| Literature DB >> 24901845 |
Beatrix von Wissmann1, Jenna Fyfe2, Kim Picozzi2, Louise Hamill2, Charles Waiswa3, Susan C Welburn2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uganda has active foci of both chronic and acute HAT with the acute zoonotic form of disease classically considered to be restricted to southeast Uganda, while the focus of the chronic form of HAT was confined to the northwest of the country. Acute HAT has however been migrating from its traditional disease focus, spreading rapidly to new districts, a spread linked to movement of infected cattle following restocking. Cattle act as long-term reservoirs of human infective T. b. rhodesiense showing few signs of morbidity, yet posing a significant risk to human health. It is important to understand the relationship between infected cattle and infected individuals so that an appropriate response can be made to the risk posed to the community from animals infected with human pathogens in a village setting. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24901845 PMCID: PMC4046956 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002931
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Map of Uganda showing the location of study districts Kaberamaido, Dokolo, Apac and Lira.
Figure 2Location of sampling sites: Village cattle were sampled at three case village sites and three non-case villages sites each in Kaberamaido and Dokolo Districts (non- case villages: K1–3, D1–3; case villages: K4–6, D4–6) as well as 4 additional villages in Lira and Apac Districts (non-case villages: A1–2; case villages L1, A3).
Case village are shown as circles, non-case villages are shown as squares, those villages from which T. b. rhodesiense was detected in cattle are coloured red. T. brucei s.l. prevalence of respective villages provided in Table 1.
The number of T. brucei s. l. and T. b. rhodesiense positive samples in each of the 12 main study villages and the 4 additional villages of interest.
| District | Sleeping sickness status | Village ID | No. of samples | No. of | Proportion of | No. of samples positive for |
|
| ||||||
| Kaberamaido | non-case | K1 | 95 | 4 | 4.2 | 0 |
| K2 | 83 | 5 | 6.0 | 0 | ||
| K3 | 100 | 17 | 17.0 | 0 | ||
| case | K4 | 80 | 14 | 17.5 | 2 | |
| K5 | 92 | 28 | 30.4 | 1 | ||
| K6 | 70 | 3 | 4.3 | 0 | ||
| Dokolo | non-case | D1 | 68 | 5 | 7.4 | 0 |
| D2 | 63 | 2 | 3.2 | 0 | ||
| D3 | 104 | 16 | 15.4 | 2 | ||
| case | D4 | 99 | 29 | 29.3 | 5 | |
| D5 | 100 | 20 | 20.0 | 2 | ||
| D6 | 100 | 29 | 29.0 | 2 | ||
| Total (Study villages) | 1054 | 172 | 16.3 | 14 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Lira | case | L1 | 100 | 12 | 12.0 | 1 |
| Apac | non-case | A1 | 80 | 2 | 2.5 | 0 |
| A2 | 95 | 3 | 3.2 | 0 | ||
| case | A3 | 99 | 32 | 32.3 | 0 | |
| Total (Additional villages of interest) | 374 | 49 | 13.1 | 1 | ||
|
| 1428 | 221 | 15.5 | 15 | ||
Effect of individual risk factors as univariable fixed effect, (as presented by crude OR, CI and univariable p-value) with herd included as the random effect, and in final multivariable mixed effect model (as presented by adjusted OR, CI and p-value).
| Variable | Factor levels | Total (n = 1054) |
| Crude odds ratio (OR) | 95% confidence interval crude OR | Univariable p-value | Adjusted OR | 95% CI adjusted OR | Adjusted p-value |
|
| |||||||||
| Non-case | 513 | 49 (9.6) | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Case | 541 | 123 (22.7) | 2.94 | 1.38–6.24 | <0.01 | 2.96 | 1.40–6.26 | <0.01 | |
|
|
|
| |||||||
| A | 168 | 9 (5.4) | 1 | 1 | |||||
| B | 256 | 43 (16.8) | 3.51 | 1.63–7.51 | <0.01 | 3.86 | 1.79–8.32 | <0.001 | |
| C | 630 | 120 (19.0) | 4.2 | 2.08–8.67 | <0.001 | 4.6 | 2.24–9.45 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Poor | 89 | 21 (23.6) | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Medium | 826 | 133 (16.1) | 0.65 | 0.37–1.12 | = 0.118 | 0.68 | 0.39–1.18 | = 0.169 | |
| good | 139 | 18 (12.9) | 0.48 | 0.23–0.98 | <0.05 | 0.4 | 0.19–0.82 | <0.05 | |
NB: Bolded p-values are likelihood ratio test p-values and non-bolded p-values are Wald test p-values.
Uni- and multivariable mixed effect models are based on the 12 main study villages.