| Literature DB >> 15498178 |
Simon Brooker1, Nasir Mohammed, Khaksar Adil, Said Agha, Richard Reithinger, Mark Rowland, Iftikhar Ali, Jan Kolaczinski.
Abstract
The epidemiology of anthroponotic cutaneous leishmaniasis was investigated in northwest Pakistan. Results suggested similar patterns of endemicity in both Afghan refugee and Pakistani populations and highlighted risk factors and household clustering of disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2004 PMID: 15498178 PMCID: PMC3320299 DOI: 10.3201/eid1009.040179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
FigureA) Proportion of unscarred population with active lesions by age and settlement type. B) Proportion of population with scar by age and settlement type.
Unadjusted odds ratios for variables associated with the risk of anthroponotic cutaneous leishmaniasis lesion and scara
| Variable | Lesion [OR (95% CI)] | Scar [OR (95% CI)] |
|---|---|---|
| Villageb | χ2 = 540, df = 66, p < 0.001 | χ2 = 786, df = 66, p < 0.001 |
| Refugee camp (compared to local village) | 1.540 (1.16–2.06), p = 0.003 | 0.82 (0.62–1.09), p = 19 |
| Nationality (Afghan compared to Pakistani) | 1.050 (0.78–1.38), p = 0.720 | 0.940 (0.70–1.26), p = 0.680 |
| Years lived in camp/village | 1.010 (1.01–1.02), p < 0.001 | 1.002 (0.99–1.01), p = 0.510 |
| Family member visited Afghanistan in last 12 mo. | 1.740 (1.37–2.20), p < 0.001 | 1.690 (1.35–2.11), p < 0.001 |
| Lesion prevalence in other household members | 1.120 (1.11–1.13), p < 0.001 | 1.040 (1.03–1.06), p < 0.001 |
| Scar prevalence in other household members | 1.030 (1.02–1.03), p < 0.001 | 1.090 (1.08–1.10), p < 0.001 |
| Sex (female compared to male) | 1.010 (0.89–1.15), p = 0.770 | 1.050 (0.95–1.16), p = 0.310 |
| Age group (compared to 0–4 y) | ||
| 5–19 y | 1.090 (0.87–1.37), p = 0.450 | 1.750 (1.44–2.13), p < 0.001 |
| >20 y | 0.560 (0.43–0.71), p < 0.001 | 1.080 (1.07–1.59), p = 0.007 |
| Type of wall (compared to mud) | ||
| Brick | 0.940 (0.33–2.68), p = 0.920 | 0.640 (0.31–1.31), p = 0.220 |
| Stone | 0.530 (0.32–0.88), p = 0.010 | 0.480 (0.30–0.77), p = 0.002 |
| Other | 2.000 (0.76–5.21), p = 0.150 | 1.160 (0.59–2.31), p = 0.650 |
| Type of ceiling (compared to cloth) | ||
| Concrete | 0.690 (0.26–1.79), p = 0.450 | 1.090 (0.44–2.71), p = 0.850 |
| Wood (beam) | 1.430 (0.65–3.17), p = 0.370 | 1.590 (0.73–3.48), p = 0.240 |
| Wood (thatched) | 0.460 (0.16–1.27), p = 0.140 | 1.770 (0.70–4.49), p = 0.230 |
| Other | 0.850 (0.30–2.41), p = 0.760 | 1.180 (0.47–2.99), p = 0.710 |
| Rooms/person | 0.200 (0.07–0.56), p = 0.002 | 0.430 (0.21–0.91), p = 0.020 |
| Cows in compound (yes/no) | 1.420 (1.22–1.65), p < 0.001 | 1.510 (1.34–1.69), p < 0.001 |
| Dogs (yes/no) | 1.660 (1.42–1.94), p < 0.001 | 1.310 (1.16–1.48), p < 0.001 |
| Meshed windows (% windows covered) | 1.260 (0.51–3.13), p = 0.610 | 0.720 (0.32–1.61), p = 0.420 |
| Use mosquito net | 1.180 (0.83–1.67), p = 0.350 | 1.560 (1.19–2.05), p = 0.001 |
| Treated mosquito net | 0.760 (0.32–1.78), p = 0.530 | 0.740 (0.42–1.32), p = 0.320 |
aOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom. bThe overall significance of this categorical variable is shown rather than the 67 different survey locations.
Adjusted odds ratios associated with risk of anthroponotic cutaneous leishmaniasis lesion and scar, based on multiple logistic regression model, using village as a random effect variable
| Variable | Adjusted OR (95% CI)a |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Age group (compared to 0–4 y) | |
| 5–19 y | 1.17 (0.90–1.52) p = 0.320 |
| >20 y | 0.48 (0.35–0.65) p < 0.001 |
| Lesion prevalence in other household members | 1.10 (1.09–1.11) p < 0.001 |
|
| |
| Age group (compared to 0–4 y) | |
| 5–19 y | 2.52 (1.93–3.29) p < 0.001 |
| >20 y | 1.99 (1.48–2.69) p < 0.001 |
| Refugee camp (compared to local village) | 1.48 (1.03–2.14) p = 0.040 |
| Scar prevalence in other household members | 1.08 (1.07–1.11) p < 0.001 |
aOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.