| Literature DB >> 30419944 |
Iara Caixeta Marques da Rocha1,2, Letícia Helena Marques Dos Santos1, Wendel Coura-Vital3,4, Gisele Macedo Rodrigues da Cunha1, Fernanda do Carmo Magalhães1, Thais Almeida Marques da Silva1,5, Maria Helena Franco Morais2, Edward Oliveira6, Ilka Afonso Reis7, Mariângela Carneiro8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Control strategies adopted by the Brazilian Visceral Leishmaniasis Surveillance and Control Programme (VLSCP) include identifying and culling seropositive infected dogs, early diagnosis and treatment of human cases, chemical control of the vector and population awareness. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the VLSCP on the prevalence and incidence rates of Leishmania infantum in children residing in areas under different VLSCP intervention times.Entities:
Keywords: Control programme; Effectiveness; Leishmania infantum infection; Quasi-experimental study; Visceral leishmaniasis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30419944 PMCID: PMC6233359 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-3166-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Study design: panel study (cross-sectional studies I and II) and cohort study. Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Characteristics of the children living in the three different areas evaluated, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Study | Variable | AI 2006 | AI 2008 | AI 2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort | Number of children | 160 (33.5) | 180 (37.7) | 138 (28.9) | |
| Age | |||||
| ≤ 48 months | 13 (8.2) | 17 (9.4) | 28 (20.3) | 0.03 | |
| > 48 and ≤ 72 months | 52 (32.7) | 61 (33.9) | 42 (30.4) | ||
| > 72 and ≤ 96 months | 64 (40.2) | 76 (42.2) | 46 (33.3) | ||
| > 96 months | 30 (18.9) | 26 (14.5) | 22 (16.0) | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 78 (48.8) | 91 (50.6) | 77 (55.8) | 0.46 | |
| Female | 82 (51.3) | 89 (49.4) | 61 (44.2) | ||
| Cross-sectional-II | Number of children | 287 (32.2) | 316 (35.5) | 288 (32.3) | |
| Age | |||||
| ≤ 48 months | 84 (29.3) | 100 (31.6) | 102 (35.4) | 0.70 | |
| > 48 and ≤ 72 months | 77 (26.8) | 91 (28.8) | 75 (26.0) | ||
| > 72 and ≤ 96 months | 93 (32.4) | 96 (30.4) | 81 (28.2) | ||
| > 96 months | 33 (11.5) | 29 (9.2) | 30 (10.4) | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 137 (47.7) | 159 (50.3) | 152 (52.8) | 0.48 | |
| Female | 150 (52.3) | 157 (49.7) | 136 (47.2) | ||
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; CI, confidence interval
Prevalence and incidence of L. infantum infection rates in areas with different intervention times by the Brazilian Visceral Leishmaniasis Surveillance and Control Programme, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Areas | Prevalence 2010 (95% CI) | Prevalence 2012 (95% CI) | Change (%) | Incidence 2012 (95% CI) | Person-time incidencea (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI2006 | 12.9 (10.6–15.6) | 23.7 (19.1–28.9) | 83.7 | 14.4 (9.8–20.7) | 6.2 (4.0–9.1) |
| AI 2008 | 14.7 (12.3–17.6) | 25.6 (21.1–30.7) | 74.1 | 21.1 (15.8–27.6) | 10.0 (7.2–13.6) |
| AI 2010 | 17.9 (14.8–21.4) | 17.0 (13.1–21.8) | -5.3 | 11.6 (7.3–18.0) | 5.6 (3.3–9.0) |
aDenominator: Loss/2 + number of children on follow-up for 24 months for each area analyzed. Incidence rate/100 persons-24 months
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; CI, confidence interval
Comparison of the families and household characteristics among the three areas evaluated in the cohort study, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Variable | AI 2006 | AI 2008 | AI 2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of residences | 142 (35.7) | 143 (35.9) | 113 (28.4) | |
| Education level of the household head | ||||
| Higher education (in course or completed) | 15 (10. 6) | 7 (4.9) | 27 (23.9) | 0.001 |
| High-school (completed) | 60 (42.3) | 77 (53.9) | 51 (45.1) | |
| Foundation (completed) | 28 (19.7) | 26 (18.2) | 16 (14.2) | |
| Primary school (completed) | 22 (15.5) | 30 (21.0) | 13 (11.5) | |
| Iliterate | 17 (11.9) | 3 (2.10) | 6 (5.31) | |
| Socio-economic class (BMMW) | ||||
| A1, A2 and B1 (20.8 to 4.2) | 16 (11.3) | 18 (12.6) | 30 (26.6) | 0.001 |
| B2 (4.1 to 2.5) | 33 (23.2) | 41 (28.7) | 44 (38.9) | |
| C1, C2 and D (2.4 to 1.1) | 93 (65.5) | 84 (58.7) | 39 (34.5) | |
| Chickens | ||||
| Present | 20 (14.1) | 18 (12.6) | 10 (8.9) | 0.43 |
| Absent | 122 (85.9) | 125 (87.4) | 103 (91.2) | |
| Dogs | ||||
| Present | 75 (52.8) | 80 (55.9) | 60 (53.1) | 0.85 |
| Absent | 67 (47.2) | 63 (44.1) | 53 (46.9) | |
| Peridomiciliar plants | ||||
| Present | 107 (75.4) | 98 (68.5) | 87 (77.0) | 0.15 |
| Absent | 33 (23.24) | 45 (31.47) | 26 (23.0) | |
| Neighbourhood trees | ||||
| Present | 92 (64.8) | 89 (62.2) | 75 (66.4) | 0.78 |
| Absent | 50 (35.2) | 54 (37.8) | 38 (33.6) | |
| Rubble | ||||
| Present | 55 (38.7) | 39 (27.3) | 29 (25.7) | 0.06 |
| Absent | 85 (59.9) | 101 (70.6) | 84 (74.3) | |
| Gully | ||||
| Present | 46 (32.4) | 28 (19.6) | 24 (21.2) | 0.07 |
| Absent | 95 (66.9) | 115 (80.4) | 88 (77.9) | |
| Waste | ||||
| Present | 18 (12.7) | 18 (12.6) | 21 (18.6) | 0.21 |
| Absent | 122 (85.9) | 125 (87.4) | 92 (81.4) | |
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; BMMW, Brazilian monthly minimum wage; Class A1, A2 and B1 (20.8 to 4.2 BMMW); Class B2, (4.1 to 2.5 BMMW); Class C1, C2 and D (2.4 to 1.1 BMMW)
Effectiveness of the control strategies adopted by the Brazilian Visceral Leishmaniasis Surveillance and Control Programme, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Intervention área | IRRa | 95% CI | IRRb | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI2010 | 1 | |||||
| AI2008 | 1.82 | 1.06–3.13 | 0.03 | 1.76 | 0.03 | 1.05–2.95 |
| AI2006 | 1.24 | 0.68–2.25 | 0.48 | 1.18 | 0.59 | 0.65–2.14 |
aNon-adjusted model
bModel adjusted to age of the child, family’s socio-economic class and presence of trees in the neighborhood
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; CI, confidence interval; IRR, incidence rate ratio
Comparison of the families and household characteristics among the three areas evaluated in the cross-sectional study, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Variables | AI 2006 | AI 2008 | AI 2010 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of households | 229 | 223 | 207 | |
| Education level of the household head | ||||
| Higher education in course or completed | 21 (9.2) | 16 (7.2) | 45 (21.8) | 0.001 |
| High-school (completed) | 103 (45.2) | 121 (54.3) | 86 (41.7) | |
| Foundation (completed) | 51 (22.4) | 40 (17.9) | 36 (17.5) | |
| Primary school (completed) | 32 (14.0) | 41 (18.4) | 27 (13.1) | |
| Illiterate | 21 (9.2) | 5 (2.2) | 12 (5.8) | |
| Socio-economic class (BMMW) | ||||
| A1, A2 and B1 (20.8 to 4.2) | 24 (10.5) | 31 (13.9) | 49 (23. 7) | 0.001 |
| B2 (4.1 to 2.5) | 54 (23.6) | 66 (29.6) | 72 (34.8) | |
| C1, C2 and D (2.4 to 1.1) | 151 (65.9) | 126 (56.5) | 86 (41.5) | |
| Chickens | ||||
| Present | 34 (14.8) | 24 (10.8) | 18 (8.7) | 0.12 |
| Absent | 195 (85.1) | 199 (89.2) | 189 (91.3) | |
| Dogs | ||||
| Present | 119 (51.9) | 120 (53.8) | 104 (50.2) | 0.76 |
| Absent | 110 (48.0) | 103 (46.2) | 103 (49.8) | |
| Peridomicilar plants | ||||
| Present | 162 (70.7) | 145 (65.0) | 151 (72.9) | 0.02 |
| Absent | 65 (28.4) | 78 (35.0) | 55 (26.6) | |
| Neighbourhood trees | ||||
| Present | 148 (64.6) | 139 (62.3) | 136 (65.7) | 0.75 |
| Absent | 81 (35.4) | 84 (37.7) | 71 (34.3) | |
| Rubble | ||||
| Present | 93 (40.6) | 68 (30.5) | 56 (27.1) | 0.01 |
| Absent | 132 (57.6) | 153 (68.6) | 151(72.9) | |
| Gully | ||||
| Present | 82 (35.8) | 49 (22.0) | 42 (20.3) | 0.001 |
| Absent | 144 (62.9) | 174 (78.0) | 164 (79.2) | |
| Waste | ||||
| Present | 35 (15.3) | 30 (13.5) | 31 (15.0) | 0.19 |
| Absent | 191(83.4) | 193 (86.5) | 176 (85.0) | |
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; BMMW, Brazilian monthly minimum wage; Class A1, A2 and B1 (20.8 to 4.2 BMMW); Class B2, (4.1 to 2.5 BMMW); Class C1, C2 and D (2.4 to 1.1 BMMW)
Effectiveness of the control strategies adopted by the Brazilian Visceral Leishmaniasis Surveillance and Control Programme in transversal study II, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| Intervention área | ORa | 95% CI | ORb | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI2010 | 1 | |||||
| AI2008 | 1.94 | 1.1–3.42 | 0.02 | 1.84 | 0.03 | 1.06–3.23 |
| AI2006 | 1.71 | 1.1–3.42 | 0.07 | 1.68 | 0.07 | 0.94–2.98 |
aNon-adjusted model
bModel adjusted by age of the child, socio-economic class of the family, presence of trees in the neighborhood and presence of chickens.
Abbreviations: AI2006, area of intervention since 2006; AI2008, area of intervention since 2008; AI2010, area of intervention since 2010; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval