| Literature DB >> 22567331 |
Navarrete Espinosa Joel1, Moreno Muñoz Maribel, Rivas Sánchez Beatriz, Velasco Castrejón Oscar.
Abstract
Objective. To measure the prevalence of leptospirosis with two techniques in inhabitants of Izamal, Yucatan and to determine its relation with some exposure factors. Material and Methods. Transversal study in populations belonging to the HR62-IMSS-Opportunities working force in Izamal, Yucatan. Population, including 6 years of age or more, was randomly selected to participate in the study. A questionnaire was applied for personal ID and exposure factors; blood samples were taken for leptospirosis diagnosis. Simple frequencies, proportions, tendency and dispersion measures, prevalence and odd ratios and confidence intervals (CI) of 95%, and logistic regression model were obtained. Results. 204 patients, between 9 and 80 years old were included; 180 were positive (88.2%) with the dark-field technique; using MAT cutoff at 1 : 40, 178 patients (87.3%) were positive, while at 1 : 80 there were 103 positive (50.5%). The predominant serovar was Hardjo (94%). The highest prevalence was in women (96.3%) and in the >45-year-old group (95.7%); feminine gender (RM = 2.31 IC 95% 3.59-28.6), housewife (RM = 22.8 IC 95% 4.9-106.1), being in contact with stagnant water (RM = 5.2 IC 95% 1.7-15.9), and being in contact with domestic animal feces (RM = 5.1 IC 95% 1.9-13.1), these being the most significant variables in the final logistic regression model. Conclusions. The prevalence found was higher than the one nationally and internationally reported, representing an important finding, being in turn a local public health, maybe nationally. It is urgent to reinforce this research as well as to establish preventive and control measure to avoid exposure and health damages.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22567331 PMCID: PMC3335464 DOI: 10.4061/2011/408604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pathog ISSN: 2090-3057
Leptospirosis prevalence by means of 2 diagnostic techniques.
| Used technique |
| % | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dark Field | 180 | 88.2 | 83.6–92.1 |
| MAT ≥ 1 : 40 | 178 | 87.3 | 82.4–92.1 |
| MAT ≥ 1 : 80 | 103 | 50.5 | 43.4–57.5 |
| MAT ≥ 1 : 160 | 27 | 13.2 | 6.3–18.1 |
Leptospirosis prevalence and occupational exposure.
| Variable | Positive | % | CI 95% | Negative | % | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupation | ||||||
| Housewife | 123 | 98 | 94.3–99.8 | 2 | 1.6 | 0.19–5.7 |
| Farmer | 22 | 71 | 53.4–88.6 | 9 | 29 | 11.4–46.6 |
| Other | 35 | 92.1 | 78.6–98.3 | 3 | 7.9 | 1.7–21.4 |
|
| ||||||
| Contact with raw meat | ||||||
| Yes | 87 | 87.7 | 80.9–94.8 | 12 | 12.3 | 5.1–19.0 |
| No | 93 | 88.6 | 82.0–95.1 | 12 | 11.4 | 4.8–17.9 |
|
| ||||||
| Agricultural labor | ||||||
| Yes | 88 | 89.9 | 82.1–95.9 | 11 | 11.1 | 4.4–17.8 |
| No | 92 | 87.7 | 80.8–94.3 | 13 | 12.3 | 5.6–19.1 |
|
| ||||||
| Contac with stagnant water | ||||||
| Yes | 85 | 89.5 | 82.3–96.1 | 10 | 10.5 | 3.8–17.2 |
| No | 3 | 75.0 | .631–8.6 | 1 | 25.0 | 19.4–99.3 |
Leptospirosis prevalence and contact with domestic animals.
| Variable | Positive | % | CI 95% | Negative | % | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presence of animals in the household | ||||||
| Yes | 157 | 87.2 | 82.0–92.3 | 23 | 12.8 | 7.6–17.9 |
| No | 23 | 95.8 | 78.8–99.8 | 1 | 4.2 | .10–21.1 |
|
| ||||||
| Contact with domestic animals' excrement | ||||||
| Yes | 131 | 92.3 | 87.5–97.0 | 11 | 7.7 | 2–9–12.5 |
| No | 23 | 68.4 | 52.3–84.5 | 12 | 31.5 | 15.4–47.6 |
|
| ||||||
| Contact with rodents and their droppings | ||||||
| Yes | 135 | 90 | 84.8–95.1 | 15 | 10.0 | 4.8–15.1 |
| No | 45 | 83.3 | 72.4–99.1 | 9 | 16.7 | 5.8–27.5 |
Logistic regression model.
| Variable | RMP | CI 95% |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 1 | ||
| Female | 23.6 | 6.9–81.1 | <0.05 |
|
| |||
| Occupacion | |||
| Other | 1 | ||
| Housewife | 22.8 | 4.9–106.1 | <0.05 |
|
| |||
| Contact with Stagnant Water | |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 5.2 | 1.7–15.9 | <0.05 |
|
| |||
| Contact with Urine or Excrement | |||
| No | 1 | ||
| Yes | 5.1 | 1.9–13.1 | <0.05 |
Concordance percentage between the 2 diagnostic techniques.
| MAT cutoff values | Concordance percentage | Kappa percentage |
|---|---|---|
| >1 : 40 | 78 | 58 |
| >1 : 80 | 50 | 19 |
| >1 : 160 | 21 | 3 |