| Literature DB >> 30040610 |
Taiwu Wang1, Yifang Han1, Zuanqin Pan2, Hengzhong Wang2, Meng Yuan3, Hong Lin4.
Abstract
Toxoplasma gondii transmitted from blood donors to receiving patients has become a concern as numerous articles about the epidemiology of T. gondii infection in blood donors from different provinces have been published in China. This study aimed to evaluate the seroprevalence of T. gondii infection in Chinese blood donors using a meta-analysis. A total of 40 eligible studies, published from 1986 to 2017 and covering 18 provinces and municipalities were included. Among a total of 49,784 Chinese blood donors, the overall IgG seroprevalence of T. gondii infection was 6.26% (95% CI: 4.62%-8.13%). The highest prevalence was in the Northeast of China and the lowest in Central China. The infection rate increased slowly over the years, but not significantly. A statistically significant correlation was found between the seroprevalence of T. gondii infection and the detection method and educational level (p < 0.01). There was no relationship between age, gender, occupation and blood type and seroprevalence of T. gondii (p > 0.05). The prevalence of antibodies to T. gondii in Chinese blood donors was lower than in other countries, but the risk of transfusion-transmitted toxoplasmosis still exits. More concise methods are still needed to evaluate the possibility of transfusion-transmitted toxoplasmosis from blood donors. © T. Wang et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2018.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30040610 PMCID: PMC6057739 DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2018037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasite ISSN: 1252-607X Impact factor: 3.000
Fig. 1.Flowchart describing the study design process.
Baseline characteristics of included studies based on geographical regions in China.
| Region | Province | Author [reference] | Method | Publication year | Population | Number of IgG-positive sera | Prevalence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northwest | Shanxi | Ai et al. [ | ELISA | 2007 | 368 | 30 | 8.15 |
| Northwest | Gansu | Wang et al. [ | ELISA | 1998 | 1480 | 150 | 10.14 |
| Northwest | Xinjiang | Sun et al. [ | IHA | 1991 | 328 | 24 | 7.32 |
| Southwest | Guizhou | Chen et al. [ | ELISA | 1999 | 500 | 32 | 6.40 |
| Southwest | Guizhou | Hu et al. [ | IHA | 1991 | 200 | 1 | 0.50 |
| Southwest | Sichuan | Wu et al. [ | ELISA | 1989 | 339 | 128 | 37.76 |
| Southwest | Yunnan | Zhu et al. [ | ELISA | 2007 | 5068 | 1006 | 19.85 |
| Southwest | Chongqing | Xu et al. [ | ELISA | 2017 | 1001 | 85 | 8.49 |
| Northeast | Heilongjiang | Wang et al. [ | ELISA | 2002 | 264 | 56 | 21.21 |
| North China | Hebei | Song et al. [ | ELISA | 2009 | 792 | 38 | 4.80 |
| North China | Hebei | Song et al. [ | ELISA | 2012 | 1612 | 189 | 11.72 |
| North China | Hebei | Wang et al. [ | ELISA | 2014 | 832 | 35 | 4.21 |
| North China | Hebei | Yang et al. [ | ELISA | 2012 | 1056 | 51 | 4.83 |
| North China | Hebei | Xin et al. [ | ELISA | 2013 | 864 | 44 | 5.09 |
| North China | Hebei | Wu et al. [ | ELISA | 2017 | 1630 | 126 | 7.73 |
| North China | Hebei | Shen et al. [ | ELISA | 2017 | 1165 | 83 | 7.12 |
| Central China | Henan | Yang et al. [ | IHA | 1995 | 469 | 20 | 4.26 |
| Central China | Henan | Luo et al. [ | ELISA | 2003 | 960 | 50 | 5.21 |
| Central China | Henan | Sun et al. [ | ELISA | 2015 | 3200 | 98 | 3.06 |
| Central China | Hubei | Gu et al. [ | IHA | 1989 | 2063 | 32 | 1.55 |
| Central China | Hubei | Kuang et al. [ | ELISA | 2002 | 256 | 14 | 5.47 |
| Central China | Hubei | Li et al. [ | ELISA | 2003 | 584 | 79 | 13.53 |
| Central China | Hunan | Tong et al. [ | ELISA | 1994 | 1105 | 14 | 1.27 |
| East China | Shandong | Feng et al. [ | ELISA | 1998 | 2025 | 259 | 12.79 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Zhu et al. [ | IHA | 1987 | 300 | 17 | 5.67 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Jiang et al. [ | IHA | 1991 | 212 | 12 | 5.66 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Chen et al. [ | IHA | 1998 | 110 | 1 | 0.91 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Wu et al. [ | IHA | 1994 | 1129 | 17 | 1.51 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Zhu et al. [ | IHA | 1994 | 3542 | 156 | 4.40 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Zhu et al. [ | ELISA | 1997 | 800 | 21 | 2.63 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Yuan et al. [ | ELISA | 1998 | 723 | 15 | 2.07 |
| East China | Jiangsu | Liu et al. [ | ELISA | 2001 | 2589 | 78 | 3.01 |
| East China | Anhui | Wang et al. [ | ELISA | 1999 | 670 | 19 | 2.84 |
| East China | Anhui | Shen et al. [ | ELISA | 2000 | 638 | 39 | 6.11 |
| East China | Zhejiang | Meng et al. [ | ELISA | 1996 | 1197 | 215 | 17.96 |
| East China | Zhejiang | Jiang et al. [ | ELISA | 2006 | 1023 | 58 | 5.67 |
| South China | Guangdong | Zeng et al. [ | ELISA | 2005 | 680 | 49 | 7.21 |
| South China | Guangdong | Zhong et al. [ | ELISA | 2010 | 1000 | 94 | 9.40 |
| South China | Guangdong | Gu et al. [ | ELISA | 2010 | 4500 | 69 | 1.53 |
| South China | Guangxi | Huang et al. [ | ELISA | 2013 | 2510 | 74 | 2.95 |
Fig. 2.Forest plot of the overall seroprevalence estimates of T. gondii in blood donors.
Comparison of prevalence rates in different regions
| Heterogeneity test | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regions | No. of studies | No. of donors | Prevalence [95% CI] (%) |
|
|
| Northwest | 3 | 2176 | 8.95 [7.29; 10.76] | 37.40 | 0.20 |
| East China | 13 | 14,958 | 4.85 [2.78; 7.43] | 97.60 | <0.01 |
| Southwest | 5 | 7108 | 11.93 [4.54; 22.16] | 98.70 | <0.01 |
| Central China | 7 | 8637 | 4.24 [2.25; 6.82] | 96.00 | <0.01 |
| South China | 4 | 8690 | 4.71 [1.88; 8.71] | 98.00 | <0.01 |
| North China | 7 | 7951 | 6.36 [4.55; 8.45] | 92.20 | <0.01 |
| Northeast | 1 | 264 | 21.21 [16.48; 26.36] | ||
| Total | 40 | 49,784 | 6.26 [4.62; 8.13] | 98.00 | <0.01 |
Fig. 3.Geographic distribution of T. gondii prevalence.
Fig. 4.Meta-regression plot of antibodies to T. gondii according to the year of study. The overall prevalence of antibodies against T. gondii increased according to the year of study, but the trend was not significant (p > 0.05).
Seroprevalence of T. gondii in blood donors associated with risk factors.
| Factors | Categories | No. of studies | No. of blood donors | No. of IgG(+) | Prevalence [95% CI] (%) | Heterogeneity | Between-group differences | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Method | 9.46 | 0.0021 | |||||||
| ELISA | 31 | 41431 | 3298 | 7.30 [5.25; 9.67] | 98.70% | <0.01 | |||
| IHA | 9 | 8353 | 280 | 3.16 [1.87; 4.76] | 90.40% | <0.01 | |||
| Age | 0.99 | 0.6082 | |||||||
| 18–30 | 15 | 15582 | 1471 | 7.37 [4.02; 11.61] | 98.70% | <0.01 | |||
| 30–40 | 15 | 5458 | 469 | 8.49 [5.87; 11.53] | 92.60% | <0.01 | |||
| >40 | 15 | 2903 | 270 | 9.36 [6.10; 13.17] | 88.70% | <0.01 | |||
| Gender | 0.07 | 0.7983 | |||||||
| Male | 22 | 16652 | 1369 | 6.75 [4.31; 9.67] | 97.90% | <0.01 | |||
| Female | 22 | 14545 | 1104 | 6.21 [4.01; 8.83] | 97.10% | <0.01 | |||
| Occupation | 1.84 | 0.6061 | |||||||
| Students | 10 | 5152 | 332 | 4.47 [1.83; 8.13] | 96.30% | <0.01 | |||
| Job-holders | 10 | 6355 | 536 | 5.99 [2.57; 10.64] | 97.50% | <0.01 | |||
| Farmers | 10 | 4611 | 561 | 8.49 [3.91; 14.54] | 97.50% | <0.01 | |||
| Others | 8 | 2356 | 188 | 6.46 [3.22; 10.65] | 92.00% | <0.01 | |||
| Blood | 0.01 | 0.9997 | |||||||
| A | 3 | 1421 | 104 | 7.74 [2.38; 15.69] | 94.60% | <0.01 | |||
| B | 3 | 1773 | 140 | 7.36 [1.84; 15.99] | 96.40% | <0.01 | |||
| AB | 3 | 406 | 28 | 6.97 [0.05; 21.35] | 92.80% | <0.01 | |||
| O | 3 | 1382 | 95 | 7.23 [1.51; 16.50] | 95.80% | <0.01 | |||
| Education | 10.29 | 0.0058 | |||||||
| University | 3 | 849 | 41 | 4.80 [3.44; 6.37] | 0.00% | 0.63 | |||
| High school | 3 | 2361 | 161 | 6.58 [4.79; 8.63] | 72.00% | 0.03 | |||
| ≤Middle school | 3 | 641 | 58 | 9.01 [6.89; 11.38] | 0.00% | 0.72 | |||
Test for subgroup differences using random effects model.
Fig. 5.Funnel plot (left) and Egger’s publication bias plot (right), showing that no potential publication bias existed.