| Literature DB >> 29394958 |
Pei He1, Catherine A Gordon2, Gail M Williams3, Yuesheng Li1,4, Yuanyuan Wang1, Junjian Hu1, Darren J Gray4,3,5, Allen G Ross6, Donald Harn7, Donald P McManus8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schistosomiasis in the People's Republic of China (PRC) can be traced back to antiquity. In the past 60 years, the Chinese government has made great efforts to control this persistent disease with elimination slated by 2020 through the implementation of a comprehensive control strategy. This strategy aims to reduce the role of bovines and humans as sources of infection as a pre-requisite for elimination through transmission interruption. The goal of elimination will be achievable only by the implementation of a sustainable surveillance and control system, with sensitive diagnosis a key feature so that the true disease burden is not underestimated. Currently used diagnostics lack the necessary sensitivity to accurately determine the prevalence of Schistosoma japonicum infection in areas with low infection intensities. It is of critical importance to find and treat people and to identify animals with low-level infections if the National Control Programme for China is to achieve schistosomiasis elimination.Entities:
Keywords: Bovine; China; FEA-SD; Human; Kato-Katz; Miracidium hatching test; Real-time PCR; Schistosoma Japonicum; Schistosomiasis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29394958 PMCID: PMC5796516 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-018-0390-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Fig. 1Map of the study area. 1: Zhongxing and Muxiahe villages, Anhui Province; 2: Yuewu and Wuyi villages, Hunan Province; 3: Xiguang and Biaoen villages, Jiangxi Province; 4: Xiti and Yanchuan villages, Hubei Province
Breakdown of stool samples by type and village
| Stool samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Province | Village | Humans | Bovines | Cattle | Buffalo |
| Anhui | Zhongxing | 89 | NA | NA | NA |
| Muxiahe | 69 | NA | NA | NA | |
| Jiangxi | Xiguang | 107 | 63 | 56 | 7 |
| Biaoen | 100 | 51 | 3 | 48 | |
| Hunan | Wuyi | NA | 38 | 0 | 38 |
| Yuewu | 63 | 30 | 11 | 19 | |
| Hubei | Yanchuan | 82 | NA | NA | NA |
| Xiti | 123 | NA | NA | NA | |
| Total | 633 | 182 | 70 | 112 | |
NA: Not Applicable
Fig. 2Flow diagram showing breakdown of the diagnostic techniques and numbers of human and bovine stool samples subjected to analysis
Prevalence of S. japonicum in humans by the MHT and qPCR assay
| MHT | qPCR | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Province | Village |
| No. Positive | Prevalence (%) | 95% | No. Positive | Prevalence (%) | 95% | |
| Anhui | Zhongxing | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | . | 9 | 10.11 | 3.73, 16.50 | 0.003 |
| Muxiahe | 69 | 0 | 0.00 | . | 4 | 5.80 | 1.42, 11.45 | 0.046 | |
| Jiangxi | Xiguang | 107 | 1 | 0.93 | −0.92, 2.79 | 11 | 10.28 | 4.43, 16.13 | 0.002 |
| Biaoen | 100 | 0 | 0.00 | . | 13 | 13.00 | 6.29, 19.71 | < 0.001 | |
| Hunan | Yuewu | 63 | 3 | 4.76 | −0.64, 10.17 | 17 | 26.98 | 15.72, 38.25 | < 0.001 |
| Hubei | Xiti | 123 | . | . | . | 8 | 6.50 | 2.08, 10.92 | 0.0043 |
| Yanchuan | 82 | . | . | . | 8 | 9.76 | 3.20, 16.32 | 0.004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The final row of each table is in bold to denote that these are total numbers
Prevalence of S. japonicum in bovines by the MHT and qPCR assay
| MHT | qPCR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village |
| No. positive | Prevalence (%) | 95% | No. positive | Prevalence (%) | 95% | |
| Xiguang | 63 | 5 | 7.90 | 1.07, 14.80 | 14 | 22.22 | 11.67, 32.78 | 0.007 |
| Biaoen | 51 | 1 | 1.96 | −2.00, 5.90 | 9 | 17.65 | 6.82, 28.48 | 0.005 |
| Wuyi | 38 | 1 | 2.63 | −2.70 7.96 | 5 | 13.16 | 1.90, 24.42 | 0.046 |
| Yuewu | 30 | 7 | 2.33 | 7.27, 39.40 | 17 | 56.67 | 37.85, 75.49 | 0.002 |
| Animal type | ||||||||
| Cattle | 70 | 9 | 12.90 | 4.82, 20.90 | 23 | 32.86 | 21.58, 44.14 | 0.0005 |
| Buffalo | 112 | 5 | 4.46 | 0.58, 8.34 | 22 | 19.64 | 12.17, 27.12 | < 0.0001 |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The final row of each table is in bold to denote that these are total numbers
GMEPG of S. japonicum in humans by Kato-Katz and qPCR assay
| Village | Kato-Katza | qPCR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. MHT positive | GMEPG | 95% | No. positive | GMEPG | 95% | |
| Zhongxing | 0 | . | . | 9 | 3.24 | 2.61, 4.03 |
| Muxiahe | 0 | . | . | 4 | 2.16 | 0.99, 4.70 |
| Xiguang | 1 | 12.04 | . | 11 | 7.00 | 3.36, 14.59 |
| Biaoen | 0 | . | . | 13 | 3.48 | 2.70, 4.49 |
| Yuewu | 3 | 3.81 | 2.15, 3.36 | 17 | 4.85 | 3.36, 7.00 |
| Xiti | . | . | . | 8 | 2.20 | 1.50, 3.24 |
| Yanchuan | . | . | . | 8 | 2.54 | 1.73, 3.72 |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
aKato-Katz was only performed on MHT-positive samples
The final row of each table is in bold to denote that these are total numbers
Intensity of S. japonicum infection (GMEPG) in cattle and buffalo by village and bovine type (cattle or buffalo)
| MHT | FEA-SD | qPCR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village | No. MHT positivea | No. positive | GMEPG | 95% | No. positive | GMEPG | 95% |
| Xiguang | 5 | 4 | 0.38 | 0.06, 2.42 | 14 | 7.18 | 2.75, 18.76 |
| Biaoen | 1 | 0 | . | . | 9 | 3.18 | 2.13, 4.76 |
| Wuyi | 1 | 1 | 1.80 | . | 5 | 15.55 | 1.93, 125.28 |
| Yuewu | 7 | 7 | 2.43 | 1.16, 5.10 | 17 | 10.73 | 5.88, 19.56 |
| Bovine type | |||||||
| Cattle | 9 | 7 | 0.87 | 0.39, 1.34 | 23 | 7.67 | 4.06, 14.49 |
| Buffalo | 5 | 5 | 2.29 | 2.18, 2.42 | 22 | 7.81 | 4.40, 13.86 |
| Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aThe FEA-SD was performed on MHT-positive samples only; two MHT-positive samples were negative by FEA-SD
The final row of each table is in bold to denote that these are total numbers
Animal contamination index (ACI)
| No. positive | Arithmetic mean EPG in positives | ACI per infected bovine or human per day | ACI all infected bovines or human per day | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cattle | FEA-SDa | 7 | 2.04 | 51 000 | 357 000 |
| qPCR | 23 | 27.38 | 684 500 | 15 743 500 | |
| Water buffalo | FEA-SDa | 5 | 2.52 | 63 000 | 315 000 |
| qPCR | 22 | 21.59 | 539 750 | 11 874 500 | |
| Bovine | FEA-SDa | 12 | 2.24 | 56 000 | 672 000 |
| qPCR | 45 | 24.55 | 613 733.3 | 27 618 000 | |
| Human | Kato-Katz | 4 | 12.22 | 3055 | 12 220 |
| qPCR | 70 | 6.74 | 1685 | 117 950 |
aThe FEA-SD was performed on MHT-positive samples only; two MHT-positive samples were negative by FEA-SD