| Literature DB >> 28813451 |
Andréa Gazzinelli1,2, Roberta Oliveira-Prado1, Leonardo Ferreira Matoso1,2, Bráulio M Veloso3, Gisele Andrade1, Helmut Kloos4, Jeffrey M Bethony5, Renato M Assunção3, Rodrigo Correa-Oliveira2,6.
Abstract
Praziquantel (PZQ) is an effective chemotherapy for schistosomiasis mansoni and a mainstay for its control and potential elimination. However, it does not prevent against reinfection, which can occur rapidly in areas with active transmission. A guide to ranking the risk factors for Schistosoma mansoni reinfection would greatly contribute to prioritizing resources and focusing prevention and control measures to prevent rapid reinfection. The objective of the current study was to explore the relationship among the socioeconomic, demographic, and epidemiological factors that can influence reinfection by S. mansoni one year after successful treatment with PZQ in school-aged children in Northeastern Minas Gerais state Brazil. Parasitological, socioeconomic, demographic, and water contact information were surveyed in 506 S. mansoni-infected individuals, aged 6 to 15 years, resident in these endemic areas. Eligible individuals were treated with PZQ until they were determined to be negative by the absence of S. mansoni eggs in the feces on two consecutive days of Kato-Katz fecal thick smear. These individuals were surveyed again 12 months from the date of successful treatment with PZQ. A classification and regression tree modeling (CART) was then used to explore the relationship between socioeconomic, demographic, and epidemiological variables and their reinfection status. The most important risk factor identified for S. mansoni reinfection was their "heavy" infection at baseline. Additional analyses, excluding heavy infection status, showed that lower socioeconomic status and a lower level of education of the household head were also most important risk factors for S. mansoni reinfection. Our results provide an important contribution toward the control and possible elimination of schistosomiasis by identifying three major risk factors that can be used for targeted treatment and monitoring of reinfection. We suggest that control measures that target heavily infected children in the most economically disadvantaged households would be most beneficial to maintain the success of mass chemotherapy campaigns.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28813451 PMCID: PMC5558968 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow chart representing the recruitment and enrollment phases of the study.
Municipalities are represented in grey, communities in blue, schools in red and the final sample represented by triangle. IC / EC: inclusion and exclusion criteria; PZQ: Praziquantel.
Fig 2Map showing the distribution of communities in Northeastern, Minas Gerais State Brazil in which participants were enrolled into the longitudinal component of the study.
Map created in R statistical software (https://www.r-project.org/) from public data of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE, available at: http://mapas.ibge.gov.br/bases-e-referenciais/bases-cartograficas/malhas-digitais.html and the National Water Agency—ANA (2010) Hydrography 1: 1,000,000 (georeferenced digital base), available at: http://hidroweb.ana.gov.br/HidroWeb.asp?TocItem=4100.
Predictor variables in the CART analysis for risk of S. mansoni reinfection.
| Variable classes | Predictor variables |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| Gender | |
| Education of household head | |
| Intensity of infection | |
| Socioeconomic level | |
| Locality (rural or urban) | |
| Presence of latrine | |
| Type of latrine | |
| Type of walls | |
| Type of floor | |
| Treated water supply | |
| Total TBM | |
| Washing clothes | |
| Washing utensils | |
| Washing animals | |
| Washing parts of the body | |
| Bathing | |
| Swimming | |
| Playing | |
| Fishing | |
| Watering plants | |
| Irrigation | |
| Collecting sand at stream | |
| Fetching stream water | |
| Crossing streams | |
| Cleaning streams |
Baseline and reinfection demographic and socioeconomic factors and intensity of infection of reinfected and non-reinfected students.
| Study Sample (n = 506) | Reinfected (n = 111) | Not reinfected (n = 395) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Male | 297 | 58.7 | 65 | 58.6 | 232 | 58.7 | 0.974 |
| Female | 209 | 41.3 | 46 | 41.4 | 163 | 41.3 | |
| 5–10 | 225 | 44.5 | 56 | 50.5 | 170 | 43 | 0.223 |
| 11–15 | 281 | 55.5 | 55 | 49.5 | 225 | 57 | |
| Rural | 318 | 62.8 | 72 | 64.9 | 246 | 62.3 | 0.618 |
| Urban | 188 | 37.2 | 39 | 35.1 | 149 | 37.7 | |
| Moderate-high | 209 | 41.3 | 71 | 64.0 | 138 | 34.9 | |
| Low | 297 | 58.7 | 40 | 36.0 | 257 | 65.1 | |
| None | 136 | 26.9 | 30 | 27.0 | 106 | 26.8 | |
| Grades 1–4 | 216 | 42.7 | 55 | 49.5 | 161 | 40.8 | 0.145 |
| Grades > 4 | 154 | 30.4 | 26 | 23.4 | 128 | 32.4 | |
| Extremely poor | 184 | 36.4 | 39 | 35.1 | 145 | 36.7 | |
| Very poor | 240 | 47.4 | 61 | 55.0 | 179 | 45.3 | 0.073 |
| Poor | 82 | 16.2 | 11 | 9.9 | 71 | 18 | |
*Note that no household reached the “medium” or “high” economic strata.
Ranking of reinfection risk factors by overall discriminatory power.
| Variable | Power |
|---|---|
| Baseline intensity of infection | 100.0 |
| Total TBM | 94.9 |
| Washing parts of the body | 75.3 |
| Type of latrine | 36.0 |
| Type of floor | 26.3 |
| Socioeconomic level | 25.6 |
| Playing | 25.5 |
| Presence of latrine | 25.0 |
| Age | 23.9 |
| Washing animals | 22.2 |
| Bathing | 21.5 |
| Swimming | 16.8 |
| Education of household head | 14.1 |
| Fetching water | 13.4 |
| Gender | 12.7 |
| Crossing streams | 10.6 |
| Fishing | 10.1 |
| Chemically treated water | 7.5 |
| Locality | 7.3 |
| Collecting sand at streams | 6.7 |
| Type of walls | 3.1 |
| Washing clothes | 0.0 |
| Washing utensils | 0.0 |
| Watering plants | 0.0 |
| Irrigation | 0.0 |
| Cleaning stream | 0.0 |
Fig 3Classification tree of the risk factors for reinfection.
The internal nodes are highlighted in orange. The plus sign (+) represents positivity for reinfection and the minus sign (-) represents lack of reinfection.
Fig 4Classification tree of the risk factors for reinfection excluding the variable intensity of infection at baseline.
The internal nodes are highlighted in orange. The plus sign (+) represents positivity for reinfection and the minus sign (-) represents no reinfection. The crosshatched boxes (blue) show the percentages of those with low and moderate/high intensity of infection in each final node.