| Literature DB >> 29232388 |
Vanete Thomaz Soccol1, Aline Kuhn Sbruzzi Pasquali1, Eliane Maria Pozzolo2, André de Souza Leandro3, Luciana Chiyo3, Rafael Antunes Baggio1, Mario Sergio Michaliszyn4, Carlos Silva5, Patrícia Hoerner Cubas3, Ricardo Peterlle6, Otacilio Lopes de Souza Paz7, Ivana Lucia Belmonte2, Alceu Bisetto-Junior2.
Abstract
A cross-sectional epidemiological study in the extreme-west of the state of Paraná was carried out to access the prevalence, distribution, and risk variables of canine Visceral Leishmaniases (cVL). This study was conducted in three areas, two cities of far west of Parana state: Foz do Iguaçu (FI) and Santa Terezinha de Itaipu (STI), and along two transects between these two municipalities. To sample the entire urban area, the cities (FI and STI) were divided into a grid of squares of 400 m2 (patch). Among the 526 patches, 123 in FI, 40 in the transects and 33 in STI were selected according to the 'worst scenario' criterion. In the transect areas, in each 0.86 km five dogs from houses were surveyed to leishmaniasis. In each patch, blood of five dogs from houses (and from neighborhood when necessary) in the areas that seemed to be the most appropriate for the proliferation of vector were surveyed. The infection of the dogs by cVL were assessed using two serological tests were used (cELISA and TR-DPP®), and, for those seropositive for both methods, the PCR method were used. Moreover, dogs presenting clinical signs or cutaneous lesions were sampled to PCR. The identification of Leishmania species was confirmed using PCR-RFLP followed by DNA sequencing. Micro, meso and macro scale environmental variables were also surveyed and statistically analyzed. The prevalence rate Leishmania infantum was 23.8% in FI, 4.7% in STI and 9.1% in the transects areas. Among the extrinsic variables analysed, the number of vectors and the presence of infected dogs in neighbouring were positively correlated with the occurrence of infected dogs. Dog size was positively correlated with cVL infection, while the quality of the dog's nutrition affected cVL negatively. As for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), the first registry of dogs infected with L. braziliensis in the region shows that there is potential for transmission in peri-urban areas, since environmental conditions allow the proliferation of vectors capable of transmitting this species of parasite. cVL is widely spread in FI, with high prevalence. This supports the hypothesis that the parasite has been present in the region for longer than previously believed, despite the fact that the presence of leishmaniais in the region has only been recognized recently. It is important to control the population of dogs infected with L. infantum (parasite and non-antibodies) to prevent the spread of the disease to other dogs and also to people in the region.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29232388 PMCID: PMC5726634 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1In the 196 sites (pointed in the maps) from three areas of the extreme -west of the Southern of Brasil (Foz do Iguaçu, Santa Terezinha de Itaipu and transect between the two cities) dogs were sampled to determine the seroprevalence to leishmaniases.
In each site blood of five (or more) dogs were sampled and examinated serologically according to Brazil Health Ministery recommendation. The two test (DPP and Immunoassay) were realized simultanealy. We considered a positive animal when two serological exams were positives.
Extrinsic and intrinsic variable assessed in this study.
| Group | Variable Recorded | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Site | Foz do Iguaçu, transects and Santa Terezinha de Itaipu | |
| Vegetal cover | Number of fruit trees of the household Percentage of vegetal cover of the patch | |
| Cement | Percentage of cement of the patch | |
| Bare soil cover + Covered surface with unused materials(intermedium) | Percentage of soil and surface unused of the patch | |
| Number of chicken | Number of chicken | |
| Repellent | Use of repellent | |
| Number of | Number of | |
| Infected neighbor dog | Presence of infected dogs in the neighborhood | |
| Age | Age of the dog | |
| Ambulate | Dog that moves from different places | |
| Autochthonous | Dog from the site | |
| Allochthonous | Dogs from other places | |
| Sleep outside | Dogs that sleeps outside a house | |
| Size | Size of the dog | |
| Nutrition | Nutrition state of the dog | |
| Ticks | Presence of Ticks | |
| Fleas | Presence of Fleas |
Number of positive patches to cVL (before the bar), number of total patches (after the bar) and percentage of positive patches to cVL from three strata from Foz do Iguaçu, Santa Terezinha de Itaipu and the transects between two cities.
—No urban area; * small community.
| Area | Foz do Iguaçu | Transects | Santa Terezinha de Itaipu | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53/93 | - | 08/29 | 61/122 | |
| (56.9) | - | (27.6) | (50.0) | |
| 13/27 | 06/40 | 1/4 | 20/71 | |
| (48.1) | (15.0)* | (25.0) | (28.2) | |
| 1/3 | 10/40 | - | 11/43 | |
| (33.4) | (25.0) | - | (25.6) | |
| 67/123 | 16/40 | 09/33 | 92/196 | |
| (54.4) | (25.0) | (27.3) | (47.0) |
Dogs sampled (N), seropositive dogs to cVL (N+) and its percentage in three sites in the extreme-west of the Paraná state, Southern of Brazil: The Foz do Iguaçu (FI) city was devised in four areas (A, B, C and D), Santa Terezinha do Itaipu (STI) in two areas (A = north and B south), and two transects (T1 and T2) between the two cities (FI and STI).
A total of 1129 dogs were sampled.
| Foz do Iguaçu | Transects | Santa Terezinha de Itaipu | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area | N | N+ | Area | N | N+ | Area | N | N+ |
| 170 | 48 | T1 | 90 | 11 | A | 60 | 4 | |
| (28.2) | (13.0) | (7.1) | ||||||
| 157 | 44 | T2 | 86 | 5 | B | 110 | 5 | |
| (28.0) | (5.9) | (3.7) | ||||||
| 273 | 44 | |||||||
| (16.1) | ||||||||
| 177 | 49 | |||||||
| (27.6) | ||||||||
| 777 | 185 | 176 | 16 | 176 | 9 | |||
| (23.8) | (9.1) | (4.7) | ||||||
Clinical classification of seropositive dogs in three regions in the extreme west of Paraná state, Southern Brazil.
OR: Odds Ratio.–Non observed date. * seropositive dogs in ELISA and DPP tests /total of dogs with clinical signals.
| Clinical classification | Foz do Iguaçu | Transects | Santa Terezinha de Itaipu | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | OR | p value | % | OR | p value | % | OR | p value | % | OR | p value | |
| positive | positive | positive | positive | |||||||||
| /total* | /total* | /total* | /total* | |||||||||
| 11.7% | 0.31 | 0.000 | 0.9% | 0.09 | 0.020 | 4.9% | 1.71 | 1.000 | 8.9% | 0.32 | 0.000 | |
| (62/528) | (0.21–0.45) | (1/115) | (0.01–0.86) | (7/142) | (0.20–14.93) | (70/785) | (0.22–0.45) | |||||
| 29.7% | 3.17 | 0.000 | 8.2% | 10.17 | 0.020 | 2.9% | 0.58 | 1.000 | 23.7% | 3.09 | 0.000 | |
| (74/249) | (2.17–4.64) | (5/61) | (1.16–89.21) | (1/34) | (0.06–4.91) | (80/344) | (2.18–4.39) | |||||
| 16.6% | 9.79 | 0.003 | 3.0% | 0.24 | 0.273 | 4.0% | 0.08 | 0.130 | 12.5% | 0.30 | 0.000 | |
| (123/742) | (0.16–0.68) | (5/167) | (0.02–2.36) | (7/173) | (0.00–1.04) | (135/1082) | (0.16–0.57) | |||||
| 18.2% | 1.18 | 0.766 | 11.1% | 4.05 | 0.273 | 33.3% | 11.85% | 0.130 | 26.3% | 2.42 | 0.030 | |
| (4/22) | (0.39–3.56) | (1/9) | (0.42–38.86) | (1/3) | (0.95–146.89) | (10/38) | (1.15–5.10) | |||||
| 55.6% | 6.07 | 0.010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 55.6% | 8.40 | 0.003 | |
| (5/9) | (1.61–22.94) | - | - | (5/9) | (2.23–31.66) | |||||||
| 36.7% | 3.00 | 0.000 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 28.6% | 2.83 | 0.000 | |
| (18/49) | (1.62–5.54) | (18/63) | (1.56–5.03) | |||||||||
| 45.2% | 5.44 | 0.000 | 4.6% | 1.41 | 0.556 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 37.0% | 5.12 | 0.000 | |
| (46/101) | (3.47–8.54) | (1/22) | (0.15–12.74) | (47/127) | (3.38–7.75) | |||||||
| 33.7% | 2.83 | 0.001 | 10.00% | 4.22 | 0.139 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 25.7% | 2.64 | 0.000 | |
| (33/98) | (1.77–4.53) | (2/20) | (0.72–24.69) | (35/136) | (1.71–4.07) | |||||||
| 36.2% | 2.90 | 0.001 | 3.5% | 1.01 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 23.1% | 2.08 | 0.014 | |
| (17/47) | (1.55–5.44) | (1/29) | (0.11–9.01) | (18/78) | (1.19–3.64) | |||||||
| 36.8% | 2.95 | 0.003 | 3.4% | 1.01 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 35.0% | 3.77 | 0.000 | |
| (14/38) | (1.48–5.86) | (1/29) | (0.11–9.01) | (14/40) | (1.92–7.40) | |||||||
| 35.7% | 2.74 | 0.019 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 32.3% | 3.25 | 0.005 | |
| (10/28) | (1.23–6.09) | (10/31) | (1.50–7.06) | |||||||||
| 23.3% | 1.65 | 0.302 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 14.6% | 1.28 | 0.496 | |
| (7/30) | (0.69–3.95) | (7/48) | (0.56–2.92) | |||||||||
| 60.0% | 7.35 | 0.003 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | - | - | - | 50.0% | 6.75 | 0.002 | |
| (6/10) | (2.04–26.41) | (6/12) | (2.15–21.23) | |||||||||
| 12.9% | 0.77 | 0.804 | 20.0% | 10.1 | 0.039 | 6.2% | 1.45 | 0.541 | (7/57) | 1.04 | 0.834 | |
| (4/31) | (0.26–2.26) | (2/10) | (1.60–63.74) | (1/16) | (0.16–12.65) | (0.46–2.35) | ||||||
| 50.0% | 5.33 | 0.292 | 0 | 0.00 | 1.000 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 20.0% | 1.86 | 0.468 | |
| (1/2) | (0.33–86.01) | (1/5) | (0.20–16.81) | |||||||||
Fig 2Neighbor-Joining tree of ITS1 of Leishmania individuals isolated from dogs from the extreme west of the state of Paraná, Brazil.
Fig 3Patches sampled and spatial distribution of Leishmania spp. in the extreme west of Parana state, Southern Brasil.
The higher prevalence were observed in area A and D.
Intrinsic and extrinsic variables that showed significance to canine visceral leishmaniasis.
NS: non significant values.
| Variables | Foz do Iguacu | Transects | Santa Terezinha de Itaipu | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | p-value | OR | p-value | OR | p-value | OR | p-value | |
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |||||
| 0.99 | 0.041 | NS | NS | 0.99 | 0.033 | |||
| (0.98–0.99) | (0.98–0.99) | |||||||
| Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| 3.15 | 0.000 | 3.36 | 0.011 | 7.36 | 0.000 | 3.46 | 0.000 | |
| (2.09–4.82) | (1.33–8.78) | (2.88–22.75) | (2.45–4.94) | |||||
| Reference | Reference | |||||||
| 1.86 | 0.001 | NS | NS | 1.79 | 0.001 | |||
| (1.25–2.75) | (1.25–2.55) | |||||||
| Reference | Reference | |||||||
| 1.72 | 0.014 | NS | NS | 1.63 | 0.008 | |||
| (1.11–2.65) | (1.13–2.34) | |||||||
| 2.67 | 0.000 | NS | NS | 1.97 | 0.002 | |||
| (1.58–4.47) | (1.26–3.04) | |||||||
| Reference | Reference | |||||||
| NS | NS | NS | 1.96 | 0.011 | ||||
| (1.15–3.28) | ||||||||
| 4.20 | 0.008 | NS | NS | 2.88 | 0.037 | |||
| (1.40–12.18) | (1.01–7.67) | |||||||
| Reference | Reference | |||||||
| 1.78 | 0.004 | NS | NS | 1.51 | 0.017 | |||
| (1.19–2.66) | (1.07–2.11) | |||||||
Fig 4Path analysis with extrinsic (environmental) characteristics that affect the infection rate in dogs from western region of the Paraná State, Brazil.
Blue arrows represent positive effect, and red arrows represent negative effects.
Fig 5Path analysis with intrinsic characteristics of the dogs that affect their probability of infection in the western region of the Paraná State, Brazil.
Blue arrows represent positive effect, and red arrows represent negative effects.