| Literature DB >> 30709372 |
Devendra T Mourya1, Pragya D Yadav2, Yogesh K Gurav2, Prachi G Pardeshi2, Anita M Shete2, Rajlaxmi Jain2, Dinkar D Raval3, Kamlesh J Upadhyay4, Deepak Y Patil2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crimean Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a highly infectious zoonotic disease of humans transmitted by Hyalomma ticks. Earlier studies have shown CCHF seroprevalence in livestock throughout India, yet sporadic outbreaks have been recorded mostly from the Gujarat state of India since 2011. Occupational vulnerability to CCHF for animal handlers, veterinarians, abattoir workers, and healthcare workers has been documented. The current study was planned to determine the seroprevalence of CCHF with an intention to identify the high -risk population and high -risk areas from Gujarat state, India.Entities:
Keywords: Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever; ELISA; Gujarat; Human; Risk factors; Serosurvey; Ticks
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30709372 PMCID: PMC6359815 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-3740-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
District-wise distribution of human serum samples collected from Gujarat state
| District- wise human samples collected from Gujarat State | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sr. No. | District | Total samples collected | Percent | 95% CI |
| 1 | Ahmedabad | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 2 | Amreli | 196 | 3.94% | 3.43–4.51 |
| 3 | Anand | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 4 | Aravalli | 89 | 1.79% | 1.46–2.19 |
| 5 | Kheda | 96 | 1.93% | 1.58–2.35 |
| 6 | Kutch | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 7 | Botad | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 8 | Morbi | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 9 | Rajkot | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 10 | Valsad | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 11 | Jamnagar | 90 | 1.81% | 1.47–2.22 |
| 12 | Patan | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 13 | Mehsana | 77 | 1.55% | 1.24–1.93 |
| 14 | Surendranagar | 100 | 2.01% | 1.65–2.44 |
| 15 | Panchmahal | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 16 | Devbhoomi Dwarka | 201 | 4.04% | 3.53–4.62 |
| 17 | Porbandar | 103 | 2.07% | 1.71–2.50 |
| 18 | Banaskantha | 191 | 3.84% | 3.34–4.41 |
| 19 | Girsomnath | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 20 | Gandhinagar | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 21 | Narmada | 197 | 3.96% | 3.45–4.54 |
| 22 | Navsari | 206 | 4.14% | 3.62–4.73 |
| 23 | Junagadh | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 24 | Mahisagar | 182 | 3.66% | 3.17–4.21 |
| 25 | Sabarkantha | 203 | 4.08% | 3.56–4.66 |
| 26 | Surat | 197 | 3.96% | 3.45–4.54 |
| 27 | Tapi | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 28 | Vadodara | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 29 | Bharuch | 190 | 3.82% | 3.32–4.39 |
| 30 | Bhavnagar | 114 | 2.29% | 1.91–2.74 |
| 31 | Chhota Udepur | 195 | 3.92% | 3.41–4.49 |
| 32 | Dahod | 200 | 4.02% | 3.51–4.60 |
| 33 | Dang | 51 | 1.02% | 0.78–1.34 |
| Total samples collected | 4978 | 100.00% | ||
Category-wise (A-H) distribution of total human serum samples from the male and female population
| Subject category | Total number of serum samples (%) | Number of female serum samples (%) | Number of male serum samples (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: CCHF Affected Person/House/Close contact | 199 (3.99) | 98 (49.24%) | 101 (50.75%) |
| B: Neighborhood contacts | 829 (16.65) | 487 (58.74%) | 342 (41.25%) |
| C: Animal Handler | 723 (14.52) | 404 (55.87%) | 319 (44.12%) |
| D: General population | 1677 (33.68) | 963 (57.42%) | 714 (42.57%) |
| E: Farmer | 1035 (20.79) | 440 (42.51%) | 595 (57.48%) |
| F: Abattoir worker | 104 (2.08) | 32 (30.76%) | 72 (69.23%) |
| G: Veterinary worker | 104 (2.08) | 4 (3.84%) | 100 (96.15%) |
| H: Healthcare worker | 307 (6.16) | 159 (51.79%) | 148 (48.20%) |
| Total samples | 4978 | 2587 | 2391 |
Comparison of Sensitivity and Specificity of Anti-CCHF Human IgG ELISA assay (NIV kit) versus Gold standard test (Vector Best Kit, Russia)
| Anti-CCHF IgG positive and negative samples tested by Vector Best kit, Russia | Total number of samples tested by both the kits | Anti-CCHF Human IgG ELISA (NIV kit) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IgG antibody Positive | IgG antibody Negative | ||
| CCHF IgG Positive | 7 | 6 | 1 |
| CCHF IgG Negative | 129 | 2 | 127 |
| Total | 136 | 8 | 128 |
Anti-CCHF Human IgG ELISA (NIV kit) Sensitivity =85.7%
Anti-CCHF Human IgG ELISA (NIV kit) Specificity =98.44%
Fig. 1CCHF seropositivity in different districts of Gujarat state based on subject categories. The numbers in bracket indicatethe a total number of positive samples/total number of tested samples from the district. (For plotting state of Gujarat map, the svg file was downloaded from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_Gujarat_location_map.svg and then edited as per requirement)
Univariate regression analysis of CCHF seropositive data generated from subjects belonging to all the districts of Gujarat State
| Risk factors | Negative | Positive (Percent %) | Total | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 2373 | 18 (0.75) | 2391 | 2.8033 | 1.16–6.72 | 0.0209* |
| Female | 2580 | 7 (0.27) | 2587 | 1 | ||
| Age groups | ||||||
| 0 - < 20 | 498 | 1 (0.20) | 499 | 1 | ||
| 20 - < 40 | 2126 | 7 (0.33) | 2133 | 1.6343 | 0.20–13.31 | 0.6462 |
| 40 - < 60 | 1773 | 14 (0.78) | 1787 | 3.9015 | 0.51–29.74 | 0.189 |
| 60 - < 80 | 542 | 3 (0.55) | 545 | 2.7565 | 0.28–26.58 | 0.3806 |
| 80 - < 100 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 | ||
| Subject Category | ||||||
| A: CCHF affected person/ house/ close contacts | 182 | 17 (8.54%) | 199 | 88.3317 | 11.68–667.55 | < 0.0001* |
| F: Abattoir workers | 103 | 1 (0.96%) | 104 | 9.9423 | 0.61–160.12 | 0.1053 |
| B: Neighborhood | 824 | 5 (0.60%) | 829 | 6.2364 | 0.72–53.48 | 0.095 |
| C: Animal grazers | 722 | 1 (0.14%) | 723 | 1.4302 | 0.08–22.93 | 0.8004 |
| E: Farmers | 1034 | 1 (0.10%) | 1035 | 1 | ||
| D: General population | 1677 | 0 | 1677 | 0 | ||
| G: Veterinarian | 104 | 0 | 104 | 0 | ||
| H: Healthcare personnel | 307 | 0 | 307 | 0 | ||
| Seropositive Districts | ||||||
| Ahmedabad | 99 | 1 (1.00%) | 100 | 2.01 | 0.12–32.47 | 0.6228 |
| Amreli | 185 | 11 (5.61%) | 196 | 11.2806 | 1.44–88.20 | 0.0209* |
| Aravalli | 86 | 3 (3.37%) | 89 | 6.7753 | 0.69–66.03 | 0.0996 |
| Rajkot | 98 | 2 (2.00%) | 100 | 4.02 | 0.36–44.86 | 0.2583 |
| Kutch | 98 | 2 (2.00%) | 100 | 4.02 | 0.36–44.86 | 0.2583 |
| Surendranagar | 99 | 1 (1.00%) | 100 | 2.01 | 0.12–32.47 | 0.6228 |
| Anand | 99 | 1 (1.00%) | 100 | 2.01 | 0.12–32.47 | 0.6228 |
| Kheda | 95 | 1 (1.04%) | 96 | 2.0937 | 0.12–33.83 | 0.6027 |
| Morbi | 99 | 1 (1.00%) | 100 | 2.01 | 0.12–32.47 | 0.6228 |
| Panchmahal | 199 | 1 (0.50%) | 200 | 1.005 | 0.06–16.17 | 0.9972 |
| Devbhoomi Dwarka | 200 | 1 (0.50%) | 201 | 1 | ||
* indicate significant values