4.6 Article

Risk of urinary tract infection and asymptomatic bacteriuria among diabetic and nondiabetic postmenopausal women

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 161, Issue 6, Pages 557-564

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a000181

Keywords

diabetes mellitus; postmenopause; prospective studies; risk factors; urinary tract infection; women

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK 43134] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

No prospective data exist on the risk of microbiologically confirmed urinary tract infection (UTI) and asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) in relation to diabetes mellitus and its characteristics. The authors prospectively (1998-2002) followed 218 diabetic and 799 nondiabetic Washington State women aged 55-75 years for UTI and AB. The baseline examination and two annual follow-up examinations included urine culture, measurement of hemoglobin A1c and postvoid residual bladder volume, and a survey of diabetes and other characteristics. Surveillance for UTI included self-reports confirmed by microbiologic culture and medical record review. UTI incidence per 100 person-years was 12.2 for diabetic women and 6.7 for nondiabetic women (relative risk (RR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 2.7). AB incidence per 100 person-years was 6.7 for diabetic women and 3.0 for nondiabetic women (RR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.9). In Cox models adjusted for multiple covariates, the increased UTI risk occurred mainly in women taking insulin (RR = 3.7, 95% CI: 1.8, 7.3) and women with a longer diabetes duration (greater than or equal to10 years; RR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3, 5.1) compared with nondiabetic women. No clear linear trend between hemoglobin A1c and UTI or AB risk was seen. Postmenopausal women with diabetes have higher risks of UTI and AB in relation to diabetes duration and severity but not to recent glucose control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available