| Literature DB >> 26641459 |
Nicola A Wardrop1, Lian F Thomas2,3, Peter M Atkinson4,5,6, William A de Glanville2,3, Elizabeth A J Cook2,3, C Njeri Wamae7,8, Sarah Gabriël9, Pierre Dorny9, Leslie J S Harrison10, Eric M Fèvre3,11.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Taenia spp. infections, particularly cysticercosis, cause considerable health impacts in endemic countries. Despite previous evidence of spatial clustering in cysticercosis and the role of environmental factors (e.g. temperature and humidity) in the survival of eggs, little research has explored these aspects of Taenia spp. EPIDEMIOLOGY: In addition, there are significant gaps in our understanding of risk factors for infection in humans and pigs. This study aimed to assess the influence of socio-economic, behavioural and environmental variables on human and porcine cysticercosis. A cross-sectional survey for human taeniasis (T. solium and T. saginata), human cysticercosis (T. solium) and pig cysticercosis (T. solium) in 416 households in western Kenya was carried out. These data were linked to questionnaire responses and environmental datasets. Multi-level regression was used to examine the relationships between covariates and human and porcine cysticercosis. The HP10 Ag-ELISA sero-prevalence (suggestive of cysticercosis) was 6.6% for humans (95% CI 5.6%-7.7%), and 17.2% for pigs (95% CI 10.2%-26.4%). Human taeniasis prevalence, based on direct microscopic observation of Taenia spp. eggs (i.e. via microscopy results only) was 0.2% (95% CI 0.05%-0.5%). Presence of Taenia spp. antigen in both humans and pigs was significantly associated with a range of factors, including positive correlations with land cover. The presence of HP10 antigen in humans was correlated (non-linearly) with the proportion of land within a 1 km buffer that was flooding agricultural land and grassland (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09 and 0.998; p = 0.03 and 0.03 for the linear and quadratic terms respectively), gender (OR = 0.58 for males compared to females, p = 0.02), level of education (OR = 0.62 for primary level education versus no formal education, p = 0.09), use of well water for drinking (OR = 2.76 for those who use well water versus those who do not, p = 0.02) and precipitation (OR = 0.998, p = 0.02). Presence of Taenia spp. antigen in pigs was significantly correlated with gender and breeding status of the pig (OR = 10.35 for breeding sows compared to boars, p = 0.01), and the proportion of land within a 1 km buffer that was flooding agricultural land and grassland (OR = 1.04, p = 0.004). These results highlight the role of multiple socio-economic, behavioural and environmental factors in Taenia spp. transmission patterns. Environmental contamination with Taenia spp. eggs is a key issue, with landscape factors influencing presence of Taenia spp. antigens in both pigs and humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26641459 PMCID: PMC4671581 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004223
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Map of the study area.
Map of Kenya highlighting location of the study area (red outline), with inset map of study area illustrating the household locations.
Covariates used in the analysis of Taenia spp. antigen presence in human and porcine sera: Covariates used for each analysis are marked with an X.
| Human | Porcine | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Age group | X | |
| Gender | X | ||
| Ethnic background | X | ||
| Religion | X | ||
| Education | X | ||
| Eat beef | X | ||
| Eat beef frequency | X | ||
| Eat pork | X | ||
| Eat pork frequency | X | ||
| Latrine use | X | ||
|
| Age group | X | |
| Gender | X | ||
| Origin | X | ||
| Breeding status | X | ||
|
| Latrine in compound | X | X |
| Latrine type | X | X | |
| Evidence of latrine use | X | X | |
| Previous village flooding | X | X | |
| Water source | X | X | |
| % agricultural land and grassland | X | X | |
| % flooding land | X | X | |
| % flooding agricultural land and grassland | X | X | |
| % swamp | X | X | |
| % woodland and shrubs | X | X | |
| % vegetated land | X | X | |
| % water bodies | X | X | |
| Soil sand content | X | X | |
| Water pH | X | X | |
| Mean temperature | X | X | |
| Precipitation | X | X | |
| Elevation | X | X | |
| Population density | X | X |
*Land cover variables were calculated as the percentage of land within a 1 km buffer that consisted of each land cover class.
Fig 2Household sampling results for HP10-antigen detection.
The percentage of the household residents tested who were found to be positive by HP10-antigen ELISA is displayed for the human results, but due to the relatively small numbers of pigs tested, household level presence or absence of antigen in pigs is displayed rather than percentage positive.
Descriptive data for prevalence of Taenia spp. antigen (suggestive of cysticercosis) in humans for categorical covariates at levels 1 and 2.
| Group | HP10 negative | HP10 positive | Prevalence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| 815 | 59 | 6.8% |
|
| 362 | 21 | 5.5% | ||
|
| 348 | 23 | 6.2% | ||
|
| 288 | 18 | 5.9% | ||
|
| 141 | 17 | 10.8% | ||
|
|
| 1036 | 86 | 7.7% | |
|
| 918 | 52 | 5.4% | ||
|
|
| 999 | 56 | 5.3% | |
|
| 427 | 36 | 7.8% | ||
|
| 236 | 19 | 7.5% | ||
|
| 277 | 26 | 8.6% | ||
|
| 15 | 1 | 6.3% | ||
|
|
| 39 | 2 | 4.9% | |
|
| 1870 | 136 | 6.8% | ||
|
| 13 | 0 | 0% | ||
|
| 31 | 0 | 0% | ||
|
|
| 338 | 31 | 8.4% | |
|
| 1364 | 90 | 6.2% | ||
|
| 200 | 12 | 5.7% | ||
|
| 48 | 4 | 7.7% | ||
|
|
| 269 | 18 | 6.3% | |
|
| 1683 | 120 | 6.7% | ||
|
|
| 645 | 51 | 7.3% | |
|
| 1020 | 68 | 6.3% | ||
|
| 289 | 19 | 6.2% | ||
|
|
| 671 | 47 | 6.5% | |
|
| 1283 | 91 | 6.6% | ||
|
|
| 281 | 29 | 9.4% | |
|
| 1002 | 62 | 5.8% | ||
|
| 671 | 47 | 6.5% | ||
|
|
| 1234 | 95 | 7.1% | |
|
| 365 | 17 | 4.5% | ||
|
| 239 | 16 | 6.3% | ||
|
| 113 | 10 | 8.1% | ||
|
|
|
| 394 | 35 | 8.2% |
|
| 1560 | 103 | 6.2% | ||
|
|
| 413 | 37 | 8.2% | |
|
| 1067 | 62 | 5.5% | ||
|
| 80 | 4 | 4.8% | ||
|
| 394 | 35 | 8.2% | ||
|
|
| 38 | 4 | 9.5% | |
|
| 1522 | 99 | 6.1% | ||
|
| 394 | 35 | 8.2% | ||
|
|
| 1608 | 98 | 5.7% | |
|
| 346 | 40 | 10.4% | ||
|
|
| 1539 | 124 | 7.5% | |
|
| 415 | 14 | 3.3% | ||
|
|
| 1686 | 101 | 5.7% | |
|
| 268 | 37 | 12.1% | ||
|
|
| 1157 | 72 | 5.9% | |
|
| 797 | 66 | 7.6% | ||
|
|
| 1574 | 115 | 6.8% | |
|
| 380 | 23 | 5.7% | ||
|
|
| 1810 | 134 | 6.9% | |
|
| 144 | 4 | 2.7% | ||
|
|
| 1870 | 136 | 6.8% | |
|
| 84 | 2 | 2.3% | ||
|
|
| 1045 | 78 | 6.9% | |
|
| 909 | 60 | 6.2% | ||
|
|
| 1076 | 99 | 8.4% | |
|
| 878 | 39 | 4.3% |
Descriptive data for prevalence of Taenia spp. antigen (suggestive of cysticercosis) in pigs for categorical covariates.
| Covariates | Group | HP10 negative | HP10 positive | Prevalence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 8 | 1 | 0% |
|
| 61 | 11 | 15.3% | |
|
| 8 | 5 | 38.5% | |
|
|
| 42 | 10 | 19.2% |
|
| 35 | 6 | 14.6% | |
|
|
| 20 | 5 | 20.0% |
|
| 57 | 11 | 16.2% | |
|
|
| 35 | 6 | 14.6% |
|
| 39 | 6 | 13.3% | |
|
| 3 | 4 | 57.1% | |
|
|
| 58 | 8 | 12.1% |
|
| 19 | 8 | 29.6% | |
|
|
| 36 | 7 | 16.3% |
|
| 41 | 9 | 18.0% | |
|
|
| 8 | 1 | 11.1% |
|
| 69 | 15 | 17.9% | |
|
|
| 16 | 1 | 5.9% |
|
| 52 | 12 | 20.0% | |
|
| 1 | 1 | 50.0% | |
|
| 8 | 1 | 11.1% | |
|
|
| 8 | 1 | 11.1% |
|
| 59 | 13 | 18.1% | |
|
| 10 | 2 | 16.7% | |
|
|
| 69 | 14 | 16.9% |
|
| 8 | 2 | 20.0% | |
|
|
| 24 | 2 | 7.7% |
|
| 51 | 13 | 20.3% | |
|
|
| 17 | 5 | 22.7% |
|
| 58 | 10 | 14.7% |
Multivariable model for presence of Taenia spp. antigen in humans.
AUC = 0.96.
| Covariate | Category | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.42 (0.03–5.34) | 0.51 | ||
|
|
| Male | 0.58 (0.37–0.91) | 0.02 |
|
| Primary | 0.62 (0.36–1.07) | 0.09 | |
| Secondary | 0.70 (0.30–1.66) | 0.42 | ||
| Above | 0.74 (0.18–2.99) | 0.67 | ||
|
|
| Yes | 2.76 (1.17–6.51) | 0.02 |
|
| NA | 1.09 (1.01–1.17) | 0.03 | |
|
| NA | 0.998 (0.996–0.999) | 0.03 | |
|
| NA | 0.998 (0.996–0.999) | 0.02 |
*Percentage of land within a 1 km buffer around the homestead which contains flooding agricultural land and grassland (included as a quadratic expression).
Multivariable model for presence of Taenia spp. antigen in pigs.
AUC = 0.77.
| Covariate | Category | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.09 (0.03–0.24) | <0.005 | |
|
| Non breeding sow | 0.70 (0.17–2.58) | 0.57 |
| Breeding sow | 10.35 (1.72–70.84) | 0.01 | |
|
| NA | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.004 |
*Percentage of land within a 1 km buffer around the homestead which contains flooding agricultural land and grassland.