| Literature DB >> 24838220 |
F Ayral1, J Artois2, A-L Zilber1, F Widén3, K C Pounder4, D Aubert5, D J Bicout6, M Artois1.
Abstract
Leptospira interrogans, hantaviruses (particularly Seoul virus), hepatitis E virus (HEV), and Toxoplasma gondii are rat-associated zoonoses that are responsible for human morbidity and mortality worldwide. This study aimed to describe the infection patterns of these four pathogens in wild rats (Rattus norvegicus) across socioeconomic levels in neighbourhoods in Lyon, France. The infection or exposure status was determined using polymerase chain reaction or serology for 178 wild rats captured in 23 locations; additionally, confirmatory culture or mouse inoculation was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to investigate whether morphological and socioeconomic data could predict the infection status of the rats. This study revealed that the rat colony's age structure may influence the prevalence of L. interrogans, hantavirus, and HEV. In addition, areas with high human population densities and low incomes may be associated with a greater number of infected rats and an increased risk of disease transmission.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatitis E virus; Leptospira interrogans; Norway rats; Seoul virus; Toxoplasma gondii
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24838220 PMCID: PMC4411646 DOI: 10.1017/S0950268814001137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epidemiol Infect ISSN: 0950-2688 Impact factor: 2.451
Description of socioeconomic covariates
| Covariates | Name of covariate | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Human population density | Human population | Population/surface (km)2 |
| Median income of the population | Income | Median incomes of the population included in the IRIS |
| Population growth from 1999 to 2009 | Population growth | Population in 2009/population in 1999 |
| Percentage of 20–64 years age group | Population age | 20–64 years age group/total population |
| Percentage of flats | Per cent flat | Number of flats/number of flats + houses |
| Percentage of small flats | Per cent small flat | Number of 1- and 2-room dwellings/number of dwellings |
| Ratio of renters and owners | Ratio renter/owner | Number of renters/number of owner of their residency |
| Ratio of low-income dwellings (LID) | ratio LID | Number of LID rented/number of other rented dwellings |
| Percentage of ungraduated population | Level of graduation | Population aged >15 years without a diploma/population aged >15 years |
| Ratio of large and small families | Family size | Family with at least three children/family with two or fewer children |
| Ratio of unemployment | Rate of unemployment | Number of unemployed people/number of employed people |
The percentage of positive tests for each pathogen and the distribution of positive test results among the performed tests
| Pathogens (no. of rats tested) | SEOV ( | HEV ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of positive tests | 26% ( | 14% ( | 14% ( | 8% ( | |||
| 95% Confidence intervals | 20–33% | 8–20% | 8–20% | 2–14% | |||
| Tests | RT–PCR | Culture | Nested PCR | RT–PCR | RT–PCR | MAT | Bioassay |
| Materials | Kidney | Kidney | Lung | Liver | Feces | Blood blot | Heart |
| No. of positive tests | 44 | 22 | 18 | 18 | 12 | 6 | 0 |
Fig. 1.The distribution of clusters of low (full triangle) and high (star) prevalences of the four pathogens detected in rats trapped in the Rhône department, France.
Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for testing positive for Leptospira interrogans, SEOV, HEV or Toxoplasma gondii among Norway rats
| Covariates | Modes | SEOV status ( | HEV status ( | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLR | GLM | GLMM | SLR | GLM | GLMM | SLR | GLM | GLMM | SLR | GLM | GLMM | ||
| OR | aOR | aOR | OR | aOR | aOR | OR | aOR | aOR | OR | aOR | aOR | ||
| Survival after trapping | Dead | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | n.a. | ||||||||
| Alive | — | — | 2·2 (0·9–5·2) | — | — | 1·2 (0·5–2·8) | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| Rat preservatives | Frozen | Ref. | Ref | Ref. | n.a. | ||||||||
| Fresh | — | — | 1·7 (0·6–4·5) | — | — | 1·2 (0·5–3·1) | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| Sex | Female | Ref. | Ref | Ref. | n.a. | ||||||||
| Male | 1·7 (0·9–3·2) | — | — | 1·5 (0·6–3·6) | — | — | 1 (0·4–2·4) | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Maturity | Juvenile | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | n.a. | |||||||
| Adult | 6·2 (1·1–34) | 10·5 (0·8–138) | 2·2 (0·7–7) | 2·6 (0·5–14·7) | — | — | — | ||||||
| Pregnancy | No | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | n.a. | ||||||||
| Yes | 1·5 (0·5–4·1) | 0·4 (0·1–2·5) | — | — | 1·1 (0·2–5) | — | — | — | — | — | |||
| Body condition | 1 (0·9–1·0) | — | — | 1 (0·9–1) | — | — | 0·9 (0·9–1·0) | — | — | — | — | ||
| Human population | — | — | — | — | 1·2 (0·7–2·3) | — | — | ||||||
| Incomes (median) | 0·4 (0·1–2·1) | 1·3 (0·8–2·2) | — | — | |||||||||
| Population expansion | 1·1 (0·8–1·5) | — | — | 1·4 (0·9–2·3) | — | — | 1·4 (0·9–2·2) | — | — | 1·7 (0·8–3·9) | — | — | |
| Population age | — | — | 0·2 (0·02–1·3) | — | — | 0·1 (0·01–1·2) | — | — | 0·7 (0·4–1·4) | — | — | ||
| Per cent flat | — | — | 1·6 (0·9–2·5) | — | — | 1·5 (0·9–2·2) | — | — | 0·7 (0·3–1·6) | — | — | ||
| Per cent small flat | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1·1 (0·4–2·8) | — | — | ||||
| Ratio renter/owner | — | — | 0·6 (0·3–1·1) | — | — | 0·5 (0·3–1·1) | — | — | 1·2 (0·8–2·0) | — | — | ||
| Ratio LID | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0·9 (0·5–1·6) | — | — | ||||
| Level of graduation | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0·1 (0·0–7·3) | — | — | ||||
| Family size | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0·8 (0·5–1·5) | — | — | ||||
| Rate of unemployment | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0·8 (0·5–1·4) | — | — | ||||
SLR, Simple logistic regression; GLM, generalized linear model; GLMM, generalized linear mixed model; OR, odds ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; n.a., not applicable; LID, low-income dwelling.
Variance of the random effect = 0·007.
Variance of the random effect = 1·7.
Variance of the random effect = 8·9.
All results in bold were significantly different from 1 at α⩽0·05.
Adjusted odds ratios using the final GLM or GLMM and incorporating the human population density (HPD) and median income (MI) by quadrat (a, b, c, d)
| Covariates | SEOV status | HEV status | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aOR | 95% CI | aOR | 95% CI | aOR | 95% CI | |||||
| Maturity | Juveniles | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| Adults | 9·3 | (0·7–124) | 0·09 | 2·1 | (0·4–11·4) | 0·38 | ||||
| HPD (a) | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| MI (a) | 0·7 | (0·5–1·0) | 0·19 | 0·4 | (0·03–5·8) | 0·44 | 0·3 | (0·1–0·7) | 0·007 | |
| Maturity | Juveniles | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| Adults | 7·9 | (0·6–100) | 0·11 | 3·9 | (0·6–24·8) | 0·14 | ||||
| HPD (b) | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| MI (b) | 0·01 | (0·0–1·7) | 0·08 | 0·5 | (0·1–2·1) | 0·38 | ||||
| Maturity | Juveniles | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| Adults | 7·9 | (0·6–100) | 0·11 | 4·6 | (0·8–27) | 0·03 | ||||
| HPD (c) | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| MI (c) | 0·6 | (0·1–2·1) | 0·41 | |||||||
| Maturity | Juveniles | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||
| Adults | 6·8 | (0·5–84) | 0·13 | 4·3 | (0·7–27·9) | 0·126 | ||||
| HPD (d) | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||
| MI (d) | 0·02 | (0·0–0·4) | 0·009 | 0·7 | (0·2–2·6) | 0·63 | ||||
aOR, Adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
aOR, 95% CI and P values obtained using the final L. interrogans GLM.
aOR, 95% CI and P values obtained using the final SEOV GLMM.
aOR, 95% CI and P values obtained using the final HEV GLMM.
Fig. 2.The spatial distribution of human population density and median incomes in Lyon city centre overlaid with high and low prevalence of L. interrogans carriage in Norway rats.