Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Enterococcus species isolated from different clinical samples at Black Lion Specialized Teaching Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 2Email author
BMC Research Notes201811:793

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3898-0

  • Received: 3 October 2018
  • Accepted: 30 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Enterococci which are parts of the normal intestinal flora are opportunistic human pathogens. Their increasing importance is largely due to their resistance to antimicrobials. So the aim this study was to determine the prevalence and antimicrobial pattern of Enterococcus spp.

Result

From the total of 422 samples processed, 15 Enterococcus species were isolated. In this study, linezolid were the drug of choice for Enterococcus species, which showed 100% sensitive followed by vancomycin 93.3% sensitive. In contrast, highly resistance (80%) was observed for ampicillin followed by doxycycline (73.3%). All of isolated Enterococci were sensitive to linezolid, however, resistance was observed to common antibiotics. The presence of multidrug resistant Enterococci in our study should be considered as an alarm for Enterococcal infections.

Keywords

  • Enterococcus
  • Nosocomial infection
  • Antibiotic susceptibility

Introduction

Enterococcus species have become problem of the world as emerging nosocomial infection and multi drug resistance bacteria [1]. Among several species which belong to genus Enterococcus, E. faecalis is the most common isolate that has an association with 80–90% of human Enterococcal infection. E. faecium is also isolated from 10 to 15% of infections [2, 3]. Infections commonly caused by enterococci include urinary tract infections, bacteremia, endocarditis, catheter-related infections, wound and soft tissue infections, meningitis, respiratory infections, neonatal sepsis and intra-abdominal and pelvic infections [4, 5].

During the past decade, there has been a worldwide trend in increasing occurrence of Enterococcus species in the hospitals, a shift in the spectrum of Enterococcal infections and emergence of antimicrobial resistance among such isolates. This indicates that a need for continuous surveillance of the bacteria [6].

The second most frequent Enterococcal infections generally have been intra-abdominal and intra-pelvic abscesses or post-surgery wound infections [7]. In these settings, Enterococcus species are usually part of a mixed flora commonly found in the GIT so identifying the bacteria which cause the disease will be critical. Interactions among various bacteria have been demonstrated, and studies suggest that Enterococcus species can act synergistically with other bacteria to enhance infection. The third most frequent infection caused by these organisms is blood stream infections [1]. Other infections caused with lower frequency are central nervous system and neonatal infections. Enterococcus species rarely cause respiratory tract infections, osteomyelitis, or cellulitis [8].

Enterococcus species have become the second or third leading cause of nosocomial urinary tract infections (UTIs), wound infections (mostly surgical, decubitus ulcers, and burn wounds), and bacteremia in the United States [9, 10]. UTIs are the most common of the Enterococcal infections: Enterococcus species have been implicated in approximately 10% of all UTIs and in up to approximately 16% of nosocomial UTIs [11]. Enterococcal bacteremia is frequently associated with metastatic abscesses in multiple organs and high mortality rates. Enterococcus have also been considered an important cause of endocarditis; they are estimated to account for about 20% of the cases of native valve bacterial endocarditis and for about 6–7% of prosthetic valve endocarditis [12, 13]. Endocarditis remains among the most difficult to treat Enterococcal infections because of limitations on bactericidal antimicrobial therapy for Enterococcal infections, especially when caused by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). There is also a growing concern about the role of the Enterococcus species in endodontic and implant- and medical device-associated infections [8].

The emerging contest of Enterococcus nosocomial infection and resistance rates to the most common prescribed drugs vary considerably in different areas due to local antimicrobial prescribing practices, empirical treatment, and prevalence of circulating resistant Enterococcus species in a given area [14, 15]. The etiologies and their susceptibility to different antibiotics may have also changed over time. The irrational use of antibiotics in different set up has also immensely contributed to the antimicrobial resistance and emergence of multidrug resistant urinary isolates [16].

The emergence of nosocomial Enterococcus infection, multi drug resistance and VRE in different clinical sample were recorded in different country throughout the world. But, to our knowledge there was no previous data or study showing resistance pattern and prevalence of Enterococcus species in the study area. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Enterococcus species and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern isolated from different clinical samples in Black Lion Specialized Teaching Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Main text

Methods

Cross-sectional was conducted at Black Lion Specialized Hospital from April to May 2016; this hospital is a one of the tertiary, teaching and national referral hospital in Ethiopia under the Federal Ministry of Health.

Patients who were seeking medical service at Black Lion Specialized Hospital during the study period considered as the source and all age groups who were suspected for UTI, septicemia, wound infection, endocarditic and meningitis, were the study populations.

Prevalence of Enterococcus species and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Enterococcus species were dependent variables, whereas, socio-demographic variables, previous antibiotic usage, history of catheterization for urine sample, duration of admission and other associated risk factors, were independent variables.

Sample size and sampling technique

Since there is no previous study, prevalence of Enterococcus species in different clinical sample was calculated by using single population proportion formula taking, 50% prevalence. Therefore, a total of 422 study participants were included in this study. All consecutive Enterococcal infection suspected patients were included in the study.

Data collection and processing

Relevant information including; age, sex, source of infection, were gathered on a prepared questionnaires. Clinical samples (urine, blood, body fluid, CSF and Pus) were collected according to the microbiological sample collection techniques.

Prior to data collection, information about how to collect data was given to selected data collectors (two nurses and two laboratory technicians).

All clinical samples were collected by trained personnel with sterile container according to the standard operating procedures (SOP). All the samples were analyzed (examined) immediately arrived to the laboratory to ensure that the Enterococcus species present in the sample were isolated.

Blood for culture must be collected and dispensed with great care to avoid contamination of specimen and culture medium. After disinfecting the site of blood collection, 10–15 ml of blood for adult patient and 3–5 ml of blood for children were collected. Then all blood samples were cultured in blood culture bottles and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h to see hemolysis and turbidity.

Other specimens were cultured on blood and MacConkey agar media immediately and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Then, the suspected colony on the culture was identified primarily as Enterococcus spp. according to the colony morphology and gram staining.

Growth of enterococci on solid media were as follows: On blood agar plate, enterococci produced small, round, smooth, transparent colonies and some colonies showed hemolysis alpha(α) or beta(β) and some were non-hemolytic. On MacConkey’s medium, Enterococci produced tiny deep pink colonies.

Drug susceptibility patterns

The antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by using the Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS, 2014) guidelines.

The turbidity of suspension was determined in comparison with 0.5 MacFarland standards. A sterile swab was dipped in the broth suspension and excess suspension was removed by pressing the swab against the wall of the tube. The entire surface of MHA plate was uniformly flooded with suspensions and allowed to dry for about 15–30 min. The antimicrobial impregnated disks were placed by using sterile forceps at least 24 mm away from each other to avoid the overlapping zone of inhibition [17]. Grades of susceptibility pattern was recognized as sensitive, intermediate and resistant by comparison of zone of inhibition as indicated in the manufacturer’s guidance [17, 18]. The antibiotic susceptibility pattern was interpreted as per the manufacturer guide line [3].

Quality control

Standard operating procedures were strictly followed. Quality control was performed to check the quality of medium. Each new lot was quality controlled before use by testing the ATCC E. faecalis 29212, as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines standard strains [17]. All statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS statistical software package (version 20). Probability values (P) of < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Finally, the study findings were explained in words and tables.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance and permissions were obtained from the department of ethics committee of medical laboratory science in Addis Ababa University; and written informed consent was obtained from voluntary participants and parents or guardians for children under 18 years old during data collection. The findings of pathogenic bacteria were reported to the responsible body.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants

A total of 422 participants were involved in the study from those 41.71% were females and 58.29% were male participants. The mean ± SD age of participants was 23 ± 10 years (range 1–87) (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants (n = 422) among patients attending at Black Lion Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016

Characteristics

Frequency

Percent

Sex

 Male

246

58.29

 Female

176

41.71

Residence

 Urban

245

58.0

 Rural

177

42.0

Age group

 < 5

74

17.5

 5–15

111

26.3

 16–26

91

21.6

 27–37

62

14.3

 38–48

31

7.3

 49–59

25

5.9

 > 59

28

6.6

Educational status

 Illiterate

41

9.7

 Under school age

107

25.4

 Primary school

147

34.8

 Secondary school

58

13.7

 Diploma

35

8.3

 Above diploma

34

8.1

Enterococcus isolates

Fifteen strains of Enterococci were isolated from a total of 422 various clinical specimens (Table 2).
Table 2

Prevalence of Enterococcus spp. in relation to different socio-demographic characters among patients attending Black Lion Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016

Characteristics

Frequency

Negative (%)

Positive (%)

X2

P value

OR

Sex

 Male

246

239 (97.6%)

7 (2.4%)

0.4

0.5

0.15

 Female

176

168 (95.5%)

8 (4.5%)

0.4

0.5

1.6

Age group

 < 5

71

71 (1005)

0 (0%)

2.02

0.2

0.00

 5–15

109

105 (96.3%)

4 (3.7%)

0.05

0.8

1.05

 16–26

90

88 (97.8%)

2 (2.2%)

0.2

0.7

0.6

 27–37

63

62 (98.41%)

1 (1.59%)

0.3

0.6

0.4

 38–48

31

31 (100%)

0 (0%)

0.4

0.5

0.0

 49–59

25

23 (92%)

2 (8%)

0.5

0.5

2.6

 > 59

33

27 (81.8%)

6 (18.2%)

17.95

0.002

9.38

Specimen

 Urine

116

109 (93.9%)

7 (6.1%)

2.0

0.2

2.4

 Blood

189

183 (96.8%)

6 (3.2%)

   

 Ascetic fluid

39

38 (97.4%)

1 (2.6%)

   

 Pus

47

46 (97.9%)

1 (2.1%)

   

 CSF

31

31 (100%)

0 (0%)

   

Patient source

 Out patient

103

102 (99%)

1 (1%)

 

0.2

 

 Medical ward

164

154 (93.9%)

10 (6.1%)

   

 Pediatric ward

102

99 (97%)

3 (3%)

   

 Surgical ward

31

30 (96.8%)

1 (3.3%)

   

 Orthopedics

22

22 (100%)

0 (0%)

   

Urine sample

 Catheterized

7

3 (42.9%)

4 (57.1%)

25.4

0.000002

47

 Non catheterized

109

106 (97.2%)

3 (2.8%)

   

Associated factors

Since Enterococcus species have now emerged as nosocomial pathogens, in this study from 15 of the Enterococcus spp. isolated 14 were form hospitalized patients and the higher prevalence, 13 of the 14 Enterococcus spp. were from patients which were stayed in the hospital from 3 to 6 days with statistical significance difference (P < 0.05).

Antibiotic susceptibility patterns

The most effective antibiotic for Enterococcus spp. was linezolid with 100% sensitivity (15/15), followed by vancomycin 13/15 (86.7%) (Table 3).
Table 3

Antibiotics resistance patterns of Enterococcus spp. at Black Lion Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016

Drugs

Resistance (%)

Sensitive (%)

Intermediate (%)

Ampicillin

12 (80%)

3 (20%)

0

Chloramphenicol

8 (53.3%)

7 (46.7%)

0

Gentamycin

9 (60%)

6 (40%)

0

Ciprofloxacin

8 (53.3%)

7 (46.7%)

0

Doxycycline

11 (73.3%)

4 (26.7%)

0

Linezolid

0

15 (100%)

0

Vancomycin

1 (6.7%)

14 (93.3%)

0

Discussion

The epidemiology of Enterococci is not fully understood since there are striking differences among different species of resistant isolates obtained from various geographic locations [11]. Despite the fact that enterococci have been considered to be relatively low virulent in the past few years, they are among all nosocomial pathogens that have emerged as a significant concern [6, 19]. Intestinal colonization with resistant Enterococcal strains is more common than clinical infection. Colonized patients are a potential source for the spread of organisms to the health care workers, the environment and other patients [20].

In our study, the prevalence of Enterococci among different clinical samples was 3.5%. This prevalence rate was consistent with the findings of other authors who found the prevalence rate in Egypt (3.3%), in Bangladesh (3.2%), in India (2.3%) and in Asian pacific (3.6%) [2123]. On the other hand, the prevalence in the present study was higher than the report from Kenya (0.22%) [24], and different hospitals of Ethiopia including Jimma, Felege Hiwot and University of Gondar Teaching Hospital that accounted 0.59%, 0.64% and 2.13% respectively [10, 25, 26]. However, it was lower than the prevalence study done in USA and Canada, 18.0% and 21.2%, respectively [21].

The variation in results might be explained due to the different characteristics in the study participants and in the use of conventional methods for identification of Enterococci. As the opinion explained earlier by other study [13, 27], it was mentioned that the conventional methods for the identification of microorganisms are based on phenotypic and culture characteristics and may not be able to identify the causative organism correctly when strains with unusual phenotypes. Moreover, the study subjects included in most of the previous studies were hospitalized patients as their aim was to show hospital acquired infections. The gradual increase in the prevalence of enterococci infections might have also contributed to the increased prevalence as evidenced by other studies.

All Enterococcus spp. isolates, in the present study, were sensitive to linezolid. This result was in agreement with studies in India, Bangladesh and India which reported that none of the Enterococci isolates were resistant to linezolid [28, 29].

In general, only one Enterococcus species were sensitive to all drugs used in our study but the other isolates were resistant to at least one drug. 66.7% of the isolated Enterococci were multi drug resistances which were resistant to three and above drugs. This result was comparable with the study reports in Egypt and Nigeria which accounts [30, 31].

Conclusion

The study showed that the rate of isolated Enterococci had variable degrees of resistance to the antibiotics, but all were sensitive to linezolid by disc diffusion methods. The presence of high percentage multidrug resistant Enterococci in our study should be considered as alarm and further study in large scale is needed.

Limitation of the study

This study has limitation to identify the isolated Enterococci up to species level.

Abbreviations

BSI: 

blood stream infection

CDC: 

Center for Disease Control program

CLSI: 

Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute

CNS: 

central nervous system

GIT: 

gastro intestinal tract

HIV: 

human immuno deficiency virus

HLAR: 

high level aminoglycoside resistance

HLGR: 

high level gentamicin resistance

LAP: 

lucien amino peptides

MIC: 

minimum inhibitory concentration

MSU: 

mid-stream urine

QC: 

quality control

RNA: 

ribo nucleic acid

SOP: 

standard operating procedure

SPP: 

species

SPSS: 

statistical package for social science

UTI: 

urinary tract infection

VRE: 

vancomycin resistance Enterococcus

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

ZT, KD and AG conceived the study, participated in the design, data acquisition, and laboratory work. ZT and SG made substantial contributions to conception of design and first drafted the manuscript. AG and KD critically reviewed the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank staff members of Addis Ababa University for their constant guidance and help. We would like to extend their appreciation to the study subjects who voluntarily participated in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request in the form of statistical package for social sciences (SPSS).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Department of Medical Laboratory Science, College of Health Science, Addis Ababa University Research and Ethical Review Committee. Informed written permission was obtained from participants. Any data generated from the specimens protected the patent privacy, confidentiality and anonymity. The findings of other pathogenic bacteria were reported to the responsible body.

Funding

This research work was financed by Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Medical Laboratory Sciences, School of Allied Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
(2)
Department of Microbiology, St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College, P.O.Box 1271, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

References

  1. Silverman J, Thal LA, Perri MB, Bostic G, Zervos MJ. Epidemiologic evaluation of antimicrobial resistance in community-acquired Enterococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36(3):830–2.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Moellering RC Jr. Emergence of Enterococcus as a significant pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14:1173–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias CA, Murray BE. Emergence and management of drug-resistant Enterococcal infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2008;6(5):637–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Robert C, Moellering JR. Enterococcus species, Streptococcus bovis and Leuconostoc species. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 6th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2005. p. 2411–21.Google Scholar
  5. Bereket W, Hemalatha K, Getenet B, Wondwossen T, Solomon A, Zeynudin A, et al. Update on bacterial nosocomial infections. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(8):1039–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Murray BE. Diversity among multidrug-resistant enterococci. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4(1):37–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Mohanty S, Jose S, Singhal R, Sood S, Dhawan B, Das BK, et al. Species prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococci isolated in a tertiary care hospital of North India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2005;36(4):962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Baldassarri L, Creti R, Montanaro L, Orefici G, Arciola CR. Pathogenesis of implant infections by enterococci. Int J Artif Organs. 2005;28(11):1101–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Bearman GM, Wenzel RP. Bacteremias: a leading cause of death. Arch Med Res. 2005;36(6):646–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Abrha A, Abdissa A, Beyene G, Getahun G, Girma T. Bacteraemia among severely malnourished children in Jimma university hospital, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2011;21(3):175–82.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin—United States, 1989–1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993;42(30):597.Google Scholar
  12. Dargere S, Vergnaud M, Verdon R, Saloux E, Le Page O, Leclercq R, et al. Enterococcus gallinarum endocarditis occurring on native heart valves. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(6):2308–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Facklam RR, Collins MD. Identification of Enterococcus species isolated from human infections by a conventional test scheme. J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27(4):731–4.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Gangurde N, Mane M, Phatale S. Prevalence of multidrug resistant Enterococci in a tertiary care hospital in India: a growing threat. Open J Med Microbiol. 2014;4(1):11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Deshpande VR, Karmarkar MG, Mehta PR. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant enterococci in a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2013;7(2):155–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahlmeter G. An international survey of the antimicrobial susceptibility of pathogens from uncomplicated urinary tract infections: the ECO· SENS project. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(1):69–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Wayne P. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) performance standards for antimicrobial disk diffusion susceptibility tests 19th ed. Approved standard. CLSI Doc M100-S19. 2009. p. 29.Google Scholar
  18. Bhat KG, Paul C, Ananthakrishna NC. Drug resistant enterococci in a south Indian hospital. Trop Dr. 1998;28(2):106–7.Google Scholar
  19. Schaberg DR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Major trends in the microbial etiology of nosocomial infection. Am J Med. 1991;91(3):S72–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Jada S, Jayakumar K. Prevalence of Enterococcus species from various clinical specimens in Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research institute with special reference to speciation & their resistance to vancomycin. Int J Med Clin Res. 2012;3(4):154.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Low DE, Keller N, Barth A, Jones RN. Clinical prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility, and geographic resistance patterns of enterococci: results from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program, 1997–1999. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(Supplement_2):S133–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Sreeja S, Sreenivasa Babu PR, Prathab AG. The prevalence and the characterization of the Enterococcus species from various clinical samples in a tertiary care hospital. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR. 2012;6(9):1486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Paul M, Nirwan PS, Srivastava P. Isolation of Enterococcus from various clinical samples and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(2):1326–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimando JM, Okemo PO, Njagi ENM. Resistance to antibiotics in urinopathogenic bacteria isolated in patients attending Kenyatta University Health Clinic, Nairobi. East Afr Med J. 2010;87(3):115–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Melaku S, Kibret M, Abera B, Gebre-Sellassie S. Antibiogram of nosocomial urinary tract infections in Felege Hiwot referral hospital, Ethiopia. Afr Health Sci. 2012;12(2):134–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Yismaw G, Asrat D, Woldeamanuel Y, Unakal CG. Urinary tract infection: bacterial etiologies, drug resistance profile and associated risk factors in diabetic patients attending Gondar university hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia. Eur J Exp Biol. 2012;2(4):889–98.Google Scholar
  27. Manero A, Blanch AR. Identification of Enterococcus spp. based on specific hybridisation with 16S rDNA probes. J Microbiol Methods. 2002;50(2):115–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Islam TAB, Shamsuzzaman SM. Isolation and species identification of enterococci from clinical specimen with their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern in a tertiary care hospital, Bangladesh. J Coast Life Med. 2015;3(10):787–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Bhatt P, Patel A, Sahni AK, Praharaj AK, Grover N, Chaudhari CN, et al. Emergence of multidrug resistant enterococci at a tertiary care centre. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71(2):139–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Ashour MS, Helal S, Salem M. Prevalence of antibiotic resistant enterococci in some Egyptian hospitals. In: The 12th international conference of the Egyptian society for medical microbiology (ESMM) in collaboration with microbiology and immunology department, faculty of medicine, Cairo university pag. 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Olawale KO, Fadiora SO, Taiwo SS. Prevalence of hospital acquired enterococci infections in two primary-care hospitals in Osogbo, Southwestern Nigeria. Afr J Infect Dis. 2011;5(2). https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajid/article/view/66513. Accessed 11 Sept 2018.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement