| Literature DB >> 29972463 |
Kerla Joeline Lima Monteiro1, Elis Regina Chaves Dos Reis1, Beatriz Coronato Nunes1, Lauren Hubert Jaeger1, Deiviane Aparecida Calegar1, Jéssica Pereira Dos Santos2, Alexander de Oliveira Maia3, Samanta Cristina das Chagas Xavier4, Márcio Neves Bóia3, Filipe Anibal Carvalho-Costa1.
Abstract
This study aims to describe the prevalence, distribution, and factors associated with soil-transmitted helminthiases (STHs) in rural localities in Piaui, Brazil. Two cross-sectional surveys (n=605 subjects; 172 families) were carried out in order to obtain socio-demographic, anthropometric, spatial and parasitological data. Parasites were evaluated using Kato-Katz and centrifugal sedimentation techniques. Eggs were measured to assess infection with zoonotic Strongylida parasites. Kernel maps were constructed with Q-GIS. The prevalence of hookworm infection was 12.4% (75/605). Other helminthes found were Trichuris trichiura (n=1; 0.2%) and Hymenolepis nana (n=1; 0.2%). The hookworm positivity rate was significantly lower among subjects who had used albendazole when compared with individuals who had not used anthelmintics or had used antiprotozoal drugs in the last 6 months (8/134 [6.0%] vs. 59/415 [14.2%]; p=0.009). A total of 39/172 (22.7%) families had at least one infected member. The association between the number of dwellers and hookworm positivity in the family was present in a logistic regression multivariate model. Assessment of worm burdens showed 92.2% light, 6.2% moderate, and 1.6% heavy infections. Hookworm eggs (n=34) measured 57.2 - 75.4 µm in length and 36.4 - 44.2 µm in width (mean ± SD = 65.86 ± 4.66 µm L and 40.05 ± 1.99 µm W), commensurate with human hookworms. Hotspots suggest that transmission has a focal pattern. STHs persist in impoverished rural areas in Northeastern Brazil where currently available control strategies (mass drug administration) apparently do not allow the elimination of the infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29972463 PMCID: PMC6029850 DOI: 10.1590/s1678-9946201860024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo ISSN: 0036-4665 Impact factor: 1.846
Figure 1- Geographic location of Nossa Senhora de Nazare in Piaui State and aspect of two visited houses
Figure 2Flowchart depicting sample size and main results of the cross-sectional surveys performed in Nossa Senhora de Nazare, State of Piaui, Brazil. Legenda: EPG: eggs per gram of feces; HAZ: height-for-age z-scores; WHZ: weight-for-height z-scores; WAZ: weight-for-age z scores
Hookworm positivity rates in distinct age groups, genders and seasons in Nossa Senhora de Nazare, State of Piaui, Brazil, 2014-2015
| Hookworm positivity rate |
| |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Dry | 11.7% (35/298) | 0.631 |
| Rainy | 13% (40/307) | |
|
| ||
| 0-5 | 12.1% (11/91) | 0.144 |
| 6-14 | 14.8% (22/149) | |
| 15-21 | 19.2% (9/47) | |
| 22-45 | 10.6% (19/180) | |
| 46-60 | 12.0% (9/75) | |
| > 60 | 7.4% (4/54) | |
| Unknown | 11.1% (1/9) | |
|
| ||
| Albendazole | 6.0% (8/134) | 0.009 |
| Mebendazole | 14.8% (8/54) | |
| None or only antiprotozoal drugs | 14.2% (59/415) | |
| Unknown | 0.0% (0/2) | |
|
| ||
| Male | 14.4% (40/278) | 0.170 |
| Female | 10.7% (35/327) | |
|
| ||
| Illiterate | 14.3% (11/77) | 0.052 |
| 1-4 study years | 13.7% (31/226) | |
| > 4 study years | 4.3% (3/70) | |
*Chi-square for linear trend **Albendazole vs. none or only antiprotozoal drugs
Hookworm positivity rates by family (at least one positive subject in the house) in distinct sociodemographic settings in Nossa Senhora de Nazare, State of Piaui, Brazil, 2014-2015
| Characteristic | Hookworm Positivity | Crude Odds ratio (95% CI) | p-value | Adjusted Odds ratio (95% CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season | |||||
| Dry | 16/91 (17.6%) | 1.85 (0.90-3.83) | 0.065 | 1.57 (0.70-3.48) | 0.267 |
| Rainy | 23/81 (28.4%) | ||||
| Number of dwellers | |||||
| ≤ 4 | 15/103 (14.6%) | 0.31 (0.15-0.66) | 0.001 | 0.29 (0.13-0.67) | 0.003 |
| > 4 | 24/69 (34.8%) | ||||
| Type of floor | |||||
| Uncoated floor | 11/27 (40.7%) | 2.87 (1.20-6.86) | 0.017 | 1.43 (0.52-3.97) | 0.480 |
| Ceramic – coated floor | 28/145 (19.3%) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Sandy | 29/127 (22,8%) | 1.03 (0.45-2.34) | 0.555 | 1.23 (0.40-3.71) | 0.716 |
| Clayey | 10/45 (22,2%) | ||||
| Site of defecation | |||||
| Open defecation | 22/91 (24.2%) | 1.20 (0.58-2.46) | 0.376 | 1.03 (0.39-2.69) | 0.938 |
| Latrine | 17/81 (21%) | ||||
| Extreme poverty* | |||||
| Yes | 8/38 (21.1%) | 0.89 (0.37-2.16) | 0.501 | 0.73 (0.27-2.00) | 0.551 |
| No | 30/131 (22.9%) | ||||
| Presence of goats | |||||
| Yes | 7/34 (20.6%) | 0.85% (0.34-20.15) | 0.472 | 1.61(0.52-4.95) | 0.402 |
| No | 32/138 (26.2%) | ||||
| Presence of pigs | |||||
| Yes | 23/104 (22.1%) | 0.92 (0.44-1.90) | 0.485 | 0.85 (0.36-2.01) | 0.723 |
| No | 16/68 (23.5%) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Yes | 0/21 (0%) | Undefined | 0.003 | Undefined | 0.962 |
| No | 39/151 (25.8%) |
* Per capita monthly familiar income < RS$ 70; missing information for one family
Figure 3- Scatter plot depicting hookworm egg fecal counts per gram of feces by age
Figure 4- Boxplots of length (A) and width (B) of hookworm eggs
Figure 5- Mapping on the distribution of hookworm infection (municipalities) depicting hotspots (Kernel density)