| Literature DB >> 28666412 |
Eric M Fèvre1,2, William A de Glanville3,4, Lian F Thomas3,4, Elizabeth A J Cook3,4, Samuel Kariuki5, Claire N Wamae5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The neglected zoonotic diseases (NZD) are an understudied group that are a major cause of illness throughout the developing world. In general, little is known about the prevalence and burden of NZDs in affected communities, particularly in relation to other infectious diseases with which they are often co-endemic. We describe the design and descriptive epidemiological outputs from an integrated study of human and animal zoonotic and non-zoonotic disease in a rural farming community in western Kenya.Entities:
Keywords: Brucella; Coxiella; Kenya; Mycobacterium; One health; Taenia; Zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28666412 PMCID: PMC5493856 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2559-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Study area shown in the context of human population density in eastern Africa [60]
Survey adjusted individual and gender stratified prevalence estimates for the human infections under study
| Infection | Adjusted prevalence | Male (%) | Female (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gastrointestinal parasites | ||||
|
| 0.02 (0–0. 1) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.04 (0–0. 1) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.1 (0–0.2) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.1 (0–0.2) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.2 (0–0.3) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.3 (0–0.5) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.6 (0.1–1.1) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.6 (0.2–1.0) | - | - | - |
|
| 2.9 (2.1–3.8) | 3.9 | 2.1 | 0.023 |
|
| 3.2 (2.3–4.0) | 4.0 | 2.5 | 0.09 |
|
| 5.8 (4.4–7.2) | 4.6 | 7.0 | 0.04 |
|
| 5.9 (3.7–8.1) | 7.2 | 4.8 | 0.009 |
|
| 10.0 (8.2–11.7) | 7.6 | 12.0 | 0.002 |
|
| 10.4 (8.1–12.7) | 9.7 | 11.1 | 0.33 |
|
| 14.2 (12.4–16.0) | 13.4 | 15.0 | 0.42 |
|
| 19.7 (16.7–22.7) | 20.7 | 18.8 | 0.29 |
|
| 30.1 (27.5–32.8) | 27.5 | 32.5 | 0.046 |
| Hookworm | 36.3 (32.8–39.9) | 39.4 | 33.6 | 0.01 |
| Haemoparasites | ||||
|
| 29.4 (26.8–32.0 | 32.1 | 27.0 | 0.02 |
| Bacterial infections | ||||
|
| 0.6 (0.2–0.9) | - | - | - |
|
| 2.2 (1.5–2.9) | 2.5 | 1.9 | 0.32 |
|
| 8.2 (6.8–9.6) | 7.8 | 8.5 | 0.64 |
|
| ||||
| Rift Valley fever virus | 0.5 (0.2–0.8) | - | - | - |
| HIV | 5.3 (4.2–6.3) | 2.9 | 7.3 | <0.001 |
aBased on Wald Test with adjustment for survey design. Very rare outcomes not assessed
Fig. 2Age prevalence profiles for the common infections of people. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 3Age prevalence profiles for the rarer infections of people. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
Individual and gender stratified prevalence estimates for the cattle infections under study
| Infection | Adjusted prevalence | Male | Female |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gastrointestinal parasites | ||||
|
| 0.26 (0–0.55) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.28 (0–0.66) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.37 (0–0.94) | - | - | - |
|
| 0.98 (0.092–1.9) | - | - | - |
|
| 1.4 (0.62–2.2) | - | - | - |
|
| 2.1 (1.2–3.0) | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.03 |
|
| 3.1 (1.9–4.2) | 3.0 | 3.1 | 0.96 |
|
| 4.0 (2.7–5.3) | 5.9 | 3.0 | 0.07 |
|
| 6.7 (4.8–8.6) | 8.6 | 5.7 | 0.19 |
|
| 9.2 (6.7–11.5) | 5.9 | 11.0 | 0.01 |
|
| 32.5 (27.6–37.3) | 28.1 | 34.8 | 0.07 |
|
| 37.2 (32.7–41.7) | 44.3 | 33.3 | 0.002 |
|
| 58.4 (53.8–63.0) | 69.4 | 52.4 | <0.001 |
| Bacterial infections | ||||
|
| 0.26 (0–0.56) | - | - | - |
|
| 2.2 (1.3–3.2) | 3.3 | 1.7 | 0.16 |
|
| 10.0 (7.7–12.2) | 8.2 | 10.9 | 0.20 |
| Haemoparasites | ||||
|
| 0.62 (0.05–0.28) | - | - | - |
|
| 5.8 (4.1–7.4) | 4.3 | 6.6 | 0.12 |
|
| 53.4 (48.6–58.3) | 53.2 | 53.6 | 0.94 |
|
| ||||
|
| 53.5 (48.7–58.3) | 53.7 | 53.2 | 0.92 |
|
| ||||
| Rift Valley fever virus | 1.4 (0.55–2.22) | - | - | - |
aBased on Wald Test with adjustment for survey design. Very rare outcomes not assessed
Fig. 4Clusters of elevated relative risk for household level infection with human pathogens: a Ascaris lumbricoides; b HIV; c Hookworm (Ancylostoma duodenale or Necator americanus); d Iodamoeba butschlii; e Plasmodium falciparum; f Schistosoma mansoni; g Taenia solium; h Trichuris trichiura
Fig. 5Age prevalence profiles for the common infections of cattle. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 6Age prevalence profiles for the rarer infections of cattle: Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
Fig. 7Clusters of elevated relative risk for household level infection with cattle pathogens: a Calicophoron daubneyi; b Trypanosoma spp.
Individual and gender stratified prevalence estimates for the pig infections under study
| Infection | Adjusted prevalence | Male | Female |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.2 (0–3.4) | - | - | - |
|
| 1.1 (0–3.4) | - | - | - |
|
| 3.2 (0–9.3) | - | - | - |
|
| 17.2 (9.1–25.3) | 14.6 | 19.2 | 0.62 |
|
| 25.0 (13.7–36.3) | 26.9 | 23.5 | 0.74 |
|
| 46.7 (33.7–59.6) | 38.5 | 52.9 | 0.29 |
|
| 50.0 (34.7–65.3) | 50 | 50 | 1 |
|
| 55.0 (40.4–69.6) | 61.5 | 50 | 0.36 |
|
| 91.7 (83.3–1) | 88.5 | 94.1 | 0.38 |
aBased on Wald Test with adjustment for survey design. Very rare outcomes not assessed
Fig. 8Probability that household belongs to tribal group (a Teso; b Samia; c Luhya; d Luo)
Fig. 9Probability that household owns livestock species (a Cattle; b Pigs; c Goats; d Sheep)