| Literature DB >> 29774296 |
Tara A Brant1, Patricia N Okorie2, Olushola Ogunmola3, Nureni Bolaji Ojeyode4, S B Fatunade4, Emmanuel Davies5, Yisa Saka5, Michelle C Stanton1, David H Molyneux1, J Russell Stothard1, Louise A Kelly-Hope1.
Abstract
Nigeria has the heaviest burden of lymphatic filariasis (LF) in sub-Saharan Africa, which is caused by the parasite Wuchereria bancrofti and transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. LF is targeted for elimination and the national programme is scaling up mass drug administration (MDA) across the country to interrupt transmission. However, in some regions the co-endemicity of the filarial parasite Loa loa (loiasis) is an impediment due to the risk of severe adverse events (SAEs) associated with the drug ivermectin. To better understand factors influencing LF elimination in loiasis areas, this study conducted a cross-sectional survey on the prevalence and co-distribution of the two infections, and the potential demographic, landscape, human movement, and intervention-related risk factors at a micro-level in the South West zone of Nigeria. In total, 870 participants from 10 communities on the fringe of a meso-endemic loiasis area of Osun State were selected. LF prevalence was measured by clinical assessment and using the rapid immunochromatographic test (ICT) to detect W. bancrofti antigen. Overall LF prevalence was low with ICT positivity ranging from 0 to 4.7%, with only 1 hydrocoele case identified. Males had significantly higher ICT positivity than females (3.2% vs 0.8%). Participants who did not sleep under a bed net had higher ICT positivity (4.0%) than those who did (1.3%). ICT positivity was also higher in communities with less tree coverage/canopy height (2.5-2.8%) than more forested areas with greater tree coverage/canopy height (0.9-1.0%). In comparison, loiasis was determined using the rapid assessment procedure for loiasis (RAPLOA), and found in all 10 communities with prevalence ranging from 1.4% to 11.2%. No significant difference was found by participants' age or sex. However, communities with predominately shrub land (10.4%) or forested land cover (6.2%) had higher prevalence than those with mosaic vegetation/croplands (2.5%). Satellite imagery showed denser forested areas in higher loiasis prevalence communities, and where low or no ICT positivity was found. Only one individual was found to be co-infected. GPS tracking of loiasis positive cases and controls also highlighted denser forested areas within higher loiasis risk communities and the sparser land cover in lower-risk communities. Mapping LF-loiasis distributions against landscape characteristics helped to highlight the micro-heterogeneity, identify potential SAE hotspots, and determine the safest and most appropriate treatment strategy.Entities:
Keywords: Data loggers; Elephantiasis; Hydrocoele; Land cover; Landscape; Loa loa; Loiasis; Lymphatic filariasis; Lymphoedema; NTDs; Neglected tropical diseases; Nigeria; RAPLOA; SAEs; Severe adverse events; Sub-Saharan Africa; Tropical eye worm
Year: 2017 PMID: 29774296 PMCID: PMC5952684 DOI: 10.1016/j.parepi.2017.12.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite Epidemiol Control ISSN: 2405-6731
Fig. 1Nigeria study area LF and loiasis prevalence.
A. Nigeria study area – Osun State
B. LF prevalence
C. Loiasis prevalence
D. LF and loiasis overlapping prevalence
Fig. 2Photo of study area showing typical houses and nearby forested areas.
Fig. 5Landscape characteristics by study sites (5 km buffer).
A. Land cover
B. Land cover type – site 5 km radius
C. Tree canopy coverage
D. Canopy coverage – site 5 km radius
E. Tree canopy height
F. Canopy height – site 5 km radius
Fig. 4GPS logger on participant arm.
A. GPS logger
B. GPS logger strapped to arm to track travel
Summary of each study community, location and landscape characteristics.
| LGA | Community | Longitude | Latitude | Land cover class (majority) | Tree coverage (mean - %) | Forest canopy height (mean - m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ayedire | Ile Iran | 7.6038 | 4.1879 | Mosaic vegetation/croplands | 22.1% | 9.1 |
| Kuta Ileogbo Railway Station | 7.5984 | 4.2803 | Broadleaved evergreen or semi-deciduous forest | 35.6% | 13.2 | |
| Ede South | Gaagaa | 7.6554 | 4.4855 | Broadleaved evergreen or semi-deciduous forest | 45.7% | 16.7 |
| Ogobi Oja | 7.6659 | 4.4347 | Broadleaved evergreen or semi-deciduous forest | 33.1% | 10.0 | |
| Egbedore | Aba bale | 7.8080 | 4.3952 | Open broadleaved deciduous forest | 35.6% | 13.1 |
| Ekuro | 7.7302 | 4.3640 | Open broadleaved deciduous forest | 27.5% | 9.5 | |
| Ejigbo | Ado-ori Oke | 7.8254 | 4.2652 | Open broadleaved deciduous forest | 29.9% | 6.5 |
| Agurodo | 7.9443 | 4.2700 | Closed to open shrub land | 19.4% | 2.5 | |
| Inisa Edoro | 7.8036 | 4.2806 | Open broadleaved deciduous forest | 34.5% | 9.1 | |
| Iwo | Ogburo | 7.5969 | 4.1063 | Mosaic vegetation/croplands | 32.8% | 13.1 |
Summary of LF and loiasis prevalence and risk factors.
| Variable | Total | LF | Loiasis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + ve | (%) | P value | + ve | Loa (%) | P value | |||
| Demographic characteristics | ||||||||
| LGA | Ayedire | 169 | 4 | 2.4% | 6 | 3.6% | ||
| Ede South | 174 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 10.9% | |||
| Egbedore | 179 | 3 | 1.7% | 12 | 6.7% | |||
| Ejigbo | 274 | 7 | 2.6% | 20 | 7.3% | |||
| Iwo | 74 | 1 | 1.4% | 0.321 | 1 | 1.4% | 0.023 | |
| Community | Ile Iran | 83 | 1 | 1.2% | 3 | 3.6% | ||
| Kuta Ileogbo Railway | 86 | 3 | 3.5% | 3 | 3.5% | |||
| Gaagaa | 85 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10.6% | |||
| Ogobi Oja | 89 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 11.2% | |||
| Aba bale | 88 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8.0% | |||
| Ekuro | 91 | 3 | 3.3% | 5 | 5.5% | |||
| Ado-ori Oke | 85 | 4 | 4.7% | 5 | 5.9% | |||
| Agurodo | 96 | 2 | 2.1% | 10 | 10.4% | |||
| Inisa Edoro | 93 | 1 | 1.1% | 5 | 5.4% | |||
| Ogburo | 74 | 1 | 1.4% | 0.178 | 1 | 1.4% | 0.121 | |
| Sex | Male | 349 | 11 | 3.2% | 18 | 5.2% | ||
| Female | 521 | 4 | 0.8% | 0.014 | 40 | 7.7% | 0.166 | |
| Age group | 15–50 | 409 | 7 | 1.7% | 21 | 5.1% | ||
| 51–100 | 460 | 8 | 1.7% | 37 | 8.0% | |||
| No answer | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0.162 | |
| Occupation | Farmer | 354 | 8 | 2.3% | 19 | 5.4% | ||
| Trader | 256 | 1 | 0.4% | 18 | 7.0% | |||
| Farmer/trader/other | 73 | 1 | 1.4% | 7 | 9.6% | |||
| Student | 80 | 2 | 3.8% | 5 | 6.3% | |||
| Other | 107 | 3 | 1.9% | 0.234 | 9 | 8.4% | 0.638 | |
| Forest visits | Never | 82 | 1 | 1.2% | 5 | 6.1% | ||
| Daily | 496 | 7 | 1.4% | 28 | 5.6% | |||
| Weekly/monthly | 292 | 7 | 2.4% | 0.63 | 25 | 8.6% | 0.301 | |
| Intervention history | ||||||||
| Ivermectin | Never | 253 | 6 | 2.4% | 13 | 5.1% | ||
| 1–4 rounds | 437 | 7 | 1.6% | 32 | 7.3% | |||
| 5 + rounds | 145 | 2 | 1.4% | 13 | 9.0% | |||
| Does not know | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0.776 | 0 | 0 | 0.207 | |
| Bed net own | Yes | 745 | 10 | 1.3% | 53 | 7.1% | ||
| No | 125 | 5 | 4.0% | 0.051 | 5 | 4.0% | 0.246 | |
| Bed net sleep | Yes | 502 | 5 | 1.0% | 34 | 7.8% | ||
| No | 243 | 5 | 2.1% | 19 | 6.8% | |||
| Does not own | 125 | 5 | 4.0% | 0.058 | 5 | 4.0% | 0.382 | |
Denotes statistically significant difference with P value ≤ 0.05.
Fig. 3LF and loiasis number of positive cases and prevalence by age group and sex.
A. LF positive numbers
B. Loiasis positive numbers
C. LF prevalence
D. Loiasis prevalence
Summary of LF and loiasis prevalence and intervention and landscape characteristics.
| Variable | Total | LF | Loiasis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landscape characteristics | ||||||||
| Land cover | Mosaic vegetation - cropland | 157 | 2 | 1.3% | 4 | 2.5% | ||
| Shrub land | 96 | 2 | 2.1% | 10 | 10.4% | |||
| Deciduous forest | 357 | 8 | 2.2% | 22 | 6.2% | |||
| Evergreen/semi-deciduous forest | 260 | 3 | 1.2% | 0.756 | 22 | 8.5% | 0.046* | |
| Tree coverage (%) | < 33% of total area | 355 | 10 | 2.8% | 23 | 6.5% | ||
| > 33% of total area | 515 | 5 | 1.0% | 0.060 | 35 | 6.8% | 0.891 | |
| Forest canopy height (mean) | < 10 m of total area | 448 | 11 | 2.5% | 28 | 6.3% | ||
| > 10 m of total area | 422 | 4 | 0.9% | 0.118 | 30 | 7.1% | 0.684 | |
| – | ||||||||
Number and mosquito species compositions collected by different collection methods.
| Community | Pyrethroid spray catch (PSC) | CDC light trap | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Total | |||||||
| Ekuro | 37 | 1 | 0 | 38 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Ogburo | 26 | 0 | 1 | 27 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 |
| Ado-ori Oke | 1 | 34 | 0 | 35 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
Anopheles mosquito identification and W. bancrofti detection.
| Community | No. analysed | No. positive (%) | No. analysed | No. positive (%) | No. analysed | No. positive (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ekuro | 44 | 1 (2.3) | 0 | 0 | 37 | 0 |
| Ogburo | 54 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 26 | 0 |
| Ado-ori Oke | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 37 | 0 |
Fig. 6GPS data logger loiasis case and control patterns for the study area and six communities.
A. Overall patterns of data loggers
B. Ogburo (loiasis 1.4%)
C. Ile Iran (3.6%)
D. Agurodo (10.4%)
E. Aba bale (8.2%)
F. Ogobi Oja (11.2%)
G. Gaagaa (10.6%)