| Literature DB >> 29776367 |
Mónica Guerra1, Bruno de Sousa2, Nicolas Ndong-Mabale3, Pedro Berzosa4, Ana Paula Arez5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After the introduction of an artemisinin-based combination therapy, the reduction of prevalence of malaria infections has shown a remarkable progress during the last decade. However due to the lack of a consistent malaria control programme and socioeconomic inequalities, Plasmodium infection is still one of the major cause of disease in Equatorial Guinea, namely in the rural communities. This study explored the associated risk factors of malaria transmission at the microeconomic level (households) in two rural villages of mainland Equatorial Guinea.Entities:
Keywords: Equatorial Guinea; Malaria infection; Plasmodium spp.; Risk factors; Socioeconomic status
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29776367 PMCID: PMC5960103 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-018-2354-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Map of Equatorial Guinea with study areas. The country’s capital is Malabo, on Bioko Island. Sampling took place in two villages of mainland Equatorial Guinea, Ngonamanga and Miyobo (red stars). Ngonamanga (Litoral province, N 02°09′34,5″; E 009°47′54,4″) is a coastland village, isolated from the main trade routes, having an older population, whereas Miyobo (Centro Sur province, N 01°44′56,40″; E 10°10′40,05″) is a village in the interior, but closer to a developing city Niefang and nearby a main road, having a younger population [4]
Occurrence, indicated as a percentage, of each predictor variable as determined in the 2-step cluster analysis
| Socioeconomic status | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More poor | % | Poor | % | Less poor | % | |
| Households | 27 | 39.1 | 22 | 31.9 | 20 | 29.0 |
| Average household size | 2.78 | 5.64 | 2.65 | |||
| Eaves present | 92.6 | 81.8 | 60 | |||
| Source of water for domestic use | Low quality | 88.9 | Low quality | 90.9 | Low quality | 90.0 |
| Toilet facility | High quality | 100 | High quality | 100 | High quality | 65.0 |
| Has at least 1 electric appliance | 70.4 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Source of power for cooking | Low quality | 92.6 | Low quality | 100 | High quality | 100 |
| Wall type | Low quality | 100 | Low quality | 54.5 | Low quality | 65.0 |
| Floor type | Low quality | 81.5 | High quality | 77.3 | High quality | 100 |
| Roof type | High quality | 100 | High quality | 100 | High quality | 95.0 |
| Windows protection | Low quality | 74.1 | High quality | 81.8 | High quality | 70.0 |
| Bed net ownership | Low quality | 85.2 | High quality | 68.2 | Low quality | 75.0 |
Sensitivity, specificity, predicative values of optical microscopy (OM) and NADAL® Malaria Test 4 species with PCR as gold standard
| Positive PCR (n = 160) | Negative PCR (n = 72) | Sensitivity % (CI95) | Specificity % (CI95) | PPV % (CI95) | NPV % (CI95) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microscopy | ||||||
| Positive (n = 112) | 108 | 4 | 68.8 (60.5–75.5) | 94.4 (86.4–98.5) | 96.4 (91.2–98.6) | 57.6 (51.8–63.3) |
| Negative (n = 118) | 50 | 68 | ||||
| Missing (n = 2) | 2 | |||||
| NADAL test | ||||||
| Positive (n = 112) | 105 | 7 | 65.6 (57.7–72.9) | 90.3 (81.0–96.0) | 93.8 (88.0–96.8) | 54.2 (48.5–59.7) |
| Negative (n = 120) | 55 | 65 | ||||
| P-value = 0.212* | ||||||
PVP positive predictive value, NVP negative predictive value, CI 95% confidence interval
* DeLong’s test for two correlated ROC curves with AUCmicroscopy = 81.6% and AUCNADAL test = 80.0%
Determinants for PCR positive result and high parasitaemia in logistic regression analysis at individual level
| Response variable | PCR positive result | High parasitaemia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P-value | OR | 95% CI | P-value | ||
| Age | 0.979 | 0.967–0.991 |
| 0.947 | 0.907–0.989 |
| |
| IRSa | |||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Yes | 0.854 | 0.398–1.831 | 0.685 | 5.683 | 0.953–33.885 | 0.056 | |
| Bed netb | |||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Yes | 0.794 | 0.411–1.531 | 0.490 | 0.898 | 0.902–4.397 | 0.898 | |
| Animalsc | |||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Yes | 1.150 | 0.534–2.477 | 0.721 | 0.053 | 0.010–0.288 |
| |
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05)
aIndoor residual spraying
bPeople sleeping under a bed net the night before
cAnimals in the vicinity of the house
Determinants for PCR positive result in logistic regression analysis at household level (at least one member of the household was PCR-positive) and high parasitaemia level
| Response variable | PCR positive result | High parasitaemia | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P-value | OR | 95% CI | P-value | |
| IRSa | ||||||
| No | – | – | – | 1 | ||
| Yes | – | – | – | 5.071 | 0.733–35.053 | 0.100 |
| At least Bed net usedb | ||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Yes | 0.776 | 0.126–4.773 | 0.785 | 0.860 | 0.147–5.046 | 0.868 |
| Animalsc | ||||||
| No | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Yes | 3.522 | 0.787–15.756 | 0.100 | 0.070 | 0.007–0.680 |
|
| Household size | 4.771 | 1.408–16.168 |
| 1.475 | 1.024–2.123 |
|
Italic values indicate significance of P value (P < 0.05)
aIndoor residual spraying
bPeople sleeping under a bed net the night before
cAnimals in the vicinity of the house