| Literature DB >> 30763405 |
Robert Tweyongyere1,2, Beatrice R Nassanga2, Allan Muhwezi2, Matthew Odongo2, Swaib A Lule2, Rebecca N Nsubuga2, Emily L Webb3, Stephen C Cose2,3, Alison M Elliott2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schistosoma infection is associated with immune modulation that can influence responses to non-schistosome antigens. Vaccine responses may be impaired in S. mansoni-infected individuals. We investigated effects of S. mansoni infection on responses to childhood measles catch-up immunisation and of praziquantel treatment on this outcome in a randomised trial.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30763405 PMCID: PMC6392333 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Flow diagram.
Baseline and demographic characteristics of the study cohort.
| PZQ at two weeks before immunisation (Group A) | PZQ at Immunisation (Group B) | PZQ at a week after immunisation (Group C) | (Group D) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 61 | N = 58 | N = 59 | N = 61 | |
| Males | 25(41%) | 35(60%) | 30(51%) | 23(38%) |
| Females | 36(59%) | 23(40%) | 29(49%) | 38(62%) |
| 3.8(SD = 1.1) | 3.9(SD = 0.8) | 4.1(SD = 1.0) | 4.0(SD = 0.8) | |
| 2(3.3%) | 6(10.3%) | 7(11.9%) | 4(6.6%) | |
| 4(6.6%) | 5(8.6%) | 1(1.7%) | 3(4.9%) | |
| Ascaris | 1(1.6%) | 2(3.5%) | 1(1.7%) | 0 |
| Hookworm | 0 | 2(3.5%) | 1(1.7%) | 0 |
| Median epg (interquartile range) | 132 (36, 396) | 60 (24, 222) | 48(24,244) | |
| WHO category | ||||
| Light | 29(47.5%) | 34(58.6%) | 40(67.8%) | |
| Moderate | 18(29.5%) | 12(20.7%) | 12(20.3%) | |
| Heavy | 14(23.0%) | 12(20.7%) | 7(11.9%) | |
| Yes | 2(3.3%) | 4(6.9%) | 1(1.7%) | 1(1.6%) |
| Never | 58(96.7%) | 54(93.1%) | 56(96.6%) | 60(98.4%) |
| Not sure | 0 | 0 | 1(1.7%) | 0 |
| At 9months | ||||
| Yes | 49(80.3%) | 41(70.7%) | 46(78.0%) | 36(59.0%) |
| No | 9(14.8%) | 7(12.1%) | 4(6.8%) | 7(11.5%) |
| Not sure | 3(4.9%) | 10(17.2%) | 9(15.2%) | 18(29.5%) |
| At child days in last 12 months | ||||
| Yes | 33(54.1%) | 40(69.0%) | 38(64.4%) | 42(68.9%) |
| No | 24(39.3%) | 10(17.2%) | 16(27.1%) | 11(18.0%) |
| Not sure | 4(6.6%) | 8(13.8%) | 5(8.5%) | 8(13.1%) |
| Median IgG levels mIU/mL (IQR) | 818 (394, 2840) | 1208 (521, 3406) | 1090(579, 3962) | 1277(438, 3832) |
| % with protective antibody levels | 52(85.3%) | 50(86.2%) | 51(87.9%) | 53(86.9%) |
Crude associations between participant characteristics and anti-measles IgG levels at enrolment.
| Geometric mean levels anti-measles IgG mUI/mL (95% CI) | Geometric mean ratio (95%CI) | % with protective antibody levels | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys (n = 113) | 888 (617, 1276) | 1 | p = 0.11 | 84.10% | 1 | p = 0.29 |
| Girls(n = 125) | 1334 (928, 1918) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.6) | 88.80% | 1.5 (0.7, 3.2) | ||
| At 9 months | ||||||
| No | 1065 (423, 2685) | 1 | p = 0.94 | 80.80% | 1 | p = 0.28 |
| Yes (n = 172) | 1105 (827, 1478) | 1.0 (0.4, 2.8) | 88.40% | 1.8 (0.6, 5.3) | ||
| Child days | ||||||
| No | 721 (402, 1293) | 83.60% | 1 | p = 0.19 | ||
| Yes(n = 152) | 1385 (1025, 1872) | 90.10% | 1.8 (0.8, 4.2) | |||
| Negative(n = 61) | 1312 (801, 2150) | 1 | p = 0.43 | 86.90% | 1 | p = 0.93 |
| Infected (n = 177) | 1034 (764, 1399) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.3) | 86.40% | 1.0 (0.4, 2.3); | ||
| Negative(n = 61) | 1312 (801, 2150) | 1 | p = 0.10 | 86.90% | 1 | p = 0.60 |
| Light (n = 103) | 1189 (800, 1769) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) | 88.40% | 1.1 (0.4, 3.0) | ||
| Moderate(n = 41) | 1076 (564, 2051) | 0.8 (0.3, 1.6) | 87.80% | 1.1 (0.3, 3.6) | ||
| Heavy (n = 33) | 637 (309, 1313) | 0.5 (0.2, 1.0) | 78.80% | 0.6 (0.2, 1.7) | ||
Baseline measles IgG was missing for one child.
a Test for trend p value
b Parents/guardians were not sure of measles immunisation status at 9 months for 40 children, and on child days for 25 children.
c Note that children who had not received measles immunisation at 9 months may have received it on child days (reported for 14/26 cases), and those who had not received on child days may have received at 9 months (reported for 39/61 cases)
Fig 2Anti-measles IgG levels at respective time points for each treatment group.
Group A received praziquantel (PZQ) 2 weeks before measles immunization (MI), Group B received PZQ at the time of MI, Group C received PZQ one week after MI and Group D was S mansoni negative and did not receive PZQ. Shown on the dot plots are medians with inter-quartile whiskers and the Wilcoxon Signed-rank paired sample test p-values.
Association of S mansoni infection with antibody levels one and 24 weeks following measles catch-up immunisation.
| Geometric mean levels of anti-measles IgG mUI/mL (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Responses at one week after immunisation | ||
| Uninfected (D, n = 54) | 3949 (2661, 5859) | 1 |
| Infected (C, n = 57) | 1401 (767, 2560) | |
| Responses at 24 week after immunisation | ||
| Uninfected (D, n = 51) | 2184 (1477, 3230) | 1 |
| Infected at enrolment ((A, B, C) n = 138) | 2068 (1609, 2659) | 1.1 (0.9, 1.5); p = 0.38 |
* Adjusted for child health days measles immunization history and baseline IgG levels.
Effect of praziquantel treatment on antibody levels.
| Timing of praziquantel (PZQ) treatment with respect to catch-up measles immunisation (MI) | Geometric means | GM ratios (95% CI) | % with protective levels | Fisher’s Exact p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not treated (C, n = 57) | 1401 (767, 2560) | 1 | 49 (86.0%) | |
| Treated 2 weeks before MI (A, n = 51) | 2233 (1214, 4104) | 45 (88.2%) | 0.955 | |
| Treated at the time of MI (B, n = 49) | 2339 (1282, 4267) | 43 (87.8%) | ||
| Treated one week after MI (C, n = 50) | 2266 (1496, 3431) | 1 | 48(96.0%) | |
| Treated 2 weeks before MI (A, n = 46) | 1858 (1205, 2863) | 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) | 44(95.7%) | 1 |
| Treated at the time of MI (B, n = 42) | 2087 (1270, 3430) | 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) | 40(95.2%) | |
*Adjusted for baseline(enrolment) antibody level.
Fig 3Measles specific IgG levels at one week after catch-up immunization.
Error bars shown are median and interquartile whiskers and Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test p-values.