| Literature DB >> 24498159 |
Albert Picado1, Bart Ostyn2, Shri Prakash Singh3, Surendra Uranw4, Epco Hasker2, Suman Rijal4, Shyam Sundar3, Marleen Boelaert2, François Chappuis5.
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the role of asymptomatic infection in transmission of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL). We studied the individual, household and environmental factors associated with asymptomatic Leishmania donovani infected individuals and VL. 7,538 individuals living in VL endemic villages in India and Nepal were divided into three mutually exclusive groups based on their VL history and Direct Agglutination Test (DAT) results in yearly serosurveys over a two-year period. The groups were (1) VL cases, (2) asymptomatically infected individuals (seroconverters) and (3) seronegative individuals. VL cases and seroconverters were compared to seronegative individuals in mixed logistic regression models. The risk of seroconversion and disease was significantly increased in individuals aged 14 to 24 years old and by the presence of other DAT-positive, asymptomatically infected individuals and VL cases in the house. The risk of seroconversion was higher in Indian than in Nepalese villages and it increased significantly with age, but not so for VL. This study demonstrates that, when risk factors for leishmanial infection and VL disease are evaluated in the same population, epidemiological determinants for asymptomatic infection and VL are largely similar.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24498159 PMCID: PMC3909193 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) case definitions.
| Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) case category | Criteria (one or more per category) |
|
| A. Clinical suspect patient |
| B. Clinical suspect patient | |
| 1. A positive rK39 dipstick | |
| 2. Good clinical and haematological response to anti-leishmanial treatment given at study reference hospitals | |
| C. Clinical suspect patient | |
| 1. A positive rK39 dipstick | |
| 2. Good clinical response to anti-leishmanial treatment given outside study reference hospitals | |
| 3. Retrospective confirmation of treatment from the care-provider | |
| D. Clinical suspect patient | |
| 1. VL diagnosis (rK39 dipstick | |
| 2. Good clinical response to anti-leishmanial treatment given outside the study reference hospitals | |
| 3. Retrospective confirmation of diagnosis and treatment from the care-provider | |
| E. Patient who died of parasitologicaly proven | |
|
| A. Clinical suspect patient |
| 1. A positive rK39 dipstick | |
| 2. Good clinical response to anti-leishmanial treatment given outside the study reference hospitals | |
| 3. No retrospective confirmation of treatment from the care-provider | |
| B. Clinical suspect patient | |
| 1. Diagnosis (rK39 dipstick | |
| 2. Good clinical response to anti-leishmanial treatment given outside the study reference hospitals | |
| 3. No retrospective confirmation of diagnosis and treatment from the care-provider | |
| 4. Direct Agglutination Test (DAT) seroconversion | |
| C. Patient who died of probable visceral leishmaniasis. | |
|
| A. Clinical suspect patients |
Individual with history of fever for ≥ 2 weeks and splenomegaly.
Kala-Azar Medical Research Centre (KAMRC), Muzaffarpur in India and B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan in Nepal.
Kalazar Detect Rapid TestTM (InBios International, Seattle, USA)
Verification of patient’s medical records.
Positive bone marrow or spleen aspirate
VL patients who seroconverted from DAT negative (≤1∶800) in the serosurvey before developing VL to DAT positive (>1∶800), with at least 2 titres difference, after developing the disease.
Figure 1Population flow chart to allocate the subjects into the three study groups: (1) visceral leishmaniasis (VL) cases, (2) Seroconverters (asymptomatic Leishmania donovani infection) and (3) Seronegatives (DAT negative individuals).
Characteristics of the individuals included in the risk factor studies divided by group: Seronegatives, Seroconverters (asymptomatic Leishmania donovani infection) and visceral leishmaniasis (VL) cases.
| Seronegatives | Seroconverters | VLcases | ||
| Total number of subjects |
|
|
| |
| India (%) | 4377 (63.1) | 419 (82.7) | 74 (77.9) | |
| Intervention clusters (%) | 3820 (55.1) | 293 (57.4) | 44 (46.3) | |
|
| ||||
| Age (%) | 0–6 | 1397 (20.1) | 86 (16.9) | 21 (22.1) |
| 7–13 | 1750 (25.2) | 97 (19.0) | 22 (23.2) | |
| 14–24 | 879 (12.7) | 83 (16.3) | 19 (20.0) | |
| 25–39 | 1265 (18.2) | 98 (19.2) | 15 (15.8) | |
| +40 | 1642 (23.7) | 146 (28.6) | 18 (18.9) | |
| Males (%) | 2870 (41.4) | 210 (41.2) | 56 (58.9) | |
| Malnutrition (%) | Normal | 5834 (84.1) | 397 (77.8) | 60 (63.2) |
| Moderate-Severe | 1051 (15.2) | 83 (16.3) | 7 (7.4) | |
| Missing | 48 (0.7) | 30 (5.9) | 28 (29.5) | |
| Individuals using nets >80% of nights (%) | 4541 (65.5) | 311 (61.0) | 54 (56.8) | |
|
| ||||
| Individuals living in thatched houses (%) | 2358 (34.0) | 227 (44.5) | 44 (46.3) | |
| Socio Economic Status (%) | 1 (poorest) | 1387 (20.0) | 103 (20.2) | 19 (20.0) |
| 2 | 1359 (19.6) | 130 (25.5) | 22 (23.2) | |
| 3 | 1383 (19.9) | 102 (20.0) | 22 (23.2) | |
| 4 | 1390 (20.0) | 100 (19.6) | 16 (16.8) | |
| 5 (least poor) | 1414 (20.4) | 75 (14.7) | 16 (16.8) | |
| Individuals living in household sprayed ≤ 18 m before Nov 2006 (%) | 2701 (39.0) | 169 (33.1) | 35 (36.8) | |
| Individuals living in household sprayed from Nov 2006 – May 2009 (%) | 3084 (44.5) | 296 (58.0) | 61 (64.2) | |
|
| ||||
| Individuals living in houses with other VL cases 18 m before Nov 2006 (%) | 556 (8.0) | 70 (13.7) | 14 (14.7) | |
| Individuals living in houses with other DAT-positive individuals in Nov 2006 (%) | 2336 (33.7) | 250 (49.0) | 59 (62.1) | |
| Individuals living in houses with other VL cases between Nov 2006 – May 2009 (%) | 276 (4.0) | 51 (10.0) | 20 (21.0) | |
| Individuals living in houses with other Seroconverters between Nov 2006 – Nov 2008 (%) | 1020 (14.7) | 182 (35.7) | 36 (37.9) | |
|
| ||||
| Other VL cases ≤ 18 m before Nov 2006 50 m around the house (%) | 3750 (54.1) | 310 (60.8) | 70 (73.7) | |
| Other DAT-positive individuals in Nov 2006 50 m around the house (%) | 5965 (86.0) | 474 (92.9) | 88 (92.6) | |
| Other VL cases between Nov 2006 – May 2009 50 m around the house (%) | 3413 (49.2) | 287 (56.3) | 61 (64.2) | |
| Other Seroconverters between Nov 2006 – Nov 2008 50 m around the house (%) | 5240 (75.6) | 450 (88.2) | 91 (95.8) | |
| Median density in m2 (Interquartile range) | ||||
| People | 5.14 (4.74; 5.6) | 5.28 (4.79; 6.0) | 5.41 (4.83; 5.7) | |
| Bovine | 0.63 (0.35; 1.1) | 0.66 (0.36; 1.0) | 0.62 (0.44; 1.0) | |
| Goats | 1.05 (0.65; 1.6) | 0.97 (0.66; 1.6) | 0.99 (0.67; 1.5) | |
Risk factors for incident asymptomatically L. donovani infection (measured by seroconverters) and Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) in VL endemic villages in India and Nepal compared to subjects who stayed DAT negative over 24 months.
| Seroconverters vs Seronegatives | VL cases vs Seronegatives | ||||||
| Factors | OddsRatio | 95% CI | P-value | OddsRatio | 95% CI | P-value | |
| Country | |||||||
| India | ref | ref | |||||
| Nepal |
|
|
| 0.92 | 0.43; 1.97 | 0.825 | |
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | ref | ||||||
| Female | 0.89 | 0.73; 1.08 | 0.240 |
|
|
| |
| Age | |||||||
| 0–6 | ref | ref | |||||
| 07–13 | 1.00 | 0.74; 1.36 | 0.999 | 0.93 | 0.50; 1.73 | 0.822 | |
| 14–24 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 25–39 |
|
|
| 1.40 | 0.69; 2.81 | 0.351 | |
| over 40 |
|
|
| 1.09 | 0.57; 2.09 | 0.800 | |
| Socio Economic Status | |||||||
| 1 (poorest) | ref | ||||||
| 2 | 0.98 | 0.74; 1.32 | 0.915 | 0.89 | 0.46; 1.72 | 0.725 | |
| 3 | 0.83 | 0.61; 1.13 | 0.232 | 0.93 | 0.48; 1.80 | 0.832 | |
| 4 | 0.83 | 0.61; 1.14 | 0.252 | 0.72 | 0.35; 1.47 | 0.363 | |
| 5 (least poor) |
|
|
| 0.81 | 0.40; 1.67 | 0.576 | |
| Household sprayed ≤ 18 m before Nov 2006 |
|
|
| 1.49 | 0.80; 2.78 | 0.213 | |
| Presence of other DAT-positive individuals in the house in Nov 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Presence of other VL cases in the house from Nov 2006 to May 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Presence of other seroconverters in the house from Nov2006 to Nov 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Presence of other seroconverters around the house from Nov2006 to Nov 2008 | 1.20 | 0.86; 1.68 | 0.273 |
|
|
| |
Results from the logistic regression models with cluster as random effect to take into account the clustering of the data. All risk factors associated to seroconversion or VL cases identified in the most parsimonious models (see Table S1) were included in the final regression model. Statistically significant (P-value <0.05) results highlighted in the table (bold).