| Literature DB >> 22180796 |
Ekaterina Giorgobiani1, Nazibrola Chitadze, Gvantsa Chanturya, Marina Grdzelidze, Ryan C Jochim, Anna Machablishvili, Tsiuri Tushishvili, Yulia Zedginidze, Marina K Manjgaladze, Nino Iashvili, Manana P Makharadze, Tsiuri Zakaraya, Konstantin Kikaleishvili, Ivan Markhvashvili, Goderdzi Badashvili, Teymuraz Daraselia, Michael P Fay, Shaden Kamhawi, David Sacks.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last 15 years, visceral leishmaniasis (VL) has emerged as a public health concern in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22180796 PMCID: PMC3236723 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001415
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Maps showing distribution of human cases of visceral leishmaniasis in Georgia.
Map of Georgia (A) showing the principal active foci of VL in Tbilisi and Shida Kartli region (outlined by —·—). Map of Tbilisi (B) showing distribution of VL cases and location of Krtsanisi, Mtatsminda, and Vake districts surveyed in this study.
Baseline prevalence and annual incidence (one year follow-up) of Leishmania seropositivity in surveyed children.
| Study area | Prevalence | Incidence | ||
| N positive at baseline/N total at baseline (%) | 95% CI | N positive at follow up and negative at baseline/N negative at baseline (%) | 95% CI | |
| Vake | 95/1520 (6.25) | (5.06–7.70) | 110/1388 (7.93) | (6.26–9.99) |
| Mtatsminda | 211/1995 (10.58) | (9.17–12.17) | 92/1777 (5.18) | (4.02–6.64) |
| Krtsanisi | 4/735 (0.54) | (0.21–1.44) | 33/731 (4.51) | (3.11–6.52) |
| Total (all districts) | 310/4250 (7.29) | (6.48–8.20) | 235/3896 (6.03) | (5.15–7.05) |
Prevalence estimates do not include two children with active form of VL detected during the study.
95% confidence interval calculated using GEE methods to account for within family correlation.
Figure 2Households with all children tested seropositive for Leishmania at the baseline and/or follow-up surveys.
Eighty five households with 2 or more children where all children were DAT positive either in both baseline and follow up surveys, or seroconverted during the follow up period: DAT1− children negative in baseline survey, DAT1+ children positive in baseline survey, DAT2+ children positive in follow-up survey.
Odds ratios from unadjusted and adjusted cumulative logistic modelsa predicting seropositivity of children at follow-up.
| Parameters | Unadjusted OR | P value | Adjusted OR | P value |
| Fever lasting more than 2 weeks during the last 6 months for which antibiotic therapy was not effective | 14.2 (6.1–32.7) | <0.001 | 13.6 (4.5–40.7) | <0.001 |
| Woodlands with deciduous trees | 0.50 (0.38–0.67) | <0.001 | 0.66 (0.46–0.95) | 0.024 |
| Perceived satisfactory sanitary conditions | 1.65 (1.28–2.14) | <0.001 | 1.68 (1.25–2.28) | <0.001 |
| Clustered flying insects during the sunset/sunrise | 1.49(1.17–1.90) | 0.001 | 1.58 (1.16–2.15) | 0.004 |
| Stray dogs | 1.33 (1.04–1.70) | 0.023 | 1.72 (1.28–2.32) | <0.001 |
| Anorexia and/or sudden weight loss during the last 6 months | 8.2 (2.4–28.6) | 0.001 | 0.89 (0.18–4.38) | 0.888 |
| Pet dog at home | 1.30 (0.75–2.26) | 0.349 | 1.24 (0.63–2.44) | 0.525 |
| Dog in the yard | 0.50 (0.24–1.02) | 0.056 | 0.35 (0.11–1.06) | 0.062 |
| Facilities for poultry or animals in the yard or neighboring area | 0.69 (0.42–1.12) | 0.133 | 0.50 (0.26–0.96) | 0.036 |
| Rodents or their burrows in nearby area | 0.99 (0.79–1.24) | 0.929 | 0.83 (0.62–1.11) | 0.208 |
| Use of repellents for protection from insects | 0.86 (0.65–1.14) | 0.304 | 0.66 (0.47–0.94) | 0.020 |
| Use of nets on doors and windows | 1.02 (0.82–1.28) | 0.843 | 1.00 (0.78–1.30) | 0.993 |
Logistic models with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to predict disease status in 1–14 year old children in one year after baseline survey.
Model includes only baseline disease status and region plus the variable listed in the first row.
Model includes variable listed in first column plus: baseline disease status, previous diagnosis of Leishmaniasis, whether children visit parks in the evening, region, age (0–4, 5–9, 10+), sex, type of dwelling (isolated apartment, municipal apartment, private house), and floor.
Prevalence of Leishmania seropositivity in domestic and stray dogs from the study area.
| Study area | Domestic dogs | Stray dogs | ||
| N positive/N total (%) | 95% CI | N positive/N total (%) | 95% CI | |
| Vake | 81/260 (31.2) | (25.6–37.2) | 48/331 (14.5) | (10.9–18.8) |
| Mtatsminda | 12/190 (6.3) | (3.3–10.8) | 26/206 (12.6) | (8.4–17.9) |
| Krtsanisi | 14/138 (10.1) | (5.7–16.4) | 36/181 (19.9) | (14.3–26.5) |
| Total (all districts) | 107/588 (18.2) | (15.2–21.6) | 110/718 (15.3) | (12.8–18.2) |
Figure 3Identification of Leishmania species isolated from a human and dogs.
(A) kDNA-PCR performed on DNA extracted from the bone marrow of a sick child and bone marrow cultures of five representative dogs. Lane 1, DNA size marker (100 bp ladder); lane 2, L. major (MHOM/IL/80/Friedlin); lane 3, L. infantum (MHOM/ES/00/UCM-1); lane 4, bone marrow, child, Tbilisi; lanes 5–9, bone marrow, dogs, Tbilisi; lane 10, negative control. (B) Phylogenetic analysis of Leishmania 70 kDa heat-shock protein (HSP70) genes. The sequences are represented by the Leishmania sp., country of origin in parentheses and GenBank nucleotide accession number. Node values indicate branch support.