| Literature DB >> 23656634 |
Ahmad Faudzi Yusoff1, Amal Nasir Mustafa, Hani Mat Husaain, Wan Mansor Hamzah, Apandi Mohd Yusof, Rozilawati Harun, Faezah Noor Abdullah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of the study were to assess the risk factors in relation to cross border activities, exposure to mosquito bite and preventive measures taken.An outbreak of chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection in Malaysia has been reported in Klang, Selangor (1998) and Bagan Panchor, Perak (2006). In 2009, CHIKV infection re-emerged in some states in Malaysia. It raises the possibilities that re-emergence is part of the epidemics in neighbouring countries or the disease is endemic in Malaysia. For this reason, A community-based case control study was carried out in the state of Kelantan.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23656634 PMCID: PMC3658903 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Figure 1Number of Chikungunya infection among the suspected cases in, State of Kelantan, by epid week (22–52), 2009 (n=129).
Figure 2Clinical manifestation of confirmed chikungunya infection, June-December 2009.
Demographic characteristic of the cases and controls
| Gender | Male | 38(40.0%) | 51(41.5%) | 89(40.8%) |
| | Female | 57(60.0%) | 72(58.5%) | 129(59.2%) |
| | Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) |
| Age group | Adolescent | 8(8.4%) | 22(17.9%) | 30(13.8%) |
| | Adult | 73(76.8%) | 84(68.3%) | 157(72.0%) |
| | Elderly | 14(14.2%) | 17(13.8%) | 31(14.2%) |
| | Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) |
| Ethnic group | Malays | 93(97.9%) | 120(97.6%) | 213(97.7%) |
| | Chinese | 1(1.1%) | 2(1.6%) | 3(1.4%) |
| | others | 1(0.8%) | 1(1.1%) | 2(0.9%) |
| | Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) |
| Locality | Rural | 92(96.8%) | 114(92.7%) | 206(94.5%) |
| | Urban | 3(3.2%) | 9(7.3%) | 12(5.5%) |
| | Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) |
| Occupation | Government officer | 2(2.1%) | 3(2.4%) | 5(2.3%) |
| | Teacher | 3(3.2%) | 2(1.6%) | 5(2.3%) |
| | Retired | 1(1.1%) | 1(0.8%) | 2(0.9%) |
| | Student | 7(7.4%) | 18(14.6%) | 25(11.5%) |
| | Self employed | 19(20.0%) | 23(18.7%) | 42(19.3%) |
| | Labourer | 5(5.3%) | 8(6.5%) | 13(6.0%) |
| | Others | 6(6.3%) | 15(12.2%) | 21(9.6%) |
| | Housewife | 31(32.6%) | 46(37.4%) | 77(35.3%) |
| | Rubber tapper | 21(22.1%) | 7(5.7%) | 28(12.8%) |
| | Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) |
| Level of education | Primary School | 26(27.4%) | 32(26.0%) | 58(26.6%) |
| | Lower secondary school | 27(28.4%) | 34(27.6%) | 61(28.0%) |
| | Upper secondary school | 26(27.4%) | 40(32.5%) | 66(30.3%) |
| | College/Universities | 1(1.1%) | 6(4.9%) | 7(3.2%) |
| | Religious School | 4(4.2%) | 4(3.3%) | 8(3.7%) |
| | Not schooling | 8(8.4%) | 7(5.7%) | 15(6.9%) |
| | No formal education | 3(3.2%) | 0(.0%) | 3(1.4%) |
| Total | 95(100%) | 123(100%) | 218(100%) | |
Laboratory result of CHIKV infection in suspected cases and controls
| RT-PCR | - | 49(16.1%) | |
| IgM | 46(15.1%) | ||
| IgG | - | 28(15.9%) | 28(9.2%) |
| Negative results | 59(45.7%) | 182(59.7%) | |
| Total | 129(100%) | 176(100%) | 305(100%) |
RT-PCR: Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
IgM: immunoglobulin (Ig)M.
IgG: immunoglobulin (Ig)G.
Crude and adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI of risk factors for CHIKV infection
| Gender: | | |||||
| Male | 0.94 | 0.55-1.62 | | 0.87 | 0.49-1.57 | p>0.05 |
| Female | Reference | | ||||
| Ethnic groups: | | |||||
| Malay | 0.78 | 0.04-12.55 | p>0.05 | 0.54 | 0.03-9.10 | p>0.05 |
| Chinese | 0.50 | 0.13-19.56 | p>0.05 | 0.37 | 0.01-16.83 | p>0.05 |
| Others | Reference | | ||||
| Age groups | | |||||
| Elderly | 2.26 | 0.77-6.63 | p>0.05 | 1.81 | 0.58-5.68 | p>0.05 |
| Adult | 2.39 | 1.00-5.69 | p>0.05 | 1.94 | 0.77-4.86 | p>0.05 |
| Adolescent | Reference | | ||||
| Occupations: | | |||||
| Government officer | Reference | | ||||
| Teacher | 2.25 | 0.18-28.25 | p>0.05 | 2.78 | 0.20-38.91 | p>0.05 |
| Retired | 1.50 | 0.06-40.63 | p>0.05 | 1.07 | 0.38-29.75 | p>0.05 |
| Student | 0.58 | 0.08-4.27 | p>0.05 | 0.99 | 0.13-7.76 | p>0.05 |
| Self employed | 1.24 | 0.19-8.20 | p>0.05 | 1.62 | 0.23-11.3 | p>0.05 |
| Labourer | 0.93 | 0.11-7.72 | p>0.05 | 1.41 | 0.16-12.58 | p>0.05 |
| Others | 0.60 | 0.08-4.54 | p>0.05 | 0.88 | 0.11-7.19 | p>0.05 |
| Housewife | 1.01 | 0.16-6.04 | p>0.05 | 1.49 | 0.22-9.97 | p>0.05 |
| Rubber tapper | 4.50 | 0.60-32.70 | p>0.05 | 3.68 | 1.43-9.47 | 0.007 |
| Locality: | | |||||
| Urban | Reference | | ||||
| Rural | 2.42 | 0.64-9.20 | p>0.05 | 1.54 | 0.37-6.35 | p>0.05 |
| Level of education: | | |||||
| Primary School | Reference | | ||||
| Lower secondary school | 0.98 | 0.47-2.01 | p>0.05 | 0.80 | 0.367-1.74 | p>0.05 |
| Upper secondary school | 0.80 | 0.39-1.64 | p>0.05 | 0.59 | 0.27-1.30 | p>0.05 |
| College/Universities | 0.21 | 0.28-5.40 | p>0.05 | 0.20 | 0.02-1.84 | p>0.05 |
| Religious School | 1.23 | 0.28-5.40 | p>0.05 | 1.50 | 0.29-7.59 | p>0.05 |
| No formal education | 1.41 | 0.45-4.39 | p>0.05 | 1.16 | 0.35-3.84 | p>0.05 |
| Staying together with relatives being infected with Chikungunya | 3.24 | 1.82-5.78 | p>0.05 | 2.50 | 1.37-4.58 | 0.003 |
| Visit chikungunya patient | 1.73 | 0.90-3.34 | p>0.05 | 0.78 | 0.33-1.82 | p>0.05 |
| Staying more outside the house in early morning and late afternoon | 1.66 | 0.76-3.63 | p>0.05 | 0.80 | 0.28-2.31 | p>0.05 |
| Had history been to potential places for mosquito bite | 3.06 | 1.32-7.09 | 0.009 | 1.55 | 0.52-4.67 | p>0.05 |
| Apply one of the preventive methods | 0.17 | 0.06-0.51 | 0.002 | 0.39 | 0.11-1.37 | p>0.05 |
| Wearing the long sleeve | 0.61 | 0.35-1.06 | p>0.05 | 0.85 | 0.43-1.68 | p>0.05 |
| Apply the repellent lotion | 1.17 | 0.32-4.26 | p>0.05 | 1.45 | 0.35-6.09 | p>0.05 |
| Use of mosquito coils insecticide | 0.38 | 0.22-068 | 0.001 | 0.44 | 0.24-0.79 | 0.007 |
| Using the Mosquito net | 0.65 | 0.38-1.11 | p>0.05 | 0.61 | 0.31-1.19 | p>0.05 |
| Had history of travelling during the last 2 week | 0.99 | 0.42-2.38 | p>0.05 | 1.30 | 0.48-3.53 | p>0.05 |
| Working in area of plantation border to southern Thailand | 3.98 | 0.41-38.87 | p>0.05 | 1.36 | 0.12-14.8 | p>0.05 |
| Had been visited by relative from Southern Thailand | 2.62 | 0.23-29.37 | p>0.05 | 1.57 | 0.14-17.9 | p>0.05 |
| Had been visited by anybody from any places | 5.56 | 0.97-26.84 | p>0.05 | 3.86 | 0.75-19.64 | p>0.05 |
Note: No body made any visit to relative in southern Thailand and no any relatives in southern Thailand that they know had been infected with chikungunya infection.