| Literature DB >> 28187129 |
Helen Burn1, Sintayehu Aweke2, Tariku Wondie2, Esmael Habtamu2,3, Kebede Deribe1,4, Saul Rajak3,5, Stephen Bremner6, Gail Davey1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rural populations in low-income countries commonly suffer from the co-morbidity of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Podoconiosis, trachomatous trichiasis (both NTDs) and cataract are common causes of morbidity among subsistence farmers in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. We explored whether podoconiosis was associated with cataract or trachomatous trichiasis (TT) among this population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28187129 PMCID: PMC5322969 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Socio-demographic comparisons between cases and controls.
| Variable | Podoconiosis cases n = 350 (%) | Healthy neighbourhood controls n = 350 (%) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 211 (60.3) | 219 (62.6) | 0.51 | ||
| 138 (39.4) | 131 (37.4) | |||
| 57 (12.0) | 56 (11.1) | 0.16 | ||
| 126 (36.0) | 130 (37.1) | 0.31 | ||
| 105 (30.0) | 104 (29.7) | |||
| 67 (19.1) | 81 (23.1) | |||
| 45 (12.9) | 31 (8.9) | |||
| 7 (2.0) | 4 (1.1) | |||
| 335 (95.7) | 345 (98.6) | 0.18 | ||
| 15 (4.2) | 5 (1.4) | |||
| 7 (2.0) | 3 (0.9) | <0.001 | ||
| 241 (68.9) | 291 (83.1) | |||
| 45 (12.9) | 23 (6.6) | |||
| 57 (16.3) | 33 (9.4) | |||
| 146 (41.7) | 88 (25.1) | <0.001 | ||
| 113 (32.3) | 127 (36.3) | |||
| 91 (26.0) | 135 (38.6) | |||
| , | 257 (73.4) | 277 (79.1) | 0.19 | |
| 47 (13.4) | 41 (11.7) | |||
| 28 (8.0) | 23 (6.6) | |||
| 18 (5.1) | 9 (2.6) | |||
*P value was calculated using Chi-squared test.
**P value was calculated using t test to compare difference in means.
*** Calculated using Principal Component Analysis to reduce 15 wealth index variables down to three categories of socio-economic status.
Clinical variables comparison between podoconiosis cases and controls.
| Podoconiosis cases n = 350 (%) | Healthy neighbourhood controls n = 350 (%) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 345 (98.6) | 347 (99.1) | 0.60 | |||
| 4 (1.1) | 3 (0.9) | ||||
| 336 (96.0) | 345 (98.6) | 0.04 | |||
| 14 (4.0) | 5 (1.4) | ||||
| 275 (78.6) | 301 (86.0) | 0.01 | |||
| 75 (21.4) | 49 (14.0) | ||||
| 61 (17.4) | 42 (12.0) | 0.04 | |||
| 9 (2.6) | 5 (1.4) | 0.28 | |||
| 4 (1.1) | 2 (0.6) | 0.40 | |||
| 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 264 (75.4) | 298 (52.0) | 0.001 | |||
| 86 (24.6) | 52 (14.9) | ||||
| 6 (1.7) | 5 (1.4) | 0.76 | |||
| 16 (4.6) | 6 (1.7) | 0.03 | |||
| 62 (17.7) | 40 (11.4) | 0.02 | |||
| 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.3) | ||||
| 1 (0.3) | 0 (0) | ||||
| 1 (0.3) | 0 (0) | ||||
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||||
*P value was calculated using Chi-squared test.
Clinical and socio-demographic correlates of blindness in East Gojam, Ethiopia.
| Variables | Best Visual Acuity | Odds ratio | P value | Adjusted odds ratio | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 331 | 19 | 2.97 (1.24–7.11) | 0.02 | 2.63 (1.08–6.39) | 0.03 | |
| 343 | 7 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0.94 (0.90–0.97) | 0.001 | 0.93 (0.90–0.97) | <0.001 | |||
| 251 | 18 | 3.80 (1.63–8.85) | 0.002 | 3.79 (1.48–9.69) | 0.005 | |
| 423 | 8 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 204 | 20 | 0.88 (0.20–0.38) | 0.002 | 0.17 (0.04–0.78) | 0.02 | |
| 238 | 4 | 0.52 (0.93–2.84) | 0.51 | 0.62 (0.11–3.47) | 0.56 | |
| 231 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 653 | 25 | 1.24 (0.16–9.61) | 0.83 | 1.29 (0.15–10.92) | 0.82 | |
| 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
¶Blindness defined according to ICD-10 classification of visual impairment based on best LogMAR visual acuity <1.3
*Binary logistic regression controlling for podoconiosis group, age, sex, occupation and socio-economic status
** Calculated using Principal Components Analysis to reduce 15 wealth index variables down to three categories of socio-economic status.
Clinical and socio-demographic correlates of any TT in East Gojam, Ethiopia.
| Variables | Any TT n = 700 | OR | P value | AOR | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| 65 | 285 | 1.63 (1.07–2.47) | 0.02 | 1.57 (1.02–2.40) | 0.04 | |
| 43 | 207 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0.99 (0.96–1.01) | 0.47 | 1.01 (0.90–1.03) | 0.13 | |||
| 48 | 382 | 0.45 (0.30–0.70) | 0.001 | 0.42 (0.27–0.66) | 0.003 | |
| 60 | 210 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 45 | 189 | 0.56 (0.33–0.93) | 0.03 | 0.96 (0.61–1.61) | 0.96 | |
| 31 | 209 | 1.04 (0.60–1.82) | 0.88 | 0.82 (0.45–1.43) | 0.81 | |
| 32 | 194 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 104 | 576 | 0.55 (0.20–1.53) | 0.26 | 0.90 (0.29–2.86) | 0.86 | |
| 4 | 16 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 78 | 456 | 0.76 (0.47–1.22) | 0.26 | 0.70 (0.44–1.12) | 0.15 | |
| 30 | 136 | 1 | 1 | |||
* Binary logistic regression controlling for podoconiosis group, age, sex, occupation, socio-economic status and distance from water.
** Calculated using Principal Component Analysis to reduce 15 wealth index variables down to three categories of socio-economic status.
Clinical and socio-demographic correlates of any Cataract in East Gojam, Ethiopia.
| Variables | Any Cataract n = 693 | OR | P value | AOR | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| 272 | 71 | 0.87 (0.59–1.26) | 0.47 | 0.83 (0.55–1.25) | 0.36 | |
| 286 | 64 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1.07 (1.05–1.09) | 0.004 | 1.07 (1.05–1.09) | 0.001 | |||
| 340 | 86 | 0.88 (0.60–1.31) | 0.49 | 0.76 (0.50–1.16) | 0.23 | |
| 218 | 49 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 195 | 34 | 1.81 (1.10–3.00) | 0.02 | 1.37 (0.80–2.33) | 0.25 | |
| 184 | 54 | 1.06 (0.70–1.64) | 0.80 | 0.87 (0.54–1.38) | 0.55 | |
| 179 | 47 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 547 | 126 | 3.28 (1.35–7.94) | 0.01 | 2.93 (1.14–7.79) | 0.31 | |
| 11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | |||
*Binary logistic regression controlling for podoconiosis group, age, sex, occupation and socio-economic status.
** Calculated using Principal Components Analysis to reduce 15 wealth index variables down to three categories of socio-economic status.
Seven participants could not have cataract examinations in either eye due to severe corneal opacities bilaterally.