4.5 Article

Frequency of Candida spp. in the Oral Cavity of Brazilian HIV-Positive Patients and Correlation with CD4 Cell Counts and Viral Load

期刊

MYCOPATHOLOGIA
卷 167, 期 2, 页码 81-87

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11046-008-9153-9

关键词

Candida spp.; Candida dubliniensis; HIV; Oral microflora

类别

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo-FAPESP [2004/14088-8, 2004/12381-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of Candida spp., and particularly C. dubliniensis, among oral isolates from Brazilian HIV-positive patients correlating these results with CD4 cell counts and viral load. Forty-five individuals (23 female and 22 male) diagnosed as HIV-positive by ELISA and Western-blot, under anti-retroviral therapy for at least 1 year and without oral candidosis signals were included in the study. The control group was constituted by 45 healthy individuals, matched to the test group in relation to age, gender, and oral conditions. Oral rinses were collected and the identification was performed by phenotypic tests. The existence of C. dubliniensis among the isolates was analyzed using a validated multiplex PCR assay. Candida spp. were detected at significantly higher number in the oral cavity of HIV-positive patients in relation to the controls (P = 0.0008). C. albicans was the most frequently isolated species in both groups. In the HIV group, C. glabrata, C. lipolytica, C. krusei, C. guilliermondii, and C. parapsilosis were also identified. In the control group, we additionally identified C. tropicalis and C. dubliniensis. Two isolates (1.9%, 2/108) from control individuals were identified as C. dubliniensis and this species was not verified in the HIV group. Candida spp. counts were statistically lower (P = 0.0230) in the oral cavity of patients with low viral load (< 400 copies/mmA(3)). Candida spp. counts did not differ statistically among groups with different levels of CD4 cells counts (P = 0.1068).

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

4.5
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