| Literature DB >> 21858243 |
Wendel Coura-Vital1, Marcos José Marques, Vanja Maria Veloso, Bruno Mendes Roatt, Rodrigo Dian de Oliveira Aguiar-Soares, Levi Eduardo Soares Reis, Samuel Leôncio Braga, Maria Helena Franco Morais, Alexandre Barbosa Reis, Mariângela Carneiro.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various factors contribute to the urbanization of the visceral leishmaniasis (VL), including the difficulties of implementing control measures relating to the domestic reservoir. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of canine visceral leishmaniasis in an urban endemic area in Brazil and the factors associated with Leishmania infantum infection among seronegative and PCR-positive dogs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21858243 PMCID: PMC3156685 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Municipality of Belo Horizonte, state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, subdivided into sanitary areas.
Figure 2Hierarchical framework of risk factors for Leishmania infantum infection in dogs.
Distribution of seronegative dogs (n = 1213) according to the characteristics of the animals, Brazil 2008.
| Variable | PCR-RFLP | Univariate analysisOdds Ratio(95% CI) | ρ values | |
| Positive | Negative | |||
| Hair | ||||
| Short | 173 (58.5) | 491 (53.5) | ||
| Long | 123 (41.5) | 426 (46.5) | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) | 0.17 |
| Veterinary check ups | ||||
| Yes | 151 (55.3) | 527 (59.4) | ||
| No | 122 (44.7) | 360 (40.6) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.25 |
| Symptomatic | ||||
| Yes | 4 (1.4) | 25 (2.7) | ||
| No | 292 (98.6) | 890 (97.3) | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) | 0.20 |
| Origin of the animal | ||||
| District of residence | 154 (56.2) | 459 (51.6) | ||
| Other district | 120 (43.8) | 431 (48.4) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 0.16 |
| Dog staying predominantly in the backyard | ||||
| No | 36 (13.1) | 153 (17.2) | ||
| Yes | 238 (86.9) | 737 (82.8) | 1.4 (0.9–2.3) | 0.10 |
| Sleeping place | ||||
| Inside the house | 51 (18.6) | 208 (23.4) | ||
| In the garden | 223 (81.4) | 682 (76.6) | 1.4 (1.0–2.1) | 0.08 |
| CVL sorological examination previously | ||||
| Yes | 183 (68.8) | 662 (76.1) | ||
| No | 83 (31.2) | 208 (23.9) | 1.5 (1.1–2.2) | 0.02 |
| Age | ||||
| ≤24 months | 108 (36.5) | 292 (31.8) | ||
| >24 and ≤84 months | 116 (39.2) | 411 (44.8) | 0.7 (0.5–1.0) | 0.08 |
| >84 months | 72 (24.3) | 214 (23.3) | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) | 0.59 |
Distribution of owners (n = 918) of seronegative dogs according to the socioeconomic and environmental conditions and understanding of the disease, Brazil 2008.
| Variable | PCR-RFLP | Univariate analysisOdds Ratio (95%CI) | ρ values | |
| Positive (%) | Negative (%) | |||
|
| ||||
| Family income | ||||
| >3 minimum wages | 72 (54.1) | 281 (65.8) | ||
| 1 to 3 minimum wages | 24 (18.1) | 88 (20.6) | 0.9 (0.6–1.5) | 0.78 |
| <1 minimum wages | 37 (27.8) | 58 (13.6) | 2.4 (1.5–3.9) | 0.00 |
| Schooling | ||||
| University | 49 (24.5) | 134 (21.2) | ||
| Secondary School | 70 (35.0) | 278 (44.0) | 0.6 (0.4–0.9) | 0.03 |
| Primary school | 78 (39.0) | 217 (34.3) | 0.9 (0.6–1.4) | 0.71 |
| Illiterate | 3 (1.5) | 3 (0.5) | 4.5 (0.8–25.9) | 0.09 |
|
| ||||
| House walls plastered | ||||
| Yes | 174 (95.6) | 594 (96.1) | ||
| No | 8 (4.4) | 24 (3.9) | 1.8 (0.9–3.9) | 0.12 |
| Floor construction | ||||
| Tiles/wood | 144 (78.3) | 521 (84.3) | ||
| Other | 40 (21.7) | 97 (15.7) | 1.4 (1.0–2.2) | 0.07 |
| Insecticide-sprayed house | ||||
| Yes | 134 (73.6) | 425 (69.7) | ||
| No | 48 (26.4) | 185 (30.3) | 1.4 (0.9–2.0) | 0.10 |
| Open litter | ||||
| Yes | 39 (21.2) | 123 (19.8) | ||
| No | 145 (78.8) | 497 (80.2) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) | 0.20 |
| Neighbourhood | ||||
| Houses | 51 (27.7) | 131 (21.1) | ||
| Houses with gardens | 118 (64.1) | 439 (70.8) | 0.6 (0.4–0.9) | 0.02 |
| Land | 15 (8.2) | 50 (8.1) | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 0.14 |
|
| ||||
| Regarding the vector | ||||
| Yes | 24 (13.0) | 68 (11.0) | ||
| No | 160 (87.0) | 552 (89.0) | 1.4 (0.9–2.2) | 0,18 |
| Regarding the reasons why dogs have to be eliminated | ||||
| Yes | 150 (81.5) | 462 (74.4) | ||
| No | 34 (18.5) | 159 (25.6) | 1.6 (1.0–2.4) | 0.03 |
| Owner arranged examination of dog | ||||
| Yes | 132 (72.1) | 488 (80.0) | ||
| No | 51 (27.9) | 122 (20.0) | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) | 0.11 |
*Brazilian minimum wages (Brazilian monthly minimum wage = U$262).
Risk factors for Leishmania infantum infection in seronegative dogs according to hierarchical model, Brazil 2008.
| Variable | Crude Odds Ratio(95% CI) | Adjusted Odds Ratio(95% CI) |
| Family income<2 wages | 2.4 (1.5–3.9) | 2.3 (1.4–3.8) |
| Knowledge of the owner regarding the vectoryes | 1.4 (0.9–2.2) | 1.9 (1.1–3.4) |
| Dog staying predominantly in the backyardyes | 1.4 (0.9–2.3) | 2.2 (1.1–4.1) |
| CVL serological examination previouslyno | 1.5 (1.1–2.2) | 1.5 (1.1–2.3) |
*Brazilian minimum wages (Brazilian monthly minimum wage = U$262).