| Literature DB >> 25079964 |
Nina Weller1, Petra Clowes2, Gerhard Dobler3, Elmar Saathoff4, Inge Kroidl5, Nyanda Elias Ntinginya2, Leonard Maboko2, Thomas Löscher1, Michael Hoelscher6, Norbert Heinrich4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, Alphavirus infections and their most prominent member, chikungunya fever, a viral disease which first became apparent in Tanzania in 1953, have been very little investigated in regions without epidemic occurrence. Few data exist on burden of disease and socio-economic and environmental covariates disposing to infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25079964 PMCID: PMC4117434 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Location of Households with positive participants for anti-Alphavirus IgG and Rift Valley fever virus IgG.
Localisation of the study area in Tanzania (A). Location of households with (B) Alphavirus IgG-positive and (C) Rift Valley fever virus IgG-positive participants displayed as Voronoi polygons, with every polygon representing one household. Percent IgG-positives and total N examined in the site are displayed with site name. Households with one or more individuals positive for Alphavirus IgG are marked in red, all others in green. For Kyela site, both subsites Bujonde-Kajunjumele and Katumba-Songwe are displayed. Map created by use of Manifold System 8.0 software. (C) reproduced from [23] under creative commons license.
Association of anti-Alphavirus IgG status with environmental and socio-economic factors.
| uni-variable1 | multi-variable2 | ||||||||
| Covariate | stratum | N | % pos. | PR | 95% conf.int. | p-val | PR | 95%conf.int. | p-val |
|
| |||||||||
| per 10 years | 1215 | 1.24 | (1.18 to 1.30) | <0.001 | 1.26 | (1.20 to 1.32) | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||||||||
| per degree | 1215 | 0.58 | (0.50 to 0.66) | <0.001 | 0.86 | (0.77 to 0.95) | 0.004 | ||
| E | |||||||||
| 479.1- | 122 | 50.0 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | |
| 487.5- | 122 | 43.4 | 0.87 | (0.66 to 1.14) | 0.317 | 1.09 | (0.85 to 1.41) | 0.504 | |
| 973.7- | 118 | 33.9 | 0.68 | (0.49 to 0.94) | 0.019 | 0.73 | (0.54 to 0.98) | 0.038 | |
| 1197.8- | 120 | 15.8 | 0.32 | (0.20 to 0.51) | <0.001 | 0.41 | (0.25 to 0.66) | <0.001 | |
| 1290.9- | 123 | 4.9 | 0.10 | (0.04 to 0.22) | <0.001 | 0.16 | (0.07 to 0.37) | <0.001 | |
| 1491.4- | 120 | 4.2 | 0.08 | (0.03 to 0.20) | <0.001 | 0.13 | (0.05 to 0.34) | <0.001 | |
| 1578.0- | 122 | 10.7 | 0.21 | (0.12 to 0.37) | <0.001 | 0.27 | (0.15 to 0.47) | <0.001 | |
| 1612.8- | 123 | 9.8 | 0.20 | (0.11 to 0.35) | <0.001 | 0.23 | (0.13 to 0.40) | <0.001 | |
| 1724.5- | 123 | 5.7 | 0.11 | (0.05 to 0.24) | <0.001 | 0.19 | (0.08 to 0.43) | <0.001 | |
| 2002.8- | 122 | 2.5 | 0.05 | (0.02 to 0.15) | <0.001 | 0.10 | (0.03 to 0.34) | <0.001 | |
|
|
| ||||||||
| female | 667 | 17.1 | 1 | - | - | ||||
| male | 540 | 19.3 | 1.13 | (0.89 to 1.42) | 0.318 | ||||
| missing data | 8 | 12.5 | 0.73 | (0.12 to 4.61) | 0.739 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| per unit | 1215 | 0.90 | (0.86 to 0.94) | <0.001 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| No | 692 | 10.4 | 1 | - | - | ||||
| Yes | 523 | 28.1 | 2.70 | (2.07 to 3.53) | <0.001 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| Never | 694 | 10.2 | 1 | - | - | ||||
| Sometimes | 55 | 16.4 | 1.60 | (0.84 to 3.05) | 0.153 | ||||
| Most times | 21 | 23.8 | 2.33 | (1.10 to 4.94) | 0.028 | ||||
| Always | 443 | 30.0 | 2.93 | (2.25 to 3.84) | <0.001 | ||||
| missing data | 2 | 50.0 | 4.89 | (1.20 to 19.87) | 0.027 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| per unit | 1215 | 0.92 | (0.87 to 0.97) | 0.002 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per 0,1 units | 1215 | 2.03 | (1.56 to 2.65) | <0.001 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per 0,1 units | 1215 | 2.53 | (2.04 to 3.14) | <0.001 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per 0,1 units | 1215 | 2.49 | (1.92 to 3.23) | <0.001 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per 10° | 1215 | 1.73 | (1.02 to 2.93) | 0.043 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per 10° | 1215 | 9.70 | (6.91 to 13.60) | <0.001 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| per unit | 1215 | 1.01 | (1.01 to 1.01) | <0.001 | |||||
Results of Poisson regression models adjusted for household clustering using robust variance estimates.
N = number of observations; % pos. = percent anti-Alphavirus IgG positive in stratum; PR = Prevalence ratio; 95% conf.int = 95% confidence interval; SES rank = rank (from 0 for lowest to 10 for highest) according to socio-economic score.
1: results of separate models for each of the below covariates.
2: multivariable model including only age, elevation and slope of terrain as covariates.
Figure 2Anti-Alphavirus IgG prevalence in association with age, elevation, slope and land surface temperature.
Lowess smoothed plots of anti-ChikV IgG-seroposivitivity over age, elevation, slope of terrain, and land surface temperature during the night. Red line: anti-Alphavirus seroprevalence. Grey bars: number of observations in stratum.
Association of anti-Alphavirus IgG status with other infectious diseases.
| uni-variable1 | adjusted2 | ||||||||
| Covariate | stratum | N | % pos. | PR | 95% conf.int. ‡ | p | PR | 95%conf.int. | p |
|
| |||||||||
| neg. | 392 | 9.4 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | |
| pos. | 823 | 22.1 | 2.34 | (1.67 to 3.28) | <0.001 | 1.51 | (1.11 to 2.06) | 0.008 | |
|
| |||||||||
| neg. | 1151 | 15.2 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | |
| pos. | 62 | 71.0 | 4.67 | (3.78 to 5.76) | <0.001 | 1.68 | (1.25 to 2.25) | 0.001 | |
| miss.3 | 2 | 0.0 | ND | - | - | ND | - | - | |
|
| |||||||||
| neg. | 1049 | 13.3 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | |
| pos. | 161 | 49.1 | 3.68 | (2.95 to 4.59) | <0.001 | 1.34 | (1.06 to 1.70) | 0.013 | |
| miss.3 | 5 | 0.0 | ND | - | - | ND | - | - | |
|
| |||||||||
| neg. | 1195 | 17.8 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | |
| pos. | 18 | 33.3 | 1.87 | (0.96 to 3.64) | 0.065 | 1.01 | (0.53 to 1.94) | 0.970 | |
| miss.3 | 2 | 0.0 | ND | - | - | ND | - | - | |
Results of Poisson regression models adjusted for household clustering using robust variance estimates.
N = number of observations; % pos. = percent anti-Alphavirus IgG positive in stratum; PR = Prevalence ratio; 95% conf.int = 95% confidence interval; SFG: spotted fever group rickettsiae; IgG = Immunogolbulin G; ND = not done.
1: results of separate uni-variable models for each of the above infections.
2: results of separate multi-variable models for each of the above infections adjusted for age, elevation and slope of terrain as covariates.
3: 95% confidence interval and p-value not calculated due to lack of variability of the outcome variable in this stratum.