| Literature DB >> 28152025 |
Sharmini Gunawardena1, G M G Kapilananda1, Dilhani Samarakoon1, Sashika Maddevithana1, Sulochana Wijesundera2, Lallindra V Goonaratne3, Nadira D Karunaweera1.
Abstract
Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G6PD) enzyme deficiency is known to offer protection against malaria and an increased selection of mutant genes in malaria endemic regions is expected. However, anti-malarial drugs such as primaquine can cause haemolytic anaemia in persons with G6PD deficiency. We studied the extent of G6PD deficiency in selected persons attending Teaching Hospitals of Anuradhapura and Kurunegala, two previously high malaria endemic districts in Sri Lanka. A total of 2059 filter-paper blood spots collected between November 2013 and June 2014 were analysed for phenotypic G6PD deficiency using the modified WST-8/1-methoxy PMS method. Each assay was conducted with a set of controls and the colour development assessed visually as well as with a microplate reader at OD450-630nm. Overall, 142/1018 (13.95%) and 83/1041 (7.97%) were G6PD deficient in Anuradhapura and Kurunegala districts respectively. The G6PD prevalence was significantly greater in Anuradhapura when compared to Kurunegala (P<0.0001). Surprisingly, females were equally affected as males in each district: 35/313 (11.18%) males and 107/705 (15.18%) females were affected in Anuradhapura (P = 0.089); 25/313 (7.99%) males and 58/728 (7.97%) females were affected in Kurunegala (P = 0.991). Prevalence was greater among females in Anuradhapura than in Kurunegala (P<0.05), while no such difference was observed between the males (P>0.05). Severe deficiency (<10% normal) was seen among 28/1018 (2.75%) in Anuradhapura (7 males; 21 females) and 17/1041 (1.63%) in Kurunegala (7 males; 10 females). Enzyme activity between 10-30% was observed among 114/1018 (11.20%; 28 males; 86 females) in Anuradhapura while it was 66/1041 (6.34%; 18 males; 48 females) in Kurunegala. Screening and educational programmes for G6PD deficiency are warranted in these high risk areas irrespective of gender for the prevention of disease states related to this condition.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28152025 PMCID: PMC5289554 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Colour Chart.
Prevalence of G6PD deficiency in the two Teaching Hospitals (n = 2059).
| Total (≤ 30%) | <10% | 10–30% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | n | 95% CI | % | n | 95% CI | % | n | 95% CI | |
| TH Anuradhapura (n | 13.95 | 142 | 14.68–22.72 | 2.75 | 28 | 3.58–8.82 | 11.20 | 114 | 19.17–24.07 |
| TH Kurunegala (n | 7.97 | 83 | 11.0–19.94 | 1.63 | 17 | 1.87–8.33 | 6.34 | 66 | 14.89–21.39 |
| X2 | 18.88 | 3.01 | 15.23 | ||||||
| P value | <0.001 | 0.083 | <0.001 | ||||||
an denotes the number of samples.
b95% CI denotes the interval within which lies the mean percentage level of G6PD enzyme in the population predicted at a 95% level of confidence.
Prevalence of G6PD deficiency according to gender.
| Severity | Number | Male | Female | X2 | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤10% | 28 | 7 (2.24%) | 21 (2.98%) | 0.45 | 0.504 | |
| >10–30% | 114 | 28 (8.95%) | 86 (12.20%) | 2.31 | 0.129 | |
| Total | 142 | 35 (11.18%) 95% CI | 107 (15.18%) 95% CI | 2.88 | 0.089 | |
| ≤10% | 17 | 7 (2.24%) | 10 (1.37%) | 1.01 | 0.314 | |
| >10–30% | 66 | 18 (5.75%) | 48 (6.59%) | 0.26 | 0.609 | |
| Total | 83 | 25 (7.99%) 95% CI | 58 (7.97%) 95% CI | <0.01 | 0.991 |
aPrevalence of G6PD deficiency was significantly greater among females in Anuradhapura than in Kurunegala (P<0.05).
bn denotes the number of samples.
c95% CI denotes the interval within which lies the mean percentage level of G6PD enzyme in the population predicted at a 95% level of confidence.
Fig 2Distribution of G6PD enzyme activity in the Anuradhapura district (a) and b. in the Kurunegala district (b).
Distribution of G6PD enzyme activity according to age.
| G6PD activity | Number | Age (years) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25 | 25–45 | 46–65 | >65 | |||
| ≤10% | 28 | 5 | 4 | 13 | 6 | |
| >10–30% | 114 | 23 | 22 | 56 | 13 | |
| >30–60% | 515 | 110 | 127 | 231 | 47 | |
| >60% | 361 | 80 | 104 | 139 | 38 | |
| Total | 1018 | 218 (21.4%) | 257 (25.3%) | 439 (43.1%) | 104 (10.2%) | |
| ≤10% | 17 | - | 1 | 11 | 5 | |
| >10–30% | 66 | - | 7 | 42 | 17 | |
| >30–60% | 582 | 27 | 85 | 337 | 133 | |
| >60% | 376 | 25 | 75 | 211 | 65 | |
| Total | 1041 | 52 (5.0%) | 168 (16.1%) | 601 (57.7%) | 220(21.1%) | |
Fig 3Colour code observations at varying G6PD activity levels in samples from Anuradhapura district (a) and Kurunegala district (b).
Fig 4Colour code discrepancies between observers at varying G6PD activity levels in samples from Anuradhapura district (a) and Kurunegala district (b).
Distribution of colour code discrepancies according to age and gender.
| G6PD activity | Number | Age (years) | Gender | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25 | 25–45 | 46–65 | >65 | Male | Female | ||||
| ≤10% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| >10–30% | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - | 3 | 4 | ||
| >30–60% | 42 | 10 | 7 | 21 | 4 | 10 | 32 | ||
| >60% | 15 | 3 | 7 | 5 | - | 4 | 11 | ||
| Total | 64 | 15 (23.4%) | 16 (25.0%) | 29 (45.3%) | 4 (6.3%) | 17 (26.6%) | 47 (73.4%) | ||
| ≤10% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| >10–30% | 2 | - | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| >30–60% | 52 | 2 | 6 | 25 | 19 | 14 | 38 | ||
| >60% | 26 | - | 7 | 15 | 4 | 12 | 14 | ||
| Total | 80 | 2 (2.5%) | 13 (16.3%) | 41 (51.3%) | 24 (30.0%) | 27 (33.8%) | 53 (66.3%) | ||