| Literature DB >> 28248960 |
Houda Chebli1, Abderrhamane Laamrani El Idrissi1, Mustapha Benazzouz2, Badre Eddine Lmimouni3, Haddou Nhammi1, Mourad Elabandouni1, Mohammed Youbi1, Rajaa Afifi2, Sara Tahiri3, Abdellah Essayd El Feydi2, Adbellatif Settaf4, Carmine Tinelli5, Annalisa De Silvestri5, Souad Bouhout1, Bernadette Abela-Ridder6, Simone Magnino6, Enrico Brunetti7,8, Carlo Filice7,8, Francesca Tamarozzi7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is a neglected parasitic zoonosis with considerable socioeconomic impact on affected pastoral communities. CE is endemic throughout the Mediterranean, including Morocco, where the Mid Atlas is the most prevalent area for both human and animal infection. The highest hospital annual incidence of human CE is recorded in the provinces of Ifrane and El Hajeb. However, hospital-based statistics likely underestimate the real prevalence of infection, as a proportion of cases never reach medical attention or official records. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28248960 PMCID: PMC5348040 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Map of Morocco and the survey area.
The survey area is indicated in black. This includes the rural communes of Timahdit and Ain Louh in the province of Ifrane, and the rural communes of Bouderbala and Sebt Jehjouh in the province of El Hajeb, Meknes-Tafilalet region (designated as such until December 2014). Modified from Di Hanhil [Public Domani] Wikimedia Commons.
Fig 2Examined people and CE cases observed during the screening campaigns.
*One patient reported previous surgery for pulmonary CE.
Demographic characteristics distribution of the screened and general population of the investigated provinces.
Three children (aged 3, 8 and 9 years) and 19 adults (aged 81–94 years) were outside the target age range.
| Screened population Ifrane | Screened population El Hajeb | General population Ifrane | General population El Hajeb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 840 (31.9%) | 691 (26.7%) | 48.9% | 49.8% | |
| 1793 (68.1%) | 1897 (73.3%) | 51.1% | 50.2% | |
| 40.4 (18.0) | 39.7 (17.6) | |||
| 448 (17.0%) | 504 (19.5%) | 39.6% | 37.1% | |
| 972 (36.9%) | 931 (35.8%) | 33.1% | 33.5% | |
| 803 (30.5%) | 866 (33.5%) | 18.2% | 17.5% | |
| 398 (15.1%) | 268 (10.4%) | (>60 years) 9.1% | (>60 years) 7.8% | |
| 4 (0.2%) | 15 (0.6%) | |||
| 8 (0.3%) | 4 (0.2%) | |||
| 395 (15.0%) | 212 (8.2%) | |||
| 348 (13.2%) | 343 (13.3%) | |||
| 154 (5.9%) | 141 (5.4%) | |||
| 1394 (52.9%) | 1326 (51.2%) | |||
| 99 (3.8%) | 86 (3.3%) | |||
| 132 (5.0%) | 92 (3.6%) | |||
| 111 (4.2%) | 388 (15.0%) | |||
Population screened and prevalence of abdominal CE in the investigated provinces and rural communes.
| Province | Rural commune | N screened | CE cases | Prevalence (95% CI) | p-value between provinces | OR (95% CI) compared with Sebt Jahjouh | p-value compared with Sebt Jahjouh |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ifrane | Timahdit | 1336 | 38 | 2.8% (2.0%-3.9%) | 3.3 (1.6–6.7) | ||
| Ain Louh | 1297 | 31 | 2.4% (1.6%-3.4%) | 2.8 (1.4–5.7) | |||
| Total | 2633 | 69 | 2.6% (2.0%-3.3%) | ||||
| El Hajeb | Bouderbala | 1447 | 23 | 1.6% (1.0%-2.4%) | 1.8 (0.9–3.9) | p = 0.114 | |
| Sebt Jahjouh | 1141 | 10 | 0.9% (0.4%-1.6%) | - | - | ||
| Total | 2588 | 33 | 1.3% (0.9%-1.8%) | ||||
| Total | 5221 | 102 | 1.9% (1.6%-2.4%) | ||||
Risk factor analysis for CE infection.
| Crude OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ifrane | El Hajeb | |||
| Age (per year) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | ||
| Sex (M vs F) | 0.9 (0.5–1.5) | 0.5 (0.2–1.3) | ||
| Recognition of | 0.9 (0.4–1.4) | 1.1 (0.5–2.2) | 0.9 (0.6–1.8); | p = 0.970 |
| Main type of water source | ||||
| Open source | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Tap | 1.2 (0.7–2.3) | 1.0 (0.2–4.2) | 1.2 (0.7–2.2) | p = 0.440 |
| Public fountain | 1.1 (0.6–1.9) | 1.7 (0.8–3.5) | 1.3 (0.8–2.1) | p = 0.208 |
| Livestock breeding in the household (yes/no) | 1.2 (0.7–1.9) | 1.8 (0.9–3.6) | 1.4 (0.9–2.1) | p = 0.098 |
| Home livestock slaughtering (yes/no) | 1.2 (0.5–2.9) | 1.3 (0.6–2.9) | 1.2 (0.7–2.3) | p = 0.451 |
| Main way of viscera disposal | ||||
| Given to dogs | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Buried | 1.2 (0.5–2.8) | 0.9 (0.1–4.2) | 1.1 (0.5–2.2) | p = 0.870 |
| Used as fertilizer | 2.4 (0.6–10) | 2.0 (0.4–11) | 2.3 (0.5–9.8) | p = 0.273 |
| Burned | 1.1 (0.7–2.3) | 0.9 (0.8–2.1) | 1 (0.8–2.0) | p = 0.900 |
| Thrown outside/garbage | 1.9 (0.7–4.9) | 0.5 (0.1–2.2) | 1.1 (0.5–2.4) | p = 0.833 |
| Dog ownership (yes/no) | 1.6 (1.0–2.7) | 1.3 (0.6–2.6) | 1.6 (1.1–2.4) | |
| Role of owned dogs | ||||
| Guard (yes/no) | 1.4 (0.2–11) | 1.3 (0.2–10) | 1.4 (0.3–5.8) | p = 0.653 |
| Shepherd (yes/no) | 1.2 (0.6–2.4) | 0.6 (0.1–2.3) | 0.9 (0.5–1.8) | p = 0.999 |
| Pet (yes/no) | 0.8 (0.4–1.9) | 1.6 (0.2–12) | 0.9 (0.4–1.9) | p = 0.781 |
| Hunting (yes/no) | 0.8 (0.6–2.9) | 1.2 (0.7–3.9) | 1 (0.8–1.9) | p = 0.910 |
| Owned dogs allowed to roam (yes/no) | 2.8 (0.9–9.0) | 1.2 (0.4–3.2) | 1.8 (0.9–3.7) | p = 0.115 |
| Owned dogs allowed to enter the house (yes/no) | 1.4 (0.7–2.5) | 1.3 (0.4–3.8) | 1.4 (0.8–2.4) | p = 0.227 |
| Raw viscera given to dogs (yes/no) | 1.7 (0.7–3.9) | 0.4 (0.2–1.1) | 1.0 (0.6–1.9) | p = 0.894 |
| Owned dogs dewormed with praziquantel (yes/no) | 1.4 (0.8–2.8) | 1.6 (0.8–2.8) | 1.5 (0.8–2.7) | p = 0.197 |
| Unowned dogs can enter the premises (yes/no) | 1.4 (0.8–2.4) | 0.8 (0.4–1.9) | 1.2 (0.8–1.9) | p = 0.390 |
| Dogs and livestock use same water source (yes/no) | 0.9 (0.3–3.1) | 1.2 (0.4–2.9) | 1.1 (0.4–2.8) | p = 0.988 |
Association between CE infection and each variable; Odds Ratio (ORs) adjusted for age, sex and province are shown
*Borderline significant
**OR (95%CI) adjusted for age, sex and province
° P-value for adjusted OR
^Reference value.
Fig 3Distribution of CE lesions.
A. Number of subjects with untreated and previously treated CE cysts (bars; left Y axis) and overall prevalence of CE in the screened population (dotted line; right Y axis) according to gender and age group (X axis). M = males; F = females. Age groups are expressed in years. Three children (aged 3, 8 and 9 years) and 19 adults (aged 81–94 years) were outside the target age range target; none of these subjects were infected with CE. B. Number of hepatic CE cysts in different stages. C. Percentage of CE cyst stages in patients never previously treated for CE within age groups. D. Percentage of CE cyst stages in patients never previously treated for CE within gender groups.
Fig 4Percentage of untreated and previously treated CE patients with ELISA positive serology according to cyst stage.