| Literature DB >> 23330028 |
Cornelius Kibet Kipyegen1, Robert Shavulimo Shivairo, Rose Ogwang Odhiambo.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: HIV patients have reduced immune response which makes them more susceptible to different infections. This cross-sectional study was carried out to document the prevalence of intestinal parasites among HIV patients in Baringo County, Kenya.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; Kenya; Prevalence; intestinal parasites
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23330028 PMCID: PMC3542804
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
Distribution of intestinal parasites among HIV positive patients
| Parasite | Frequency of parasites | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
| 88 | 58.3 |
|
| 25 | 16.6 |
|
| 13 | 8.6 |
|
| 9 | 5.9 |
|
| 8 | 5.3 |
|
| 3 | 1.9 |
|
| 3 | 1.9 |
| Hookworm | 2 | 1.3 |
| Total | 151 | 100.0 |
Majority of the parasitic infection were intestinal protozoans. E. histolytica/dispar having highest frequency. Few helmithic infections were recorded with A. lumbricoides and Taenia species being predominant.
Demographic information and prevalence of intestinal parasites in HIV positive patients in Baringo
| Characteristics | Number examined | Infection status | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (%) | Infected | Uninfected | ||
|
| ||||
| 0-5 | 17 (6.0) | 7 (2.5) | 10 (3.5) | 0.681 |
| 6-12 | 27 (9.5) | 14 (4.9) | 13 (4.6) | |
| 13-19 | 9 (3.2) | 3 (1.1) | 6 (2.1) | |
| 20-39 | 151 (53.0) | 76 (26.7) | 75 (26.3) | |
| 40-59 | 77 (27.0) | 42 (14.7) | 35 (12.3) | |
| >60 | 4 (1.4) | 3 (1.1) | 1 (0.4) | |
|
| ||||
| Male | 94 (33.0) | 46 (16.1) | 48 (16.8) | 0.646 |
| Female | 191 (67.0) | 99 (34.7) | 92 (32.3) | |
|
| ||||
| 1-3 | 43 (15.1) | 15 (5.3) | 28 (9.8) | 0.05 |
| 4-7 | 165 (57.9) | 86 (30.2) | 79 (27.7) | |
| >8 | 77 (27.0) | 44 (15.4) | 33 (11.6) | |
|
| ||||
| Urban | 80 (28.1) | 29 (10.2) | 51 (19.9) | 0.002 |
| Rural | 205 (71.9) | 116 (40.7) | 89 (31.2) | |
|
| ||||
| Positive | 175 (61.4) | 125 (43.9) | 50 (17.5) | 0.0001 |
| Negative | 110 (38.6) | 20 (7.0) | 90 (31.6) | |
Individuals between the age group 20-59 which forms the active group were the most infected with HIV and also recorded high parasitic infection rate. Female were more infected with HIV than men and this could be as a result of biological or cultural factors. Those who had diarrhea had high intestinal parasitic infection than those who had no diarrhea.
Place of residence, location of respondent and infection status
| Infection status | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agro-ecological zone | Place of residence | Infected (%) | Uninfected (%) | Total (%) | P-Value |
| Highland | Urban | 19 (6.7) | 37 (13.0) | 56 (19.7) | 0.658 |
| Rural | 29 (10.2) | 48 (16.8) | 77 (27.0) | ||
| Midland | Urban | 4 (1.4) | 1 (0.4) | 5 (1.8) | 0.509 |
| Rural | 36 (12.6) | 19 (6.7) | 55 (19.3) | ||
| Lowland | Urban | 6 (2.1) | 13 (4.6) | 19 (6.7) | 0.05 |
| Rural | 51 (17.9) | 22 (7.6) | 73 (25.5) | ||
| Total | 145 (50.9) | 140 (49.1) | 285 (100) | ||
Participants from the lowlands had high intestinal parasitic infection due to unreliable water which compromises the level of sanitation and hygiene. Infection among those in highland is because of water source (river) which is not safe and could be contaminated at the source or during transportation.
Source of water, reliability and treatment in relation with infection status
| Infection status | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of water | Infected | Uninfected | Total | P-Value |
| Piped water | 19 (6.7) | 44 (15.4) | 63 | 0.0001 |
| Bore hole | 5 (1.8) | 6 (2.1) | 11 | |
| Bottled water | 8 (2.8) | 4 (1.4) | 12 | |
| River | 102 (35.8) | 84 (29.5) | 186 | |
| Tank | 11 (3.8) | 2 (0.7) | 13 | |
| Total | 145 (50.9) | 140 (49.1) | 285 | |
|
| ||||
| Reliable | 50 (17.5) | 65 (22.8) | 115 | 0.04 |
| Not reliable | 95 (33.3) | 75 (26.3) | 170 | |
| Total | 145 (50.8) | 140 (49.1) | 285 | |
|
| ||||
| Treat | 37 (13.0) | 88 (30.9) | 125 | 0.0001 |
| Do not treat | 108 (37.9) | 52 (18.2) | 160 | |
| Total | 145 (50.9) | 140 (49.1) | 285 | |
Source of water play a major role in parasitic infections, those who obtained water from river had high parasitic infection due contamination at water point by both animals and human. Treatment of water is before consumption is crucial which was not the case, as majority of infections was among those who don't treat water.