| Literature DB >> 21532735 |
Somphou Sayasone1, Tippi K Mak, Monely Vanmany, Oroth Rasphone, Penelope Vounatsou, Jürg Utzinger, Kongsap Akkhavong, Peter Odermatt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detailed investigations of multiparasitism are scarce in the Mekong River basin. We assessed helminth (trematode, nematode, and cestode), and intestinal protozoa infections, and multiparasitism in random population samples from three different eco-epidemiological settings in Champasack province, southern Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), and determined underlying risk factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21532735 PMCID: PMC3075221 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Map of Champasack province in southern Lao PDR with location of study villages sampled in early 2006.
Figure 2Study participants' compliance of survey in three eco-epidemiological settings of Champasack, southern Lao PDR.
Figure 3Socioeconomic status among individuals from Champasack province, southern Lao PDR, stratified by study setting (n = 669).
Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections diagnosed by Kato-Katz plus formalin-ethyl-acetate concentration (n = 669).
| Parasites | Prevalence (95% CI) | Study settings | Sex | Age groups (years) | |||||||
| (n = 669) | Khong (n = 225) | Mounlapamok (n = 232) | Paksong (n = 212) | Female (n = 347) | Male (n = 322) | ≤5 (n = 116) | 6–15 (n = 220) | 16–30 (n = 110) | 31–55 (n = 167) | >55 (n = 56) | |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 64.3 (60.6–67.9) | 92.0 | 90.9 | 5.7 | 65.1 | 63.4 | 44.0 | 64.6 | 69.1 | 70.1 | 78.6 |
|
| 24.2 (21.0–27.5) | 68.0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 24.2 | 24.2 | 9.9 | 30.0 | 15.4 | 22.2 | 32.1 |
|
| 6.0 (4.2–7.8) | 12.9 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Hookworm | 76.8 (73.6–80.0) | 71.1 | 66.0 | 94.8 | 76.7 | 77.0 | 39.7 | 80.0 | 31.8 | 78.4 | 75.0 |
|
| 31.7 (28.2–35.2) | 7.1 | 6.0 | 85.9 | 31.7 | 31.7 | 39.7 | 31.8 | 31.8 | 29.9 | 23.2 |
|
| 25.0 (21.7–28.3) | 13.3 | 8.2 | 55.7 | 23.6 | 26.4 | 19.0 | 26.4 | 26.4 | 25.2 | 14.3 |
|
| 4.6 (3.0–6.0) | 9.8 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 7.8 | 5.4 |
|
| 3.6 (2.2–5.0) | 3.1 | 4.4 | 3.3 | 5.2 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 8.9 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 3.7 (2.3–5.2) | 1.8 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 6.0 | 7.1 |
|
| 2.7 (1.5–3.9) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.6 |
|
| 0.5 (<0.1–0.9) | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 13.6 (11.0–16.2) | 19.6 | 6.5 | 15.1 | 13.0 | 14.3 | 7.8 | 15.0 | 13.6 | 15.0 | 16.1 |
|
| 7.2 (5.2–9.1) | 3.0 | 8.4 | 10.4 | 7.8 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 7.3 | 9.1 | 4.8 | 12.5 |
|
| 4.9 (3.3–6.6) | 3.0 | 5.9 | 6.1 | 2.6 | 7.6 | 5.2 | 6.4 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
|
| 0.6 (<0.1–1.2) | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 |
CI, confidence interval.
*P-value <0.05;
**P-value <0.001.
P-value based on likelihood ratio test
Negative binomial regression analyses for parasite eggs count in Champasack province (n = 669).
|
|
| Hookworm |
|
| ||||||
| IRR (95% CI) |
| IRR (95% CI) |
| IRR (95% CI) |
| IRR (95% CI) |
| IRR (95% CI) |
| |
|
| ||||||||||
| Female | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||
| Male | 0.92 (0.76–1.11) | 0.404 | 1.18 (0.85–1.64) | 0.308 | 1.08 (0.93–1.25) | 0.321 | 0.96 (0.81–1.12) | 0.593 | 0.91 (0.72–1.16) | 0.437 |
|
| ||||||||||
| ≤ 5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||
| 6–15 | 2.95 (2.08–4.19) | 1.79 (1.01–3.18) | 1.49 (1.17–1.90) | 1.25 (0.98–1.61) | 1.10 (0.74––1.64) | |||||
| 16–30 | 5.37 (3.68–7.84) | 1.39 (0.72–2.68) | 1.30 (0.99–1.69) | 0.85 (0.63–1.13) | 0.98 (0.63–1.54) | |||||
| 31–55 | 7.18 (5.01–10.29) | 1.06 (0.57–1.96) | 1.16 (0.90–1.50) | 1.09 (0.84–1.42) | 0.88 (0.58–1.34) | |||||
| >55 | 7.41 (4.82–11.42) | <0.001 | 1.30 (0.63–2.67) | 0.102 | 1.19 (0.85–1.67) | 0.008 | 0.81 (0.55–1.19) | 0.170 | 1.29 (0.66–2.53) | 0.605 |
CI, confidence interval; IRR, intensity rate ratio.
P-value obtained from likelihood ratio test.
Figure 4Multiparasitism as assesses by stool examination using two diagnostic methods, stratified by eco-epidemiological setting (n = 669).
Associations among parasite infections in Champasack province, Lao PDR (stepwise multiple logistic regression analyses).
| Association | OR (95% CI) |
| |
|
| |||
|
|
| 5.09 (2.49–10.42) | <0.001 |
|
| 0.05 (0.03–0.07) | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.34 (0.20–0.58) | <0.001 | |
|
|
| 5.64 (2.75–11.56) | <0.001 |
|
| 3.19 (1.58–6.45) | 0.001 | |
|
| 2.19 (1.26–3.79) | 0.005 | |
|
| 2.20 (1.01–4.83) | 0.049 | |
|
|
| 2.07 (1.55–11.03) | 0.005 |
|
| |||
| Hookworm |
| 1.70 (1.04–2.79) | 0.034 |
|
| 10.64 (4.29–26.36) | <0.001 | |
|
| 5.68 (2.32–13.87) | <0.001 | |
|
| Hookworm | 3.52 (3.64–19.05) | <0.001 |
|
| 3.51 (1.33–9.26) | 0.011 | |
|
| 2.52 (1.45–4.39) | 0.001 | |
|
| 0.05 (0.03–0.08) | <0.001 | |
|
|
| 2.55 (1.50–4.34) | 0.001 |
| Hookworm | 2.38 (2.17–12.76) | <0.001 | |
|
| 4.59 (1.24–16.99) | 0.022 | |
|
| 4.09 (1.61–10.36) | 0.003 | |
|
| 2.61 (1.11–6.15) | 0.028 | |
|
| 0.08 (0.18–0.51) | <0.001 | |
|
|
| 4.03 (1.24–13.02) | 0.020 |
|
|
| 8.60 (2.23–33.23) | 0.002 |
|
| 4.29 (1.15–15.90) | 0.030 | |
|
| |||
|
|
| 3.40 (1.52–7.62) | 0.003 |
|
|
| 19.69 (2.59–149.61) | 0.004 |
|
| |||
|
|
| 2.19 (1.26–3.80) | 0.005 |
|
| 3.78 (1.93–7.38) | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.59 (0.35–0.99) | 0.044 | |
|
|
| 2.57 (1.23–5.37) | 0.012 |
|
| 3.91 (1.94–7.90) | <0.001 | |
|
| 4.14 (1.26–13.61) | <0.019 | |
|
| 4.03 (2.05–7.92) | <0.001 | |
|
|
| 2.69 (1.21–6.00) | 0.016 |
Associations between parasitic infections and risk factors in Champasack (random household effect included, n = 669).
| Indicators | Crude OR (95%CI) |
| Adjusted OR (95% CI) |
|
|
| ||||
| Age group (in year) | ||||
| < 5 | 1.00 | - --- | 1.00 | - --- |
| 6–15 | 5.64 (2.10–15.13) | 3.99 (1.93–8.24) | ||
| 16–30 | 19.49 (5.53–68.67) | 17.5 (5.70–53.68) | ||
| 31–55 | 19.93 (5.97–66.51) | 12.30 (4.68–32.29) | ||
| >55 | 49.74 (8.00–309.04) | <0.001 | 13.96 (3.32–58.75) | <0.001 |
| Ethnic groups | ||||
| Not Laoloum | 1.00 | 1.00 | - --- | |
| Laoloum | 154.9 (81.20–295.70) | <0.001 | 303.45 (134.20–686.63) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Daily bathing in Mekhong River | ||||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | - --- | |
| Yes | 19.50 (8.87–42.87) | <0.001 | 3.20 (1.84–5.83) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Age group (in year) | ||||
| < 5 | 1.00 | - --- | 1.00 | - --- |
| 6–15 | 2.32 (1.24–4.34) | 2.21 (1.28–3.80) | ||
| 16–30 | 2.51 (1.23–5.14) | 2.22 (1.16–4.23) | ||
| 31–55 | 2.39 (1.24–4.62) | 2.10 (1.18–3.72) | 0.011 | |
| >55 | 2.26 (1.01–5.50) | 0.040 | N.A. | N.S. |
| Ethnic groups | ||||
| Not Laoloum | 1.00 | - --- | 1.00 | - --- |
| Laoloum | 0.11 (0.05–0.23) | <0.001 | 0.12 (0.07–0.23) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Socio-economic status | ||||
| Least poor | 1.00 | - --- | 1.00 | - --- |
| Less poor | 0.35 (0.06–2.10) | N.A. | ||
| Poor | 1.27 (0.26–6.11) | N.A. | ||
| Very poor | 50.14 (10.39–241.97) | N.A. | ||
| Most poor | 226.73 (41.64–434.43) | <0.001 | 3.53 (1.47–8.47) | 0.010 |
|
| ||||
| Report of eating any raw foodstuffs a week prior to survey (e.g., meat, fish, and vegetables) | ||||
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | - --- | |
| Yes | 2.12 (1.15–3.90) | 0.021 | 2.74 (1.44–5.20) | 0.002 |
CI, confidence interval; N.S., not significant; N.A., not applicable; OR, odds ratio.