| Literature DB >> 27973402 |
Florence Fournet1,2, Stéphane Rican3, Zoé Vaillant4, Anna Roudot5, Aude Meunier-Nikiema6, Daouda Kassié7,8, Roch K Dabiré9, Gérard Salem10,11.
Abstract
Dengue is an emerging infectious disease of global significance. Although this virus has been reported for a long time, its significance within the burden of diseases in West Africa is not obvious, especially in Burkina Faso. Our objective was to evaluate flavivirus presence in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and the link between anti-flavivirus antibody seroprevalence and urbanization modes. A population-based cross-sectional survey was conducted and 3015 children were enrolled from Ouagadougou districts with different types and degrees of urbanization (with/without equipment and high/low building density). Flavivirus (FLAV) IgM MAC-ELISA and FLAV indirect IgG ELISA were performed. Associations between FLAV IgG presence (sign of past infection) and various independent variables were assessed using the chi-square test and a multivariate logistic regression analysis. The apparent prevalence of past flavivirus infections among the enrolled children was 22.7% (95% CI: 22.4-26.7) (n = 685). Eleven children (0.4%; 95% CI: 0.61-2.14) were positive for FLAV IgM, indicating active transmission. Factors associated with flavivirus infection were identified among the enrolled children (age, sex), householders (educational level, asset index) and in the environment (building density, water access, waste management and house appearance); however, they showed great variability according to the city districts. The water access modality did not significantly influence FLAV IgG positivity. Conversely, apparently good practices of waste management had unexpected consequences (increased risk related to municipal dumpsters). Given the scale of ongoing urbanization and the spread of arboviral diseases, close collaboration between health and city stakeholders is needed.Entities:
Keywords: Burkina Faso; West Africa; arboviruses; health inequalities; infectious diseases; urban health
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27973402 PMCID: PMC5201367 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13121226
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area showing the different districts within Ouagadougou city.
Characteristics of the study population in the four strata.
| Category | Variable | UHBD | ULBD | SHBD | SLBD | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child | Sex | Male | 448 (51.2) * | 422 (51.3) | 286 (49.1) | 351 (47.8) | 1485 (49.3) |
| Female | 427 (48.8) | 400 (48.7) | 297 (50.9) | 384 (52.2) | 1530 (50.7) | ||
| Age | 0–4 years | 328 (37.5) | 296 (36.0) | 207 (35.5) | 230 (31.3) | 1061 (35.2) | |
| 4–10 years | 434 (49.6) | 406 (49.4) | 266 (45.6) | 367 (49.9) | 1473 (48.9) | ||
| 10–12 years | 113 (12.9) | 120 (14.6) | 110 (18.9) | 138 (18.8) | 481 (16.0) | ||
| Householder | Householder Education | Yes | 359 (41.0) | 427 (51.9) | 363 (62.3) | 343 (46.7) | 1492 (49.5) |
| No | 516 (59.0) | 395 (48.1) | 220 (37.7) | 392 (53.3) | 1523 (50.5) | ||
| Socioeconomic level | Low | 656 (75.0) | 603 (73.4) | 190 (32.6) | 373 (50.7) | 1822 (60.0) | |
| Medium | 187 (21.4) | 197 (24.0) | 103 (17.7) | 200 (27.2) | 687 (23.0) | ||
| High | 32 (3.6) | 22 (2.6) | 290 (49.7) | 162 (22.1) | 506 (17.0) | ||
| Environment | Waste management | Improper | 281 (32.1) | 304 (37.0) | 103 (17.7) | 302 (41.1) | 1517 (50.3) |
| Adequate | 594 (67.9) | 518 (63.0) | 480 (82.3) | 433 (58.9) | 1498 (49.7) | ||
| Water supply | Tap | 37 (4.2) | 17 (2.1) | 331 (56.8) | 240 (32.6) | 625 (20.7) | |
| Pump | 766 (87.5) | 639 (77.7) | 240 (41.2) | 465 (63.3) | 2110 (70.0) | ||
| Well | 72 (8.3) | 166 (20.2) | 12 (2.0) | 30 (4.1) | 280 (9.3) | ||
| House appearance | Good | 162 (18.5) | 347 (42.2) | 229 (39.3) | 170 (23.1) | 908 (30.1) | |
| Not good | 713 (81.5) | 475 (57.8) | 354 (60.7) | 565 (76.9) | 2107 (69.9) | ||
| Total | 875 | 822 | 583 | 735 | 3015 | ||
UHBD = Unstructured High Building Density; ULBD = Unstructured Low Building Density; SHBD = Structured High Building Density; SLBD = Structured Low Building Density; * n (percentage).
Apparent prevalence of previous flavivirus infections according to individual, household and environmental features.
| Independent Variables | %FLAV IgG + (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex * | Male | 20.7 (22.4–26.7) | |
| Female | 24.4 (18.7–22.8) | ||
| Age * | 0–4 years | 11.8 (9.8–13.7) | |
| 4–10 years | 25.9 (23.7–28.2) | ||
| 10–12 years | 36.4 (32.3–40.9) | ||
| Education of the householder * | Yes | 21.6 (19.5–23.7) | |
| No | 24.3 (22.0–26.6) | ||
| Duration of residence of the householder | <10 years | 27.4 (21.6–33.3) | 0.41 |
| 10 to 20 years | 22.6 (19.4–25.7) | ||
| ≥20 years | 22.2 (20.4–23.9) | ||
| Socioeconomic level * | Low | 22.4 (20.5–24.4) | |
| Medium | 26.5 (23.2–29.8) | ||
| High | 18.2 (14.8–21.5) | ||
| Water supply * | Tap | 22.2 (19.0–25.5) | |
| Pump | 21.9 (20.2–23.7) | ||
| Well | 28.9 (23.6–34.2) | ||
| Waste management * | Improper | 24.1 (22.0–26.3) | |
| Adequate | 21.2 (19.1–23.2) | ||
| House appearance * | Good | 24.4 (20.1–23.6) | |
| Not good | 21.9 (21.7–27.2) | ||
| Strata | UHBD | 20.2 (17.6–22.9) | |
| ULBD | 25.0 (22.1–28.0) | ||
| SHBD | 16.8 (13.6–19.7) | ||
| SLBD | 27.8 (24.4–30.9) | ||
| Districts | Somgandé | 29.7 (25.2–34.3) | |
| Yamtenga | 12.7 (9.6–15.5) | ||
| Zongo | 31.2 (26.6–35.5) | ||
| Pissy | 18.8 (15.2–22.8) | ||
| Dapoya | 15.5 (11.7–19.5) | ||
| Patte d’Oie | 18.4 (13.3–22.7) | ||
| Gounghin | 37.3 (31.7–42.1) | ||
| Tanghin | 19.9 (15.9–23.7) | ||
| Building density | High | 18.9 (16.8–20.8) | |
| Low | 26.3 (24.1–28.5) | ||
| Area structuration | Yes | 23.1 (20.5–25.0) | 0.97 |
| No | 22.5 (20.6–24.6) | ||
| Total | 22.7 (21.2–24.1) | ||
UHBD = Unstructured High Building Density; ULBD = Unstructured Low Building Density; SHBD = Structured High Building Density; SLBD=Structured Low Building Density. * Variables introduced in the logistic regression analysis.
Factors associated with flavivirus seroprevalence.
| Variables | UHBD | ULBD | SHBD | SLBD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0–4 years | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4–10 years | 6.52 (3.85–11.01) *** | 2.64 (1.76–3.96) *** | 1.91 (1.10–3.31) ** | 1.64 (1.10–2.45) *** | |
| 10–12 years | 11.09 (5.97–20.58) *** | 5.52 (3.32–9.18) *** | 2.72 (1.45–5.11) *** | 2.71 (1.69–4.38) *** | |
| Sex | Male | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Female | 0.92 (0.64–1.30) | 1.19 (0.85–1.67) | 1.83 (1.15–2.90) * | 1.25 (0.90–1.74) | |
| Education of the householder | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| No | 1.39 (0.95–2.01) | 1.44 (1.01–2.05) ** | 1.17 (0.71–1.92) | 1.23 (0.88–1.71) | |
| Socioeconomic level | High | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Medium | 0.64 (0.24–1.66) | 1.65 (0.49–5.53) | 1.83 (0.99–3.39) * | 2.01 (1.21–3.33) ** | |
| Low | 0.47 (0.19–1.18) | 1.03 (0.39–4.31) | 1.20 (0.65–2.21) | 1.50 (0.91–2.47) | |
| Water supply | Tap | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Pump | 0.55 (0.25–1.22) | 7.39 (0.93–58.07) * | 0.76 (0.45–1.32) | 0.84 (0.57–1.24) | |
| Well | 0.84 (0.32–2.23) | 10.27 (1.28–82.41) ** | 1.34 (0.31–5.75) | 1.22 (0.52–2.83) | |
| Waste management | Adequate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Improper | 1.56 (1.05–2.34) * | 1.17 (0.82–1.66) | 1.92 (1.11–3.34) ** | 0.90 (0.62–1.30) | |
| House appearance | Good | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Not good | 0.79 (0.49–1.29) | 2.16 (1.53–3.04) *** | 0.56 (0.45–1.45) | 1.02 (0.68–1.53) | |
UHBD = Unstructured High Building Density; ULBD = Unstructured Low Building Density; SHBD = Structured High Building Density; SLBD = Structured Low Building Density. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Photographs showing different waste collection modalities. (A) Households can start a monthly subscription with an association; here, two women are collecting waste in Gounghin with a donkey car; (B) Dumpster full of waste in a street of Gounghin, allowing Aedes mosquitoes to develop during the first rainfall.
Figure 3Aerial view of two districts of the study area in 2010 (Google Earth®). (A) Tanghin with a lot of land reserves; and (B) Gounghin with a high building density and no land reserve.