| Literature DB >> 28922404 |
Juan C Quintero V1, Luis E Paternina T2, Alexander Uribe Y3, Carlos Muskus3, Marylin Hidalgo4, Juliana Gil4, Astrid V Cienfuegos G5, Lisardo Osorio Q6, Carlos Rojas A7.
Abstract
Rickettsiosis is a re-emergent infectious disease without epidemiological surveillance in Colombia. This disease is generally undiagnosed and several deadly outbreaks have been reported in the country in the last decade. The aim of this study is to analyze the eco-epidemiological aspects of rickettsial seropositivity in rural areas of Colombia where outbreaks of the disease were previously reported. A cross-sectional study, which included 597 people living in 246 households from nine hamlets in two municipalities of Colombia, was conducted from November 2015 to January 2016. The survey was conducted to collect sociodemographic and household characteristics (exposure) data. Blood samples were collected to determine the rickettsial seropositivity in humans, horses and dogs (IFA, cut-off = 1/128). In addition, infections by rickettsiae were detected in ticks from humans and animals by real-time PCR targeting gltA and ompA genes. Data was analyzed by weighted multilevel clog-log regression model using three levels (person, household and hamlets) and rickettsial seropositivity in humans was the main outcome. Overall prevalence of rickettsial seropositivity in humans was 25.62% (95%CI 22.11-29.12). Age in years (PR = 1.01 95%CI 1.01-1.02) and male sex (PR = 1.65 95%CI 1.43-1.90) were risk markers for rickettsial seropositivity. Working outdoors (PR = 1.20 95%CI 1.02-1.41), deforestation and forest fragmentation for agriculture use (PR = 1.75 95%CI 1.51-2.02), opossum in peridomiciliary area (PR = 1.56 95%CI 1.37-1.79) and a high proportion of seropositive domestic animals in the home (PR20-40% vs <20% = 2.28 95%CI 1.59-3.23 and PR>40% vs <20% = 3.14 95%CI 2.43-4.04) were associated with rickettsial seropositivity in humans. This study showed the presence of Rickettsia antibodies in human populations and domestic animals. In addition, different species of rickettsiae were detected in ticks collected from humans and animals. Our results highlighted the role of domestic animals as sentinels of rickettsial infection to identify areas at risk of transmission, and the importance of preventive measures aimed at curtailing deforestation and the fragmentation of forests as a way of reducing the risk of transmission of emergent and re-emergent pathogens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28922404 PMCID: PMC5619838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Results of IgG antibodies titers against R. rickettsii, R. parkeri y R. amblyommatis antigens in equine and canine serum samples.
| Serum sample | Las Changas (Animal species) | Alto de Mulatos (Animal species) | Antibody titers | Potential circulating species of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UC Las Changas 3 | 256 | 128 | 1024 | |||
| UC Las Changas 21 | 16384 | <8192 | <8192 | |||
| La Unión 51 | 2048 | <1024 | <1024 | |||
| La Unión 78 | 2048 | <1024 | <1024 | |||
| La Salada 84 | 4096 | <2048 | <2048 | |||
| La Salada 87 | 4096 | <2048 | <2048 | |||
| La Salada 97 | 1024 | <512 | <512 | |||
| El Cativo 121 | 2048 | <1024 | <1024 | |||
| El Cativo 122 | 16384 | <8192 | <8192 | |||
| El Cativo 128 | 128 | <64 | 1024 | |||
| El Cativo 137 | 1024 | 512 | 4096 | |||
| UC Alto de Mulatos 140 | 1024 | <512 | <512 | |||
| UC Alto de Mulatos 143 | 1024 | <512 | <512 | |||
| UC Las Changas 36 | 128 | 512 | 2048 | |||
| Quebrada del Medio 185 | 512 | 2048 | 512 | |||
*UC: Urban Center
Rickettsial infection in ticks collected from humans and domestic animals.
| 8 (2,31) | 22 (19.46) | 0 | |
| 13 (3,77) | 31 (27,43) | 0 | |
| 194 (56,23) | 34 (30,08) | 1/228 | |
| 0 | 3 (2,65) | 0 | |
| 0 | 4 (3,53) | 0 | |
| 1 (0,29) | 4 (3,53) | 1/5 | |
| 83 (24,05) | 7 (6,19) | 0 | |
| 1 (0,29) | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 (0,29) | 0 | 0 | |
| 34 (9,85) | 4 (3,53) | 0 | |
| 0 | 2 (1,76) | 0 | |
| 7 (2,03) | 2 (1,76) | 0 | |
| 2 (0,58) | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 (0,29) | 0 | 0 | |
| 38 (15,57) | 53 (28,04) | 0 | |
| 27 (11,06) | 15 (7,93) | 0 | |
| 111 (45,49) | 26 (13,75) | 0 | |
| 16 (6,55) | 13 (6,87) | 3/29 | |
| 7 (2,86) | 32 (16,93) | 7/39 | |
| 45 (18,44) | 50 (26,45) | 0 |
1. The infected ticks only detected in Las Changas.
2. Infected ticks were collected in canine from Las Changas.
3. Pools of three female ticks.
4. Two pools (one of two males and one of five male ticks).
Fig 1Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of 12S mtDNA (HKY+I+G model).
Fig 2Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of gltA (TPM1uf model).
Fig 3Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of ompA (TPM3uf+I model).
Description of variables included in the multivariate analysis and results of bivariate analysis.
| Age (years) Median (IQR) | 27.4 (14.5–44.5) | 30.9 (15.8–47.4) | 33.5 (17.8–52.2) | 40.25 (19.85–56.4) | 1.02 (1.01–1.02) | <0.001 |
| Time of residence in the hamlets (years) Median (IQR) | 10 (5–16) | 12 (7–23) | 12 (6–17) | 14 (5–31.5) | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.0125 |
| Sex (Men) | 42.75% | 36.55% | 57% | 46.15% | 1.63 (1.23–1.98) | 0.0012 |
| Working outdoors | 18.43% | 33.92% | 34.69% | 42.31% | 1.77 (1.33–2.14) | 0.0003 |
| Deforestation for agriculture use | 71.84% | 48.25% | 76.92% | 61.25% | 1.70 (1.12–2.22) | 0.0139 |
| Presence of opossum in peridomiciliary | 41.18% | 50.71% | 43.59% | 59.49% | 1.49 (1.07–1.89) | 0.0185 |
| Total number of domestic animals | 102 | 136 | 14.71%(15/102) | 48.52%(66/136) | 1.02 (1.01–1.03) | 0.0066 |
| Number of equine | 64 | 71 | 10.93%(7/64) | 49.29%(35/71) | 1.02 (1.00–1.04) | 0.0446 |
| Number of canine | 38 | 65 | 21.05%(8/38) | 47.69%(31/65) | 1.03 (1.00–1.05) | 0.0253 |
| <20 | 1.00 | |||||
| 20–40 | 2.44 (1.30–3.47) | 0.0068 | ||||
| >40 | 2.91 (1.68–3.74) | 0.0004 | ||||
| <20 | 1.00 | |||||
| 20–40 | 2.44 (1.30–3.47) | 0.0068 | ||||
| >40 | 2.91 (1.68–3.74) | 0.0004 | ||||
| <20 | 1.00 | |||||
| 20–40 | 2.08 (1.06–3.03) | 0.0334 | ||||
| >40 | 3.13 (1.68–3.70) | 0.0008 |
Multivariate mixed models for rickettsial seropositivity.
| Variables | Null model | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR (95%CI) | p-value | PR(95%CI) | p-value | PR(95%CI) | p-value | PR(95%CI) | p-value | |
| Working outdoors | 1.22 (1.04–1.43) | 0.013 | 1.17 (1.00–1.38) | 0.052 | 1.20 (1.02–1.41) | 0.024 | ||
| Sex (Men) | 1.67 (1.46–1.92) | <0.001 | 1.67 (1.45–1.92) | <0.001 | 1.65 (1.43–1.90) | <0.001 | ||
| Age (years) | 1.02 (1.01–1.02) | <0.001 | 1.01 (1.01–1.02) | <0.001 | 1.01 (1.01–1.02) | <0.001 | ||
| Deforestation for agriculture use | 1.57 (1.33–1.86) | <0.001 | 1.75 (1.51–2.02) | <0.001 | ||||
| Presence of opossum in peridomiciliary | 1.53 (1.34–1.75) | <0.001 | 1.56 (1.37–1.79) | <0.001 | ||||
| Proportion of seropositivity in domestic animals (%) | ||||||||
| <20 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 20–40 | 2.28 (1.59–3.25) | <0.001 | ||||||
| >40 | 3.14 (2.43–4.07) | <0.001 | ||||||
| Number of domestic animals | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | <0.001 | ||||||
| Variance (Standard error) | 0.413 (0.091) | <0.001 | 0.446 (0.097) | <0.001 | 0.550 (0.115) | <0.001 | 0(0) | . |
| Variance (Standard error) | 0.318 (0.073) | <0.001 | 0.287 (0.073) | <0.001 | 0.242 (0.069) | 0.002 | 0.227 (0.068) | 0.005 |
| AIC | 10804.98 | 10569.3 | 10388.56 | 10185.62 | ||||
| BIC | 10805.58 | 10570.49 | 10390.13 | 10187.79 | ||||
* The model with the smaller value of the information criterion is considered to be better.