| Literature DB >> 26996821 |
Joule Madinga1, Kirezi Kanobana2, Philippe Lukanu3, Emmanuel Abatih2, Sylvain Baloji4, Sylvie Linsuke5, Nicolas Praet2, Serge Kapinga5, Katja Polman2, Pascal Lutumba6, Niko Speybroeck7, Pierre Dorny2, Wendy Harrison8, Sarah Gabriel2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Taenia solium infections are mostly endemic in less developed countries where poor hygiene conditions and free-range pig management favor their transmission. Knowledge on patterns of infections in both human and pig is crucial to design effective control strategies. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence, risk factors and spatial distribution of taeniasis in a rural area of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), in the prospect of upcoming control activities.Entities:
Keywords: Democratic republic of Congo; Epidemiology; Porcine cysticercosis; Spatial clustering; Taeniasis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26996821 PMCID: PMC5178865 DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.03.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Trop ISSN: 0001-706X Impact factor: 3.112
Fig. 1Map of the DRC showing the location of Kimpese health zone.
Prevalences of taeniasis and porcine cysticercosis in different villages of the study area.
| Health area | Village | Positive in Copro-Ag ELISA (taeniasis) | Seropositive in Ag-ELISA (porcine cysticercosis) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion | % (95%CI) | Proportion | % (95%CI) | ||
| All | All | 1112/4751 | 23.4 (22.2–24.6) | 154/338 | 45.6 (40.2–51.0) |
| Kiasungwa | Kiasungwa | 170/899 | 18.9 (16.4–21.7) | – | – |
| Nzovo | 153/252 | 60.7 (54.4–66.8) | 4/9 | 44.4 (13.7–78.8) | |
| Kimu | 82/171 | 48.0 (40.3–55.7) | 9/14 | 64.3 (35.1–87.2) | |
| Lubi | 37/96 | 38.5 (28.8–49.0) | 4/6 | 66.7 (22.3–95.7) | |
| Malanga | Nkumbi | 27/132 | 20.5 (13.9–28.3) | 8/18 | 44.4 (21.5–69.2) |
| Vala | 15/73 | 20.5 (12.0–31.6) | 1/5 | 20 (0.5–71.6) | |
| Nkoko | 2/26 | 7.7 (0.9–25.1) | 3/5 | 60 (14.7–94.7) | |
| Lombo | 13/89 | 14.6 (8.0–23.7) | 0/7 | 0 (0.0–41.0) | |
| Kilueka | Kitobola | 78/416 | 18.8 (15.2–22.9) | 6/26 | 23.1 (9.0–43.6) |
| Nzundu | 87/210 | 41.4 (34.7–48.4) | 12/21 | 47.6 (25.7–70.2) | |
| Kidada | 21/123 | 17.1 (10.9–24.9) | 9/31 | 29 (14.2–48) | |
| Lovo | Lovo | 31/181 | 17.1 (11.9–23.4) | 12/17 | 70.6 (44.0–89.7) |
| Kuluzu | 3/72 | 4.2 (0.9–11.7) | 16/17 | 94.1 (71.3–99) | |
| Kikongo | 27/148 | 18.2 (12.4–25.4) | 4/17 | 23.5 (6.8–49.9) | |
| Tambi | 70/127 | 55.1 (46–63.9) | 12/21 | 57.1 (34.0–78.2) | |
| Lumbi | 16/256 | 6.3 (3.6–10) | 10/18 | 55.6 (30.8–78.5) | |
| Mbiwu | 45/169 | 26.6 (20.1–34) | 18/28 | 44.4 (21.5–69.2) | |
| Tole | 22/124 | 19.4 (12.8–27.4) | 2/5 | 40 (5.3–85.3) | |
| Dibu | 1/101 | 1 (0.0–5.4) | 2/9 | 22.2 (2.8–60.0) | |
| Viaza | Camp Kwiti | 10/32 | 31.3 (16.7–50.0) | 1/10 | 10 (0.3–44.5) |
| Vunda | 7/80 | 8.8 (3.6–17.2) | – | – | |
| Vundansole | Vundansole | 71/340 | 20.9 (16.8–25.7) | 11/26 | 42.3 (23.4–63.1) |
| Sanzikwa | 77/369 | 20.9 (16.9–25.4) | 3/8 | 37.5 (8.5–75.5) | |
| Ngombe | 45/265 | 17.0 (12.7–22.1) | 9/20 | 45.0 (23.1–68.5) | |
Patterns of taeniasis by explanatory variables and multilevel analysis odds ratio (OR).
| Characrteristics | Positive in Copro-Ag-ELISA (taeniasis) | Multilevel analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion | % (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | p | |
| All | 1075/4599 | 23.4 (22.2–24.6) | – | – |
| Sex | ||||
| F | 542/2359 | 23.0 (21.3–24.7) | 1 | |
| M | 533/2240 | 23.8 (22.1–25.6) | 1.05 (0.9–1.2) | 0.5 |
| Age categories | ||||
| 5-10 years | 300/1113 | 27.0 (24.4–29.7) | 1 | |
| 11-22 years | 289/1143 | 25.3 (22.8–27.9) | 0.92 (0.76–1.1) | 0.37 |
| 23-40 years | 267/1169 | 22.8 (20.5–25.4) | 0.80 (0.66–0.97) | |
| 41-93 years | 219/1174 | 18.6 (16.5–21.0) | 0.62 (0.5–0.76) | |
| Presence of a latrine | ||||
| No | 458/1871 | 24.5 (22.6–26.5) | 1 | |
| Yes | 617/2728 | 22.6 (21.1–24.2) | 0.9 (0.78–1.17) | 0.14 |
| Use of the latrine | ||||
| No | 537/2211 | 24.3 (22.5–26.1) | 1 | |
| Yes | 538/2388 | 22.5 (20.9–24.3) | 0.9 (0.79–1.04) | 0.15 |
| Breeding pigs | ||||
| No | 938/3994 | 23.5 (22.2–24.8) | 1 | |
| Yes | 137/605 | 22.6 (19.4–26.2) | 0.95 (0.78–1.17) | 0.65 |
All pigs were reared at free-range.
Fig. 2Ripley’s K function for taeniasis positive cases in the health zone of Kimpese. The black line represents the observed L function and the dashed lines represent the confidence envelopes calculated from 999 simulations under the hypothesis of complete spatial randomness (CSR). The observed L function lies above the envelopes, showing significant clustering.
Fig. 3Ripley’s K function for porcine cysticercosis cases in the health zone of Kimpese. The black line represents the observed L function and the dashed lines represent the confidence envelopes calculated from 999 simulations under the hypothesis of complete spatial randomness (CSR). The observed L function lies above the envelopes, showing significant clustering.
Fig. 4Bivariate K function for the copro-antigen positive human (taeniasis) and seropositive pigs (porcine cysticercosis). The dashed line represents the confidence envelopes calculated using 1000 simulations under the random toroidal shifts method and the black line represents the observed L function. The observed L function lies between the confidence envelopes, which means a complete spatial random distribution of both human and pigs infections.
Fig. 5(a) Map of taeniasis positivity in villages of the rural health zone of Kimpese including location of taeniasis significant clusters. (b) Map of porcine cysticercosis positivity in villages of the rural health zone of Kimpese including location of porcine cysticercosis significant cluster.