| Literature DB >> 26715524 |
Samuel Wanji1,2, Jonas A Kengne-Ouafo3,4, Mathias E Esum5,6, Patrick W N Chounna7,8, Bridget F Adzemye9,10, Joan E E Eyong11,12, Isaac Jato13, Fabrice R Datchoua-Poutcheu14,15, Raphael A Abong16,17, Peter Enyong18,19, David W Taylor20.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Onchocerciasis control for years has been based on mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin (IVM). Adherence to IVM repeated treatment has recently been shown to be a confounding factor for onchocerciasis elimination precisely in rain forest areas where transmission continues and Loa loa co-exists with Onchocerca volvulus. In this study, participants' oral declarations were used as proxy to determine the relationship between adherence to IVM treatment and parasitological indicators of onchocerciasis in the rain forest area of Cameroon with more than a decade of MDA.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26715524 PMCID: PMC4696282 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-015-1283-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Ivermectin intake based on oral declarations in the study population by age and sex
| IVM INTAKE | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0 | [1–3] | [4–6] | >7 | Total | ||
| Children | Male | 42 (16.2) | 179 (69.1) | 35 (13.5) | 3 (1.2) | 259 | |
| Female | 40 (18.3) | 137 (62.8) | 37 (17.0) | 4 (1.8) | 218 | ||
| Total | 82 (17.2) | 316 (66.2) | 72 (15.1) | 7 (1.5) | 477 |
| |
| Adults | Male | 169 (16.7) | 347 (34.4) | 265 (26.2) | 229 (22.7) | 1010 | |
| Female | 116 (13.2) | 293 (33.4) | 278 (31.7) | 190 (21.7) | 877 | ||
| Total | 285 (15.1) | 640 (33.9) | 543 (28.8) | 419 (22.2) | 1887 |
| |
| Total | Male | 211 (16.6) | 526 (41.4) | 300 (23.7) | 232 (18.3) | 1269 | |
| Female | 156 (14.2) | 430 (39.3) | 315 (28.8) | 194 (17.7) | 1095 | ||
| Total | 367 (15.5) | 956 (40.4) | 615 (26.0) | 426 (18.0) | 2364 |
| |
IVM Ivermectin
Observed parasitological indices of onchocerciasis in the study population by age and sex
| Gender | Number examined | Microfilaria prevalence | Nodule prevalence | WMMfD (Mf/ss) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children | Male | 259 | 135 (52.1) | 74 (28.6) | 5.62 |
| Female | 218 | 102 (46.8) | 45 (20.6) | 4.75 | |
| Total | 477 | 237 (49.7) | 119 (24.9) | 5.22 | |
| Adults | Male | 1010 | 482 (47.7 | 436 (43.2) | 5.52 |
| Female | 877 | 391 (44.6) | 305 (34.8) | 3.97 | |
| Total | 1887 | 873 (46.3) | 741 (39.3) | 4.72 | |
| Total | Male | 1269 | 617 (48.6 | 510 (40.2) | 5.54 |
| Female | 1095 | 493 (45.0) | 350 (32.0) | 4.11 | |
| Total | 2364 | 1110 (47.0 | 860 (36.4) | 4.82 |
WMMfD Williams mean microfilaria density
Proportions of individuals in defined mf load groups by age and sex
| Mf load group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0mf | 1-50mf | 51-100mf | >100mf | Total | ||
| Children | Male | 124 (47.9) | 118 (45.6) | 9 (3.5) | 8 (3.1) | 259 | |
| Female | 116 (53.2) | 94 (43.1) | 4 (1.8) | 4 (1.8) | 218 | ||
| Total | 240 (50.3) | 212 (44.4) | 13 (2.7) | 12 (2.5) | 477 |
| |
| Adults | Male | 528 (52.3) | 431 (42.7) | 27 (2.7) | 24 (2.4) | 1010 | |
| Female | 486 (55.4) | 367 (41.8) | 11 (1.3) | 13 (1.5) | 877 | ||
| Total | 1014 (53.7) | 798 (42.3) | 38 (2.0) | 37 (2.0) | 1887 |
| |
| Total | Male | 652 (51.4) | 549 (43.3) | 36 (2.8) | 32 (2.5) | 1269 | |
| Female | 602 (55.0) | 461 (42.1) | 15 (1.4) | 17 (1.6) | 1095 | ||
| Total | 1254 (53.0) | 1010 (42.7) | 51 (2.2) | 49 (2.1) | 2364 |
| |
Frequency distribution of the study population in defined nodule load groups by age and sex
| Number of nodule | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0 | 1 | 2 | >3 | Total | ||
| Children | Male | 185 (71.4) | 54 (20.8) | 12 (4.6) | 8 (3.1) | 259 | |
| Female | 173 (79.4) | 29 (13.3) | 12 (5.5) | 4 (1.8) | 218 | ||
| Total | 358 (75.1) | 83 (17.4) | 24 (5.0) | 12 (2.5) | 477 |
| |
| Adults | Male | 574 (56.8) | 244 (24.2) | 119 (11.8) | 73 (7.2) | 1010 | |
| Female | 572 (65.2) | 189 (21.6) | 68 (7.8) | 48 (5.5) | 877 | ||
| Total | 1146 (60.7) | 433 (22.9) | 187 (9.9) | 121 (6.4) | 1887 |
| |
| Total | Male | 759 (59.8) | 298 (23.5) | 131 (10.3) | 81 (6.4) | 1269 | |
| Female | 745 (68.0) | 218 (19.9) | 80 (7.3) | 52 (4.7) | 1095 | ||
| Total | 1504 (63.6) | 516 (21.8) | 211 (8.9) | 133 (5.6) | 2364 |
| |
Fig. 1Effect of ivermectin treatment on O. volvulus mf prevalence in the study population. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups written in the order children, adults (overall): [0 time] = 82, 285 (367); [1-3 times] = 316, 640 (956); [4-6 times] = 72, 543 (615); [≥7 times] = 7, 419 (426). Bars represent the 95 % margin of error. Significance level set at 5 %
Fig. 2Effect of ivermectin treatment on O. volvulus nodule prevalence in the study population. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups written in the order children, adults (overall): [0 time] = 82, 285 (367); [1-3 times] = 316, 640 (956); [4-6 times] = 72, 543 (615); [≥7 times] = 7, 419 (426). Bars represent the 95 % margin of error. Significance level set at 5 %
Fig. 3Effect of ivermectin treatment on O. volvulus mf intensity expressed as the Williams mean mf density. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups written in the order children, adults (overall): [0 time] = 82, 285 (367); [1-3 times] = 316, 640 (956); [4-6 times] = 72, 543 (615); [≥7 times] = 7, 419 (426). Bars represent the standard error of the mean. Significance level set at 5 %
Fig. 4Changes in the proportion of children in defined mf load groups in relation to IVM intake profile. (Number of people examined per IVM intake group): [0 time] = 82; [1-3 times] = 316; [4-6 times] = 72 [≥7 times] = 7). P-value given for each defined mf load group and significance level set at 5 %
Fig. 5Changes in the proportion of adults in defined mf load groups in relation to IVM intake profile. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups: [0 time] = 285; [1-3 times] = 640; [4-6 times] = 543; [≥7 times] = 419. P-value given for each defined mf load group and significance level set at 5 %
Fig. 6Changes in the proportions of study population in defined mf load groups in relation to IVM intake profile. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups: [0 time] = 367; [1-3 times] = 956; [4-6 times] =615; [≥7 times] =426). P-value given for each defined mf load group and significance level set at 5 %
Odds of having adults with defined mf loads in the different IVM intake groups (Adults only)
| Odds | IVM intake (Rounds) | Number examined | Number confirmeda | OR (95 % confidence interval) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of having people with 0 mf load | [0] | 285 | 114 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 640 | 296 | 1.29 [0.97–1.71] |
| |
| [4–6] | 543 | 325 | 2.23 [1.67–2.99] |
| |
| ≥7 | 419 | 279 | 2.99 [2.19–4.08] | P < 0.0001 | |
| Odds of having people with 1–51 mf load | [0] | 285 | 145 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 640 | 312 | 0.91 [0.69–1.21] |
| |
| [4–6] | 543 | 208 | 0.59 [0.45–0.80] |
| |
| ≥7 | 419 | 133 | 0.45 [0.33–0.61] |
| |
| Odds of having people with 51-100 mf load | [0] | 285 | 17 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 640 | 12 | 0.3 [0.14–0.]64 |
| |
| [4–6] | 543 | 5 | 0.14 [0.05–0.4] |
| |
| ≥7 | 419 | 4 | 0.15 [0.03–0.4] |
| |
| Odds of having people with >100 mf load | [0] | 285 | 9 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 640 | 17 | 0.99 [0.45–2.2] |
| |
| [4–6] | 543 | 5 | 0.28 [0.09–0.86] |
| |
| ≥7 | 419 | 3 | 0.22 [0.06–0.82] |
|
aNumber of individuals identified in each mf load group with respect to IVM intake
Odds of having people with defined mf loads in the different IVM intake groups (Overall study population)
| Odds | IVM intake (Rounds) | Number examined | Number confirmeda | OR (95 % confidence interval) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds of having people with 0 mf load | [0] | 367 | 151 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 956 | 464 | 1.35 [1.05–1.72] |
| |
| [4–6] | 615 | 357 | 1.98 [1.52–2.57] |
| |
| ≥7 | 426 | 282 | 2.85 [2.09–3.70] |
| |
| Odds of having people with 1-51 mf load | [0] | 367 | 178 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 956 | 451 | 0.94 [0.75–1.21] |
| |
| [4–6] | 615 | 244 | 0.70 [0.54–0.90] |
| |
| ≥7 | 426 | 137 | 0.50 [0.37–0.67] |
| |
| Odds of having people with 51-100 mf load | [0] | 367 | 24 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 956 | 16 | 0.24 [0.13–0.47] |
| |
| [4–6] | 615 | 7 | 0.16 [0.70–0.38] |
| |
| ≥7 | 426 | 4 | 0.35 [0.04–0.39] |
| |
| Odds of having people with >100 mf load | [0] | 367 | 14 | Reference | |
| [1–3] | 956 | 25 | 0.67 [0.34–1.32] |
| |
| [4–6] | 615 | 7 | 0.29 [0.11–0.72] |
| |
| ≥7 | 426 | 3 | 0.18 [0.05–0.63] |
|
aNumber of individuals identified in each mf load group with respect to IVM intake
Fig. 7Changes in the proportion of study population in defined nodule load groups in relation to IVM intake profile. (Number of people examined per IVM intake groups: [0 time] = 367; [1-3 times] = 956; [4-6 times] =615; [≥7 times] =426). P-value given for each defined nodule load group Significance level set at 5 %