| Literature DB >> 30466399 |
Mohamed A Daw1, Lutfi A Buktir Ali2, Amina M Daw3, Nadia E M Sifennasr4, Aghnyia A Dau5, Mohamed M Agnan6, Abdallah El-Bouzedi7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C Virus infection has been considered an important hidden pandemic in developing countries, particularly in Africa. It varies greatly from one region to another and even within districts of the same region. Macroscopic geospatial analysis has become an important scientific tool for identifying the density and clustering of HCV infection and provides epidemiological information for planning interventions and control strategies. The application of these parameters provides a better knowledge of the hepatitis C virus infection prevalence at the national level and can help to implement pertinent strategies to address the HCV-related burdens. This study aims to determine the geographical variability of HCV infection in Libya and to identify the hot spots within regions and districts of the country, and to analyze the population-based demographic determinants involved and outline the intervention programs needed.Entities:
Keywords: Geographic variation; Geospatial analysis; HCV hotspots; HCV infection; Libya; Spatiotemporal distribution
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30466399 PMCID: PMC6251168 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-018-3471-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1The geographical locations and boundaries of the Libyan regions and districts
The Distribution of HCV cases over the Libyan regions and districts 2007–2016
| Regions and districts | Study period | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007–2011 | 2012–2016 | Total n(%) | |
| Eastern region | |||
| Butnan | 2520 | 3020 | 5540 (14) |
| Derna | 975 | 1400 | 2375 (6) |
| Jabal al Akhdar | 1832 | 3000 | 4832 (12) |
| Marj | 1320 | 2100 | 3420 (9) |
| Benghazi | 6100 | 6312 | 12,412 (32) |
| Al Wahat | 2860 | 3158 | 6018 (15) |
| Kufra | 1513 | 3110 | 4623 (12) |
| Total | 17,120 | 22,100 | 39,220 (34) |
| Western region | |||
| Sirte | 699 | 930 | 1629 (3) |
| Misrata | 841 | 1199 | 2040(4) |
| Murqub | 3401 | 4059 | 7460 (14) |
| Tripoli | 7160 | 8900 | 16,060 (30) |
| Jafara | 2750 | 2290 | 5040 (9) |
| Zawiya | 1419 | 2150 | 3569 (7) |
| Nuqat al Khams | 1400 | 2330 | 3730 (7) |
| Jabal al Gharbi | 4050 | 5020 | 9070 (17) |
| Nalut | 1490 | 3270 | 4760 (9) |
| Total | 23,210 | 30,148 | 53,358 (46) |
| Southern region | |||
| Jufra | 752 | 1020 | 1772 (8) |
| Wadi al Shati | 1190 | 2119 | 3309 (15) |
| Sebha | 3222 | 4011 | 7233 (32) |
| Wadi al Hayaa | 1320 | 1860 | 3180 (14) |
| Ghat | 1316 | 2150 | 3466 (16) |
| Murzuq | 1400 | 1990 | 3390 (15) |
| Total | 9200 | 13,150 | 22,350 (19) |
| All regions | 49,530 (43) | 65,398 (57) | 114,928 |
Fig. 2Geo-spatial distributions of identified cases of HCV infection in Libya at district level
Fig. 3Spatiotemporal patterns of high and low prevalence areas of HCV infection reported during a ten-year study period. a, 2007–2011; b, 2012–2016; c, 2007–2016
Distribution of reported high prevalence areas (HPA) and low prevalence area (LPA) of HCV infection in Libya from 2007 to 2016
| Year | High frequency area | Low frequency area | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Location | No. | Location | |
| 2007–2008 | 12 | Benghazi, Butnan, Sebha, Jabal al Gharbi | 1 | Murqub |
| 2009–2010 | 10 |
| 1 | Murqub, Jabal Alakhdar |
| 2011–2012 | 9 |
| 2 | Murqub, Al Wahat |
| 2013–2014 | 14 | Butnan, Sebha, Ghat, Jabal al Gharbi | 2 | Murqub, |
| 2015–2016 | 17 | Butnan, Kufra, Wadi al Shati, Ghat, Nalut | 3 | Murqub, Al Wahat, Jufra |
| Total | 13 | 3 | Murqub, Al Wahat, Jufra | |
Analysis of demographic characteristics associated with HCV infection in the Libyan population2007–2016
| Variables | HCV infection n (%) | Z-test | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 49,419 (43) | 31.23 | 42.56–43.44 | < 0.001 |
| Female | 65,509 (57) | 35.833 | 56.62–57.38 | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 24 | 13,791 (12) | 35.26 | 11.46–12.55 | 0.001 |
| 25–35 | 31,031 (27) | 8.136 | 26.51–27.50 | 0.001 |
| 36–49 | 33,329 (29) | 16.818 | 26.51–29.49 | < 0.001 |
| > 50 | 36,777 (32) | 30.916 | 31.52–32.48 | 0.001 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Below age | 11,493 (10) | 26.801 | 9.46–10.56 | 0.001 |
| Married | 44,822 (39) | 100.536 | 35.55–39.45 | |
| Single | 32,180 (28) | 35.878 | 27.51–28.49 | |
| Divorced | 10,344 (9) | 27.969 | 8.46–9.57 | |
| Unknown | 16,090 (14) | 19.027 | 13.47–14.55 | |
| Education | ||||
| Illiterate | 42,523 (37) | 87.64 | 35.54–37.46 | 0.001 |
| Primary | 28,732 (25) | 21.188 | 24.5–25.00 | |
| Secondary | 20,687 (18) | 18.62 | 21.7–24.91 | |
| Tertiary | 6896 (6) | 29.065 | 5.45–6.59 | |
| Unknown | 16,090 (14) | 19.027 | 13.47–14.55 | |
| Place of residence | ||||
| Urban | 70,106 (61) | 58.251 | 60.64–61.36 | < 0.001 |
| Rural | 44,822(39) | 46.577 | 38.55–39.45 | |
| Population density | ||||
| Low | 54,016(47) | 13.907 | 46.58–47.42 | 0.001 |
| High | 60,912(53) | 4.398 | 51.55–54.34 | |