| Literature DB >> 27377927 |
Qian Wang1, Wen-Jie Yu2, Bo Zhong3, Jing-Ye Shang2, Liang Huang2, Alexander Mastin4, Yan Huang2, Guang-Jia Zhang2, Wei He2, Patrick Giraudoux5, Wei-Ping Wu6, Philip S Craig4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human cystic echinococcosis (CE) and alveolar echinococcosis (AE) are highly endemic in Tibetan communities of Sichuan Province. Previous research in the region indicated that domestic dog was the major source of human infection, and observations indicated that domestic dog could have more access to intermediate hosts of Echinococcus spp.: both domestic livestock (CE) viscera and small mammals (AE), in early winter and again in spring. We hypothesized that there would therefore be a significant increase in the risk of canine infection with Echinococcus spp. in these two seasons and conducted a reinfection study to investigate this further.Entities:
Keywords: China; Dog infection; Echinococcus; Seasonal pattern; Tibetan communities
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27377927 PMCID: PMC4932717 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-016-0155-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Study areas of Shiqu and Seda counties in Sichuan Province, China
Comparing the prevalences between dog groups and between neighbouring sampling points by Fisher’s exact test
| Month/year | Study A | Study B |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence (No.positive/No.tested) |
| Prevalence (No.positive/No.tested) |
| ||
| Apr.,2009 | 13.36 % (78/584) | 12.5 % (8/64) | 1 | ||
| Jul. | 5.8 % (19/328) | <0.001 | 3.13 % (2/64) | 0.096 | 0.549 |
| Sept./Oct. | 0.0 % (0/141) | 0.001 | 0.0 % (0/64) | 0.496 | 1 |
| Dec. | 4.04 % (4/99) | 0.028 | 4.69 % (3/64) | 0.244 | 1 |
| Apr.,2010 | 1.56 % (1/64) | 0.649 | 1.56 % (1/64) | 0.619 | 1 |
Fig. 2The 95 %CI of dogs’ copro-prevalences for Study A and B at the five sampling points. ■ Study A ● Study B
Factors influencing the prevalence of Echinococcus spp. infection in dogs in Study A
| Month/year | Factors | Coefficient | S.E. | Wald | df |
| Odds ratio (95 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | |||||||
| Apr.(baseline) | Shiqu vs. Seda | −0.86 | 0.25 | 11.48 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.42 (0.26–0.70) |
| Female vs. male | 0.86 | 0.31 | 7.75 | 1 | 0.005 | 2.36 (4.33–1.29) | |
| Constant | −1.57 | 0.17 | 81.73 | 1 | <0.001 | 0.21 (0.15–0.29) | |
| Jul. | Shiqu vs. Seda | −2.34 | 0.64 | 13.32 | 1 | <0.001 | 0.10 (0.03–0.34) |
| Constant | −1.87 | 0.27 | 48.58 | 1 | <0.001 | 0.15 (0.09–0.26) |
Copro-Elisa prevalences for Study A and B in Shiqu and Seda counties respectively
| Month/year | Study A | Study B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prevalence for Shiqu county (No.positive/No.tested) | Prevalence for Seda county (No.positive/No.tested) |
| Prevalence for Shiqu county (No.positive/No.tested) | Prevalence for Seda county (No.positive/No.tested) |
| |
| Apr.,2009 | 9.34 % (30/321) | 18.25 % (48/263) | 0.002 | 13.21 % (7/53) | 9.09 % (1/11) | 1 |
| Jul. | 1.45 % (3/207) | 13.22 % (16/121) | <0.001 | 1.89 % (1/53) | 9.09 % (1/11) | 0.316 |
| Sept./Oct. | 0 % (0/108) | 0 % (0/33) | 1 | 0 % (0/53) | 0 % (0/11) | 1 |
| Dec. | 4.11 % (3/73) | 3.85 % (1/26) | 1 | 3.77 % (2/53) | 9.09 % (1/11) | 0.438 |
| Apr.,2010 | 1.90 % (1/53) | 0 % (0/11) | 1 | 1.89 % (1/53) | 0 % (0/11) | 1 |