4.3 Article

Higher diversity in fungal species discriminates children with type 1 diabetes mellitus from healthy control

期刊

PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 591-599

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S97852

关键词

children; diabetes mellitus type 1; yeast-like fungi; drug susceptibility; metabolic control; duration of the disease

资金

  1. State Committee for Scientific Research (Medical University of Gdansk) [ST-120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To conduct qualitative and quantitative assessment of yeast-like fungi in the feces of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) with respect to their metabolic control and duration of the disease. Materials and methods: The studied materials included samples of fresh feces collected from 53 children and adolescents with T1DM. Control group included 30 age-and sex-matched healthy individuals. Medical history was taken and physical examination was conducted in the two study arms. Prevalence of the yeast-like fungi in the feces was determined as well as their amounts, species diversity, drug susceptibility, and enzymatic activity. Results: The yeast-like fungi were found in the samples of feces from 75.4% of T1DM patients and 70% controls. In the group of T1DM patients, no correlation was found between age (Rs=0.253, P=0.068), duration of diabetes (Rs=-0.038, P=0.787), or body mass index (Rs=0.150, P=0.432) and the amount of the yeast-like fungi isolated in the feces. Moreover, no correlation was seen between the amount of the yeast-like fungi and glycated hemoglobin (Rs=0.0324, P=0.823), systolic blood pressure (Rs=0.102, P=0.483), or diastolic blood pressure (Rs=0.271, P=0.345). Conclusion: Our research has shown that children and adolescents with T1DM show higher species diversity of the yeast-like fungi, with Candida albicans being significantly less prevalent versus control subjects. Moreover, fungal species in patients with T1DM turn out to be more resistant to antifungal treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据