| Literature DB >> 28953998 |
Ana Laura Carbajal-de-la-Fuente1, Yael Mariana Provecho1, María Del Pilar Fernández1, Marta Victoria Cardinal1, Patricia Lencina2,3, Cynthia Spillmann4, Ricardo Esteban Gürtler1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The eco-epidemiological status of Chagas disease in the Monte Desert ecoregion of western Argentina is largely unknown. We investigated the environmental and socio-demographic determinants of house infestation with Triatoma infestans, bug abundance, vector infection with Trypanosoma cruzi and host-feeding sources in a well-defined rural area of Lavalle Department in the Mendoza province.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28953998 PMCID: PMC5607519 DOI: 10.1590/0074-02760160519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz ISSN: 0074-0276 Impact factor: 2.743
Fig. 1: map of the study area showing the location of the 76 study houses in the La Asunción and San José Districts, Mendoza, Argentina.
Factors associated with site-specific infestation and the abundance of Triatoma infestans in 76 domiciles in the La Asunción and San José districts, Mendoza, May 2013
| Variable | Infestation prevalencea | RI | OR (CI95) | p | Median bug abundanceb | RI | IRR (CI95) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||
| (CI95, nº of sites ) | (1st-3rd quartiles, nº of infested sites) | ||||||||
| Model 1 | Intercept | 0.3 (0.2-0.5) | < 0.001** | 3.2 (1.8-6) | 0.001** | ||||
| Ecotope | |||||||||
| Goat corrals | 23.0 (16.0-34.0, 98) | 1 | 10.0 (4.0-23.2, 23) | 1 | |||||
| Domiciles | 13.2 (7.0-23.8, 76) | 0.5 (0.2 | 0.09~ | 8.0 (5.0-16.1, 10) | 0.4 (0.2-1.1) | 0.08 | |||
| Storerooms | 6.0 (2.0-16.5, 49) | 0.2 (0.1 | 0.02* | 5.0 (2.0-9.3, 3) | 0.07 (0.02-0.2) | < 0.01** | |||
| Kennels | 15.0 (5.0-42.1, 13) | 0.6 (0.1 | 0.5 | 359.0 (10.0-708.2, 2) | 21 (3.2-136) | 0.001** | |||
| Chickens coop | 19.0 (13.0-29.6, 58) | 0.7 (0.3-1.5) | 0.4 | 11.0 (3.0-80.1, 10) | 2.2 (0.8-6.2) | 0.1 | |||
| Cow corrals | 2.0 (0.0-12.5, 45) | 0.1 (0.004 | 0.01* | 6.0 (-, 1) | 0.04 (0.01-0.1) | < 0.001** | |||
| Pig corrals | 0.0 (0.0-14.2, 23) | - | - | - | - | - | |||
| Rabbit hutches | 40.0 (12.0-77.5, 5) | 2.2 (0.3 | 0.4 | 63.0 (60.0-66.2, 2) | 4.4 (0.04-80) | 0.3 | |||
| Othersc | 7.0 (2.0-21.3, 30) | 0.2 (0.03 | 0.06~ | 57.0 (1.0-114.2, 2) | 0.6 (0.1-2.4) | 0.5 | |||
| Model 2 | Intercept | 0.07 (0.04-0.1) | < 0.001** | 0.02 (0.004-0.1) | < 0.001** | ||||
| No. of chickens§ | 1 | 1.6 (1.2-2.2) | < 0.001** | 1 | 2.2 (1.6-3.1) | < 0.001* | |||
| No. of goats § | 1 | 1.07 (1.03-1.1) | < 0.001** | 1 | 1.1 (1.05-1.4) | < 0.001* | |||
| No. of rabbits | 0.7 | 1.1 (0.9-1.3) | 0.1 | < 0.1 | 1.04 (0.9-1.2) | 0.6 | |||
| No. of cows and horses§t | 0.5 | 0.2 (0.002-10.0) | 0.4 | 1 | 0.03 (0.002-0.6) | 0.02* | |||
| No. of dogs and cats | 0.4 | 1.2 (0.9-1.5) | 0.2 | 1 | 6 (4.1-8.7) | < 0.001** | |||
| Wall construction material | 0.4 | 0.1 | |||||||
| Wired metal, nylon, cloth, | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| wood without bark or wood planks | |||||||||
| Bricks | 3.4 (0.6-18) | 0.1 | 0.2 (0.02-1.7) | 0.1 | |||||
| Mud | 3.2 (1.1-9) | 0.02* | 2.7 (0.2-32) | 0.5 | |||||
| Branches, cane sticks | 1.6 (0.7-3.6) | 0.3 | 0.9 (0.4-2.2) | 0.4 |
Infestation and abundance of T. infestans by ecotope (Model 1), and by type, number of host and construction materials in peridomestic sites (Model 2). House infestation was analysed by logistic regressions and bug abundance by negative binomial regressions. The odds ratio (OR) or incidence rate-ratio (IRR), their confidence intervals (CI95), relative importance (RI) and probability (p) are reported for each model. *: 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05, ~ p = 0.05 - 0.1; **: p < 0.01; § re-scaled variable to tens of hosts; a: infestation was determined by the finding of at least one live bug by timed-manual searches; b: bug abundance was calculated as the number of live bugs collected per 15 min-person among houses found infested by timed-manual searches; c: others: Galleries made of dry branches, piles of sticks, bricks, reeds and mud ovens, which appeared in low frequency.
Fig. 2: typical rural houses and peridomestic structures in the La Asunción and San José Districts, Mendoza, Argentina. (A) Domicile made with mud and cane. (B) Interior of a domicile with a cane roof. (C) Goat corrals and chicken coops. (D) Typical goat corral with walls of stacked branches.
Household socio-demographic and environmental characteristics and their associations with the infestation by Triatoma infestans in 76 domiciles in the La Asunción and San José Districts, Mendoza, May 2013
| Variable | % of households (nº of houses)† | Domestic infestation | OR (CI) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| prevalence (CI) | |||||
| Presence of animals sleeping indoors | |||||
| Dogs and cats | No | 64.5 (49) | 12.2 (5.3-23.5) | 1 | |
| Yes | 32.9 (25) | 16.0 (5.7-33.7) | 1.4 (0.4-5.2) | 0.61 | |
| Chickens | No | 90.8 (69) | 11.6 (5.6-20.7) | 1 | |
| Yes | 6.6 (5) | 40.0 (9.4-79.1) | 5.2 (0.9- 30.5) | 0.07 | |
| Use of domestic insecticides | |||||
| No | 7.9 (6) | 16.7 (1.9-55.8) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 90.8 (69) | 13.0 (6,7-22,5) | 0.6 (0.1-4.0) | 0.58 | |
| Type | Low concentration | 92.8 (64) | 12.5 (6.1-22.0) | 0,4 (0,1-2,7) | 0.32 |
| Deltamethrin | 1.45 (1) | 0 | 0.8 (0.02-32.4) | 0.90 | |
| Others◊ | 5.8 (4) | 25.0 (2.9-71.6) | 1 | ||
| Where | Domicile | 95.3(61) | 14.75 (7.6-25.2) | 0.5 (0.2-14.4) | 0.72 |
| Peridomicile | 1.6 (1) | 0 | 1 | ||
| Both | 3.1 (2) | 0 | 0.6 (0.1-49.5) | 0.82 | |
| Window screen use | |||||
| No | 44.7 (34) | 20.6 (9.7-36.2) | 1 | ||
| Yes | 53.9 (41) | 7.3 (2.1-18.3) | 0.3 (0.9-1.3) | 0.11 | |
| Light source | |||||
| Absent | 1.3 (1) | 0 | - | ||
| Electricity | 30.3 (23) | 4.3 (0.5-18.6) | 1 | ||
| Solar panel | 65.8 (50) | 18.0 (9.3-30.3) | 4.8 (0.6-40.6) | ||
| Wall building material | |||||
| Mud | 17.1 (13) | 0 (-) | 1.3 (0.3-5.3) | 0.69 | |
| Bricks | 28.9 (22) | 13.6 (4.0-32.1) | 1 | ||
| Mixed | 50.0 (38) | 18.4 (8.6-32.8) | 0.2 (0.01-4.3) | 0.31 | |
| No data | 4.0 (3) | 0 (-) | 0.8 (0.03-19.3) | 0.89 | |
| Roof building materials | |||||
| Branches-canes-mud | 17.1 (13) | 15.4 (3.3-40.9) | 6.4 (0.4-118.2) | 0.21 | |
| Metal-cement-wood | 18.4 (14) | 0 (-) | 1 | ||
| Mixed | 60.5 (46) | 17.4 (8.6-30.2) | 6.3 (0.3-144.7) | 0.25 | |
| No data | 4.0 (3) | 0 (-) | 4.1 (0.1-247.5) | 0.50 | |
| Cracked walls | |||||
| 1-2* | 38.1 (24) | 8.3 (1.8-24.1) | 1 | ||
| 3 | 54.0 (34) | 14.7 (5.8-29.3) | 1.7 (0.3-8.3) | 0.52 | |
| 4 | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5 | 7.9 (5) | 40.0 (9.4-79.1) | 6.4 (0.3-0.4) | 0.08 | |
The Odds Ratio (OR), its confidence intervals (CI) and significance (p) obtained from the Firth penalised logistic regression univariate analysis of domestic infestation are presented. †: the total number of houses for each variable may be less than 76 owing to missing data; ◊: disinfectants such as chlorine or creolin; *: cracked walls classified from 1-5, where one represents few cracks and five abundant.
Fig. 3: number of infested and noninfested sites and the median abundance of Triatoma infestans by ecotope. Bars indicate the number of infested and noninfested sites; numbers between parentheses indicate the percentage of infestation by ecotope. Triangles indicate the median abundance of T. infestans by ecotope. Whiskers for bug abundance indicate the interquartile range. Others: pile of bricks, sticks, canes, ecotopes with no animal host associated, ovens.
Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in Triatoma infestans collected in domestic and peridomestic habitats from 76 domiciles in the La Asunción and San José Districts, Mendoza, May 2013
| Ecotope | Stage | Bugs collected (nº) | Bugs examined by kDNA-PCR (nº) | Infected (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic | First-second | 7 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Third-fifth | 56 | 32 | 9.4 | |
| Adult | 51 | 27 | 11.1 | |
| Peridomestic | First-second | 237 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Third-fifth | 894 | 234 | 4.3 | |
| Adult | 441 | 119 | 0.8 | |
|
| ||||
| Total | 1,686 | 412 | 4.1 | |
kDNA-PCR: kinetoplast minicircle-polymerase chain reaction.
Fig. 4: host-feeding patterns of Triatoma infestans and prevalence of infection with Trypanosoma cruzi in T. infestans. Bugs collected in domestic (ID) and peridomestic (PD) sites (A) and the prevalence of infection according to bloodmeal sources in domestic and peridomestic ecotopes (B). Others: pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs and rats.