| Literature DB >> 24635830 |
Kwadwo A Kusi1, Samuel Bosomprah, Daniel Dodoo, Eric Kyei-Baafour, Emmanuel K Dickson, Daniel Mensah, Evelina Angov, Sheetij Dutta, Martha Sedegah, Kwadwo A Koram.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reported malaria cases continue to decline globally, and this has been attributed to strategic implementation of multiple malaria control tools. Gains made would however need to be sustained through continuous monitoring to ensure malaria elimination and eradication. Entomological inoculation rate (EIR) is currently the standard tool for transmission monitoring but this is not sensitive enough, especially in areas of very low transmission. Transmission estimation models based on seroconversion rates (λ) of antibodies to Plasmodium falciparum blood stage antigens are gaining relevance. Estimates of λ, which is the measure of transmission intensity, correlate with EIR but are limited by long-term persistence of antibodies to blood stage antigens. Seroprevalence of antibodies to sporozoite antigens may be better alternatives since these antigens usually have shorter immune exposure times. The aim of this study was to develop transmission estimation models based on the seroprevalence of antibodies to two P. falciparum sporozoite antigens (CSP, CelTOS) and compare with models based on the classical blood stage antigen AMA1.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24635830 PMCID: PMC3995447 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Comparison of ODby cross-sectional sampling times for all three antigens. Antigen-specific optical density (OD) values at the three cross-sectional time points (months 0, 3 and 6) were compared within each age group using Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance by Ranks tests, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc tests where necessary. Month 0 is the dry season while months 3 and 6 represent the major and minor rainy seasons, respectively. Boxes represent the median, lower quartile (25th percentile) and upper quartile (75th percentile) of each data subset, and whiskers are 1.5 times the interquartile range. Red asterisks (*) indicate a statistically significant difference (p value <0.05) in median OD between month 0 and any of the two other time points (month 3 or month 6) following pair-wise comparisons. No significant differences were observed between month 3 and month 6 OD data for all three antigens following the post-hoc tests.
Figure 2Proportion of seropositive individuals and monthly rainfall over study period. For each antigen, seropositivity was defined using a mixture model, which involves maximum likelihood estimation of seronegative individuals from a Gaussian distribution of OD data for each antigen. No statistically significant differences were found amongst the proportions seropositive at the three time points for any of the three antigens.
Figure 3Seroprevalence curves for all antigens at each cross-section. Seroprevalence curves represent the rate at which individuals become seropositive to specific antigens. In each graph, points represent age seroprevalence (divided into deciles), unbroken lines represent maximum likelihood curves and broken lines represent 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Log-likelihood profiles for reversible catalytic models of probability seropositive to AMA1, CelTOS and CSP. Models incorporate data from all three cross-sectional time points and allow for abrupt changes in transmission intensity at some time point.
Seroconversion and seroreversion rates for models based on AMA1, CelTOS and CSP
| AMA1 | February | 294 | 0.144 (0.089, 0.235) | 0.131 (0.057, 0.302) |
| | May | 294 | 0.074 (0.051, 0.108) | 0.005 (0.000, 51.872) |
| | August | 294 | 0.078 (0.051, 0.118) | 0.034 (0.005, 0.223) |
| | | 0.095 (0.070, 0.129) | 0.055 (0.022, 0.135) | |
| CelTOS | February | 294 | 0.026 (0.013, 0.054) | 0.057 (0.005, 0.609) |
| | May | 294 | 0.027 (0.012, 0.059) | 0.079 (0.010, 0.617) |
| | August | 294 | 0.020 (0.015, 0.027) | 0.0000002 (0.00, 4718.9) |
| | | 0.023 (0.013, 0.041) | 0.036 (0.002, 0.552) | |
| CSP | February | 294 | λ1 = 0.226 (0.073, 1.700) | 0.171 (0.093, 0.311) |
| | | *LRT: P < 0.01 | λ2 = 0.022 (0.012, 0.040) | |
| | May | 294 | 0.033 (0.014, 0.077) | 0.132 (0.029, 0.595) |
| | August | 294 | 0.028 (0.014, 0.055) | 0.054 (0.006, 0.512) |
| *LRT: P < 0.01 | λ1 = 0.319 (0.084, 1.219) | 0.278 (0.166, 0.464) | ||
| λ2 = 0.024 (0.013, 0.044) | ||||
Seroconversion and seroreversion rates are estimated from seroprevalence curves for each antigen (Figures 3 and 4).
Reversible catalytic model with standard error adjusted for clusters due to repeated cross-sectional sampling.
*LRT represents likelihood ratio test of no change in seroconversion rate.