| Literature DB >> 22506083 |
Darren J Gray1, Aaron P Thrift, Gail M Williams, Feng Zheng, Yue-Sheng Li, Jiagang Guo, Honggen Chen, Tianping Wang, Xin Jiang Xu, Rong Zhu, Hongqing Zhu, Chun Li Cao, Dan Dan Lin, Zhen Yuan Zhao, Robert S Li, George M Davis, Donald P McManus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schistosoma japonicum is a major public health concern in the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC), with about 800,000 people infected and another 50 million living in areas at risk of infection. Based on ecological, environmental, population genetic and molecular factors, schistosomiasis transmission in PRC can be categorised into four discrete ecosystems or transmission modes. It is predicted that, long-term, the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) will impact upon the transmission of schistosomiasis in the PRC, with varying degree across the four transmission modes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22506083 PMCID: PMC3323517 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Three Gorges Dam and reservoir, distribution of S. japonicum and location of study villages.
Characteristics of S. japonicum transmission modes I–III* and predicted outcome on prevalence.
| Mode | Environment | Provinces | Sentinel villages | Current characteristics | Long-term predicted outcome post-closure of the Three Gorges Dam |
| I | Poyang Lake | Jiangxi | TangMeiHexi | Poyang Lake is the largest lake in China and with the annual flood of the Yangtze River; the lake fills like a bathtub, covering most of the islands with water contained by man-made dikes constructed over centuries; and drowning snails. There is evidence for considerable transport of snails in the lake and they are considered to generally have an unstable population structure, although it is stable in some parts. Poyang Lake is a major focus of schistosomiasis transmission in PRC | The |
| II | Dongting Lake | Hunan | WuYiLaogan | Dongting Lake plays an important role in regulating the amount of water in the Yangtze River. It collects the water of four rivers running from upstream into the Yangtze River and stores water when the Yangtze is in flood. It is a severe endemic area for | There will be increased permanent marshlands with increasing population stability, but in some areas near the Yangtze River there will be a continuing but somewhat decreased population instability associated with snail transport. Overall, snail populations will increase considerably with a resultant increase in |
| Yangtze River islands, flood plains | Anhui | Laozou IsMinshen | The Yangtze River islands and flood plains are covered and swept by the annual flood of the Yangtze River. On the islands, snails are found in low depressions in flat marshy grazing land. The flood plain habitat is a narrow strip of land along the river bounded by a high dike. The flood plain is moderately forested with small trees but has considerable grassland. These sites are annually covered and swept by the annual floods. Export and import of snails also occurs annually. | There will be continued snail transport and a continuing unstable snail population which will increase concomitant with an increase in | |
| III | Canals, water networks | Hubei | MalingGuHu | Canals and water networks are protected from flooding from the Yangtze River by the continuous dike along the Yangtze and the water gate that is closed to the Yangtze during flooding | New snail habitats will be created due to the degeneration of rice paddies into marshlands as a result of underground water levels rising, thus increasing transmission and |
*: After Davis et al.
Mode characteristics at baseline in 2002*.
| Mode | I | II | III | |
|
| ||||
| Sample size | 1109 | 2310 | 975 | |
| Prevalence | 21.7% (19.3, 24.2) | 14.0% (12.6, 15.4) | 13.5% (11.4, 15.7) | |
| Geometric mean epg in infected humans | 37.2 (30.5, 45.3) | 30.3 (26.2, 34.8) | 18.2 (16.2, 20.5) | |
| Sex ratio (F/M) | 554/555 | 1078/1232 | 450/525 | |
| Prevalence by sex (F/M) | 19.9/23.6% | 9.6/17.9% | 14.0/13.1% | |
| Sentinel cohort no. | 575 | 1129 | 354 | |
| Sentinel cohort prevalence | 21.6% (18.2, 24.9) | 16.9% (14.7, 19.1) | 14.1% (10.5, 17.8) | |
| Sentinel cohort geometric mean epg in infected humans | 28.5 (22.1, 36.7) | 32.6 (27.2, 39.0) | 16.8 (13.6, 20.8) | |
| Sentinel cohort sex ratio (F/M) | 307/268 | 536/593 | 166/188 | |
| Sentinel cohort prevalence by sex (F/M) | 19.5/23.9% | 11.2/22.1% | 13.9/14.4% | |
|
| ||||
| Sample size | 151 | 103 | 127 | |
| Prevalence | 11.9% (6.7, 17.1) | 9.7% (3.9, 15.5) | 13.4% (7.4, 19.4) | |
| Geometric mean epg in infected bovines | 7.7 (3.6, 16.6) | 9.6 (2.9, 31.8) | 1.5 (1.2, 2.0) | |
*: Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals. epg = eggs per gram (of faeces).
Human cohort infection rates and intensity of infection by study village over time.
| Mode | Mode I | Mode II | Mode III | |||||
| Village | TangMei | Hexi | WuYi | Laogan | Laozhou Is | Minshen | Maling | GuHu |
|
| ||||||||
| Sentinel cohort # | 666 | 443 | 525 | 662 | 619 | 504 | 448 | 527 |
| Prevalence (95% confidence interval; CI) | 29.0% (25.5, 32.4) | 10.8% (7.9, 13.7) | 17.9% (14.6, 21.2) | 10.6% (8.2, 12.9) | 14.9% (12.1, 17.7) | 13.5% (10.5, 16.5) | 13.6% (10.4, 16.8) | 13.5% (10.5, 16.4) |
| Geometric mean EPG (CI) | 42.2 (33.5, 53.3) | 22.2 (16.0, 30.8) | 47.8 (36.5, 62.5) | 19.3 (17.8, 20.9) | 46.0 (33.4, 63.3) | 14.7 (12.0, 18.1) | 16.5 (14.1, 19.4) | 19.9 (16.8, 23.6) |
|
| ||||||||
| Sentinel cohort # | 487 | 401 | 474 | 594 | 418 | 424 | 215 | 310 |
| Incidence (CI) | 23.8% (20.0, 27.6) | 12.7% (9.4, 16.0) | 11.4% (8.5, 14.3) | 13.1% (10.4, 15.9) | 13.4% (10.1, 16.7) | 14.6% (11.2, 18.0) | 14.4% (9.7, 19.2) | 12.9% (9.2, 16.7) |
| Geometric mean EPG (CI) | 34.7 (25.5, 47.3) | 29.5 (21.9, 39.7) | 45.6 (31.6, 65.8) | 12.6 (10.2, 15.6) | 109.7 (69.3,173.7) | 35.1 (24.4, 50.6) | 13.1 (9.2, 18.7) | 8.7 (6.8, 11.1) |
|
| ||||||||
| Sentinel cohort # | 390 | 367 | 428 | 507 | 284 | 419 | 196 | 240 |
| Incidence (CI) | 18.7% (14.8, 22.6) | 10.1% (7.0, 13.2) | 12.6% (9.5, 15.8) | 4.9% (3.0, 6.8) | 10.2% (6.7, 13.8) | 9.5% (6.7, 12.4) | 7.1% (3.5, 10.8) | 8.3% (4.8, 11.9) |
| Geometric mean EPG (CI) | 30.1 (20.8, 43.6) | 21.8 (17.2, 27.6) | 51.3 (36.8, 71.5) | 8.3 (5.9, 11.5) | 205.2 (107.4, 392.0) | 28.6 (20.0, 40.9) | 13.6 (8.7, 21.3) | 11.3 (8.8, 14.6) |
|
| ||||||||
| Sentinel cohort # | 358 | 348 | 379 | 422 | 263 | 319 | 174 | 269 |
| Incidence (CI) | 16.8% (12.9, 20.6) | 9.8% (6.6, 12.9) | 11.3% (8.1, 14.6) | 5.7% (3.5, 7.9) | 3.4% (1.2, 5.6) | 8.8% (5.7, 11.9) | 9.2% (4.9, 13.5) | 9.7% (6.1, 13.2) |
| Geometric mean EPG (CI) | 28.3 (19.1, 41.7) | 22.9 (18.3, 28.6) | 27.9 (21.1, 36.9) | 23.8 (11.8, 48.1) | 35.1 (24.2, 51.0) | 22.7 (17.4, 29.6) | 7.8 (4.6, 13.2) | 6.9 (5.6, 8.6) |
|
| ||||||||
| Sentinel cohort # | 351 | 306 | 304 | 348 | 209 | 275 | 159 | 247 |
| Incidence (CI) | 6.0% (3.5, 8.5) | 3.9% (1.7, 6.1) | 8.2% (5.1, 11.3) | 3.2% (1.3, 5.0) | 1.4% (0.2, 3.1) | 9.1% (5.7, 12.5) | 5.0% (1.6, 8.5) | 8.1% (4.7, 11.5) |
| Geometric mean EPG (CI) | 25.2 (12.4, 51.4) | 25.4 (12.9, 49.9) | 22.3 (12.7, 39.2) | 21.4 (8.1, 57.0) | 193.8 (48.8,770.5) | 28.2 (21.7, 36.6) | 10.4 (4.6, 23.6) | 12.5 (8.5, 18.6) |
Figure 2Baseline prevalence by age for transmission modes I–III.
Human cohort incidence and intensity of infection by year for transmission modes I–III*.
| Mode | I | II | III | |||
| Human: sentinel cohort | N | Incidence | N | Incidence | N | Incidence |
| 2003 | 888 | 18.8% (16.2,21.4) | 1910 | 13.1% (11.6,14.6) | 525 | 13.5% (10.6,16.5) |
| 2004 | 757 | 14.5% (12.0,17.0) | 1638 | 9.0% (7.6,10.4) | 436 | 7.8% (5.3,10.3) |
| 2005 | 706 | 13.3% (10.8,15.8) | 1383 | 7.5% (6.1,8.9) | 443 | 9.5% (6.7,12.2) |
| 2006 | 657 | 5.0% (3.3,6.7) | 1136 | 5.6% (4.3,7.0) | 406 | 6.9% (4.4,9.4) |
*: Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 3Annual risk (Odds ratios with 95% CI) of S. japonicum infection for transmission modes I–III.
The model includes transmission mode, study year, previous praziquantel treatments, water contact, and an interaction term for transmission mode and year.
Bovine infection rates and intensity of infection by year for transmission modes I–III*.
| Mode | I | II | III | |||
| Bovines | N | Infection rate | N | Infection rate | N | Infection rate |
| 2003 | 131 | 9.2% (4.2, 14.2) | 165 | 17.0% (11.2, 22.8) | 98 | 21.4% (13.2, 29.7) |
| 2004 | 141 | 8.5% (3.8, 13.2) | 157 | 9.6% (4.9, 14.2) | 81 | 16.0% (7.9, 24.2) |
| 2005 | 141 | 8.5% (3.8, 13.2) | 134 | 14.2% (8.2, 20.2) | 87 | 21.8% (13.0, 30.7) |
| 2006 | 149 | 6.0% (2.2, 9.9) | 95 | 17.9% (10.0, 25.7) | 94 | 7.4% (2.0, 12.9) |
*: Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals.