| Literature DB >> 24340115 |
Lúcio M Barbosa1, Luciano K Silva, Eliana A Reis, Theomira M Azevedo, Jackson M Costa, Walter A Blank, Mitermayer G Reis, Ronald E Blanton.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brazil remains the country in the Americas with the highest prevalence of schistosomiasis. A combination of control efforts and development, however, has sharply reduced its intensity and distribution. The acquisition of specific schistosome populations may be dependent on host characteristics such as sex, age, geography, work, habits and culture. How these and other host characteristics align with parasite subpopulations may guide approaches to improve control.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24340115 PMCID: PMC3854954 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Study areas and water contact sites.
A. Map of the Jiquiriçá River Valley between the towns of Santa Inês and Ubaíra. B. Volta do Rio. C. Jenipapo. The Jiquiriçá River is represented by the solid line dividing the communities. Open circles - homes, (P) numbered water contact sites.
Demographic, epidemiologic and infection characteristics of Jenipapo and Volta do Rio.
| Combined | Jenipapo | VdR |
| Volta do Rio |
| |||
| Upper | Lower | |||||||
|
| Total | n = 814 | n = 461 | n = 353 | n = 195 | n = 158 | ||
|
| 377 (46.3) | 221 (47.9) | 156 (44.2) | 0.288 | 92 (47.2) | 64 (40.5) | 0.209 | |
|
| 31.5±22.2 | 30.6±21.7 | 32.6±22.7 | 0.211 | 32.5±21.8 | 32.7±23.8 | 0.922 | |
|
| Ubaíra | 681 (83.7) | 391 (84.8) | 290 (82.2) | 0.309 | 159 (81.5) | 131 (82.9) | 0.738 |
| Other | 133 (16.3) | 70 (15.2) | 63 (17.8) | 36 (18.5) | 27 (17.1) | |||
|
| 93.5±41.4 | 93.6±19.9 | 93.5±58.6 | 0.982 | 89.0±23.2 | 92.5±19.3 | 0.116 | |
|
| 204 (25.3) | 105 (22.8) | 99 (28.7) | 0.056 |
|
|
| |
|
| 39 (19.5) | 17 (16.2) | 22 (20.6) | 0.264 | 8 (15.1) | 14 (26.0) | 0.319 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| 10.5±4.2 | 11.1±3.2 | 0.390 | |
|
| 810 (99.4) | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
|
| Yes (%) | 791 (97.4) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
|
| Septic tank |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| River/Open air |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| 60 (30.8) | 64 (40.5) | 0.057 | |
|
| 60.8 | 56.6 | 68.6 | 0.248 | 69.2 | 68.0 | 0.949 | |
|
| Yes (%) | 297 (36.5) | 175 (38.0) | 122 (34.6) | 0.318 | 68 (34.9) | 54 (34.28) | 0.891 |
|
| Yes (%) | 252 (31.3) | 146 (32.0) | 106 (30.0) | 0.830 | 68 (35.4) | 38 (24.2) | 0.057 |
|
| Yes (%) | 252 (34.1) | 150 (36.1) | 102(31.6) | 0.194 |
|
|
|
Categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi squared. Means for continuous variables were compared by Students t-test. Significant values are in bold type. Values ± S.D and (%).
* epg - genometric mean of S. mansoni eggs per gram of stool. Statistically significant comparisons are in bold type.
Figure 2Age-related prevalence and intensity of infection.
Prevalence (%) and intensity of infection (geometric mean epg) by age-group. epg - count of S. mansoni eggs per gram of stool.
Risk for S. mansoni egg positive stools.
| Variable | Total | Positive n (%) | Or (95% CI) | p value | |
|
| 1–10 | 152 | 42 (27.6) | - | - |
| 11–20 |
|
|
|
| |
| 21–30 |
|
|
|
| |
| 31–40 |
|
|
|
| |
| 41–50 | 84 | 27 (32.1) | 1.24 (0.70–2.22) | 0.470 | |
| 51–60 | 63 | 26 (41.3) | 1.84 (0.99–3.40) | 0.052 | |
| >60 | 108 | 21 (19.4) | 0.63 (0.35–1.15) | 0.130 | |
|
| Male |
|
|
|
|
| Female |
|
| |||
|
| 0 | 602 | 247 (41.0) | - | |
| 1–3 | 148 | 64 (43.2) | 1.10 (0.76–1.58) | 0.624 | |
| >4 | 56 | 22 (39.3) | 0.93 (0.53–1.63) | 0.800 | |
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
| No |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 297 | 128 (43.1) | 1.13 (0.85–1.52) | 0.393 |
| No | 518 | 207 (40.0) | |||
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
| No |
|
| |||
|
| 0 | 100 | 18 (17.8) | - | - |
| 1 |
|
|
|
| |
| 2 |
|
|
|
| |
| 3 |
|
|
|
| |
| 4 |
|
|
|
| |
| ≥5 |
|
|
|
|
Risk for S. mansoni infection compared to youngest category for age or to no surface water contact by chi-squared test. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio. Statistically significant comparisons are in bold type.
Risk at water contact points for S. mansoni infection.
| Jenipapo (n = 461) | Volta do Rio (n = 352) | |||||||
| Infected (%) | Not-Infected | OR (95% CI) | p-value | Infected (%) | Not-Infected | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
|
| n = 211 | n = 250 | n = 124 | n = 230 | ||||
| 1 | 45 (21.3) | 27 (10.8) | 1.42 (0.77–2.62) | 0.292 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 | 69 (32.7) | 50 (20.0) | 1.39 (0.83–2.30) | 0.182 | 48 (38.7) | 33 (14.3) | 1.84 (0.97–3.49) | 0.075 |
| 3 | 31 (14.7) | 14 (5.6) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 4 | 184 (87.2) | 215 (86.0) |
| 76 (61.3) | 126 (54.8) |
| ||
| 5 |
|
|
|
| 15 (12.1) | 10 (4.3) |
| |
| 6 | 49 (23.2) | 37 (14.8) |
| 17 (13.7) | 9 (3.9) |
| ||
| 7 | 11 (5.2) | 9 (3.6) |
| 37 (29.8) | 55 (23.9) |
| ||
| 8 | - | - | - | 8 (6.5) | 9 (3.9) |
| ||
| Other | 16 (7.6) | 13 (5.2) |
| 18 (14.5) | 17 (7.4) | 2.05 (0.90–4.66) | 0.091 | |
Reported use of a water contact point (see Figure 1) was entered into a logistic regression model where the dependent variable was S. mansoni infection status. The model was controlled for age and sex.
* Indicates contact points that did not enter the model. Statistically significant comparisons are in bold type.
Subpopulation differentiation and diversity.
| Di (p-value) | Dc | Dic (p-value) | AE | |
|
| ||||
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.125 vs 0.127 (0.105) | 0.002 | 0.061 vs 0.060 (0.961) | 3.36 vs 3.31 (0.683) |
| Age (≤15 vs >15 y/o) |
| 0.005 | 0.053 vs 0.064 (0.069) | 3.40 vs 3.31 (0.072) |
| Intensity of infection (<400 vs >400 epg) |
| 0.005 |
|
|
| Socio-economic Index (<11 vs >11) |
| 0.004 |
| 3.40 vs 3.29 (0.050) |
| % lifetime in Ubaira (100% vs <100%) | 0.124 vs 0.127 (0.183) | 0.013 | 0.060 vs 0.064 (0.620) | 3.35 vs 3.33 (0.555) |
| Previous Infection (Yes vs No) |
| 0.003 | 0.058 vs 0.062 (0.529) | 3.36 vs 3.34 (0.661) |
| Trips outside of the district (Yes vs No) |
| 0.007 | 0.065 vs 0.059 (0.287) | 3.32 vs 3.36 (0.358) |
|
| ||||
| Sex (male vs female) |
| 0.003 | 0.062 vs 0.055 (0.392) | 3.35 vs 3.32 (0.653) |
| Age (≤15 vs >15 y/o) |
| 0.006 | 0.054 vs 0.062 (0.322) | 3.28 vs 3.34 (0.228) |
| Intensity of infection (<400 vs >400 epg) |
| 0.006 |
|
|
| Socio-economic Index (<11 vs >11) |
| 0.007 | 0.054 vs 0.065 (0.176) |
|
| % lifetime in Ubaira (100% vs <100%) | 0.107 vs 0.097 (0.111) | 0.008 | 0.059 vs 0.061 (0.848) | 3.36 vs 3.32 (0.520) |
| Previous Infection (Yes vs No) |
| 0.002 | 0.056 vs 0.062 (0.435) | 3.39 vs 3.33 (0.195) |
| Trips outside of the district (Yes vs No) | 0.111 vs 0.105 (0.016) | 0.011 | 0.062 vs 0.058 (0.610) | 3.33 vs 3.37 (0.456) |
| Contact point 5 (Yes) |
| 0.006 |
| 3.39 vs 3.32 (0.188) |
|
| ||||
| Sex (male vs female) |
| 0.007 | 0.059 vs 0.070 (0.191) | 3.37 vs 3.19 (0.136) |
| Age (≤15 vs >15 y/o) |
| 0.009 |
| 3.42 vs 3.27 (0.216) |
| Intensity of infection (<400 vs >400 epg) |
| 0.008 |
|
|
| Socio-economic Index (<11 vs >11) |
| 0.005 | 0.055 vs 0.071 (0.074) | 3.32 vs 3.43 (0.133) |
| % lifetime in Ubaira (100% vs <100%) | 0.115 vs 0.116 (0.870) | 0.020 | 0.063 vs 0.065 (0.814) | 3.34 vs 3.34 (0.974) |
| Previous Infection (Yes vs No) | 0.116 vs 0.116 (0.970) | 0.018 | 0.063 vs 0.063 (0.968) | 3.31 vs 3.37 (0.319) |
| Trips outside of the district (Yes vs No) |
| 0.013 | 0.071 vs 0.060 (0.301) | 3.32 vs 3.35 (0.619) |
| Contact point 1 (Yes) |
| 0.006 | 0.057 vs 0.069 (0.176) | 3.34 vs 3.26 (0.970) |
| Contact point 3 (Yes) |
| 0.008 |
| 3.37 vs 3.25 (0.320) |
Di - pairwise D for all members of the group. Student's t-test was used to compare group means. Di and Dic were compared by ANOVA Other variables were trips outside of the region, co-infection with other helminths, all water contact points, number of water contacts visited, a history of past infections, socio-economic index. The Dc was estimated using the program Spade (http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw). Statistically significant comparisons for Dic are in bold type.