the most commonly identified microorganism in both diabetic and
non-diabetic groups. P. aeruginosa was identified in 15% of diabetic cases. Other organisms
included Klebsiella species and Enterobacter species.
Conclusion: The frequency of UTIs is higher in the diabetic population as compared to their
non-diabetic counterparts. UTIs are more common among females in both groups. Clinical
presentation in the two groups is also similar.