| Literature DB >> 23379541 |
Nor Azila Muhammad Azami1, Sharifah Azura Salleh, Shamsul Azhar Shah, Hui-min Neoh, Zulhabri Othman, Syed Zulkifli Syed Zakaria, Rahman Jamal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1998, Malaysia experienced its first chikungunya virus (CHIKV) outbreak in the suburban areas followed by another two in 2006 (rural areas) and 2008 (urban areas), respectively. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of documented data regarding the magnitude of CHIKV exposure in the Malaysian population. The aim of this study was to determine the extent of chikungunya virus infection in healthy Malaysian adults residing in outbreak-free locations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23379541 PMCID: PMC3651385 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Figure 1Map of Peninsular Malaysia showing the study site (states of Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) which is coloured in green. Red buttons indicate previous CHIK outbreak locations. Small indicator map of South East Asia showing the location of Malaysia (coloured in black) is included.
Characteristics and CHIK seropositivity of the 945 study participants
| Gender | | | | | |
| Male | 376 (39.79%) | 32 | 8.51 | 7.484 | |
| Female | 569 (60.21%) | 24 | 2.54 | | |
| Age Range | | | | | |
| 35 | 134 (14.18%) | 3 | 2.24 | 6.830 | 0.078 |
| 45–54 | 450 (47.62%) | 24 | 5.33 | | |
| 55–64 | 311 (32.91%) | 24 | 7.72 | | |
| 65-74 | 50 (5.29%) | 5 | 10.00 | | |
| Median Age, y (Range) | 53 (35–74) | | | | |
| Ethnicity | | | | | |
| Malay | 517 (54.71%) | 42 | 8.12 | 9.893 | |
| Chinese | 369 (49.53%) | 12 | 3.25 | | |
| Indian & others | 59 (6.24%) | 2 | 3.39 | | |
| Locality | | | | | |
| Rural | 386 (40.85%) | 40 | 10.36 | 23.042 | |
| Urban | 559 (59.15%) | 16 | 2.86 | | |
| States | | | | | |
| Kuala Lumpur | 275 (29.10%) | 6 | 2.18 | 76.025 | |
| Selangor | 211 (22.33%) | 4 | 1.90 | | |
| Pahang | 282 (29.84%) | 11 | 3.90 | | |
| Negeri Sembilan | 177 (18.73%) | 35 | 19.77 | ||
Table footnote:
#Except where indicated, values are number (%).
Bold§ indicates significant results, where p<0.05.
Logistic regression to identify risk factors for CHIK seropositivity*
| Gender | | | | | ||
| Female | 1.000 | - | | 1.000 | - | |
| Male | 2.112 | (1.223, 3.647) | 0.007 | 2.262 | (1.299, 3.938 | 0.004 |
| Locality | | | | | ||
| Urban | 1.000 | - | | 1.000 | - | |
| Rural | 3.923 | (2.163, 7.115) | <0.001 | 4.088 | (2.246, 7.439) | <0.001 |
| Ethnicity | | | | | ||
| Indian & Others | 1.000 | - | | 1.000¥ | - | |
| Malay | 2.520 | (0.594, 10.688) | 0.210 | 2.520 | (0.594, 10.688) | 0.210 |
| Chinese | 0.958 | (0.209, 4.393) | 0.956 | 0.958 | (0.209, 4.393) | 0.956 |
| State | | | | | ||
| Kuala Lumpur | 1.000 | - | | 1.000¥ | - | |
| Selangor | 0.866 | (0.241, 3.110) | 0.826 | 0.866 | (0.241, 3.110) | 0.826 |
| Pahang | 1.820 | (0.664, 4.991) | 0.245 | 1.820 | (0.664, 4.991) | 0.245 |
| N.Sembilan | 11.050 | (4.540, 26.898) | 11.050 | (4.540, 26.898) | ||
Table footnote:
*OR = odds ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.
¥ Not adjusted for other factors because there were no other significant individual factor.
Bold§ indicates significant values, where p<0.01.
Cross tabulation between gender and locality
| Locality vs. Gender | | | |
| Rural Male | 146 (15.45%) | 22 (15.06%) | |
| Rural Female | 240 (25.40%) | 18 (7.5%) | |
| Total | 386 (40.85%) | | |
| Urban Male | 230 (24.33%) | 10 (4.35%) | 0.119 |
| Urban Female | 329 (34.81%) | 6 (1.82%) | |
| Total | 559 (59.15%) |
Table footnote:
#Except where indicated, values are number (%).
Bold§ indicates significant results, where p<0.05.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of CHIK seroprevalence in the study site. Red dots represent chikungunya seropositive samples while black dots represent chikungunya seronegative samples. Lines define various districts in the states.
Figure 3Clustering of CHIK seroprevalence in the Negeri Sembilan state. Red dots represent chikungunya seropositive samples while black dots represent chikungunya seronegative samples. Lines mark district borders while dotted lines define sub-districts.