| Literature DB >> 31030673 |
Bin Li1, Gongsang Quzhen1, Chui-Zhao Xue2, Shuai Han2, Wei-Qi Chen3, Xin-Liu Yan4, Zhong-Jie Li5, M Linda Quick6, Yong Huang7, Ning Xiao2, Ying Wang2, Li-Ying Wang2, Gesang Zuoga8, Bing-Cheng Ma9, Xiao-Gang Wei10, Can-Jun Zheng11,12, Wei-Ping Wu13, Xiao-Nong Zhou14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The echinococcosis is prevalent in 10 provinces /autonomous region in western and northern China. Epidemiological survey of echinococcosis in China in 2012 showed the average prevalence of four counties in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is 4.23%, much higher than the average prevalence in China (0.24%). It is important to understand the transmission risks and the prevalence of echinococcosis in human and animals in TAR.Entities:
Keywords: Echinococcosis; Prevalence; Tibet; Ultrasonography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31030673 PMCID: PMC6487032 DOI: 10.1186/s40249-019-0537-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Poverty ISSN: 2049-9957 Impact factor: 4.520
Number of villages in counties
| Prefecture | County | No. of villages selected |
|---|---|---|
| Ali | Cuoqin | 4 |
| Gaer | 4 | |
| Gaize | 4 | |
| Geji | 4 | |
| Pulan | 2 | |
| Ritu | 2 | |
| Zhada | 2 | |
| Subtotal | 22 | |
| Changdu | Basu | 4 |
| Bianba | 4 | |
| Chaya | 4 | |
| Dingqing | 8 | |
| Gongjue | 4 | |
| Jiangda | 8 | |
| Karuo | 16 | |
| Leiwuqi | 4 | |
| Luolong | 4 | |
| Mangkang | 8 | |
| Zuogong | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 68 | |
| Lhasa | Chengguan | 16 |
| Dazi | 4 | |
| Dangxiong | 4 | |
| Duilongdeqing | 8 | |
| Linzhou | 8 | |
| Mozhugongka | 4 | |
| Nimu | 4 | |
| Qushui | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 52 | |
| Linzhi | Bomi | 4 |
| Chayu | 4 | |
| Gongbujiangda | 4 | |
| Langxian | 4 | |
| Linzhi | 4 | |
| Milin | 4 | |
| Motuo | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 28 | |
| Naqu | Anduo | 4 |
| Baqing | 4 | |
| Bange | 4 | |
| Biru | 8 | |
| Jiali | 4 | |
| Naqu | 16 | |
| Nima | 4 | |
| Nierong | 4 | |
| Shenzha | 4 | |
| Shuanghu | 2 | |
| Suoxian | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 58 | |
| Shigatse | Angren | 8 |
| Bailang | 4 | |
| Dingjie | 4 | |
| Dingri | 8 | |
| Gangba | 4 | |
| Jilong | 4 | |
| Jiangzi | 8 | |
| Kangma | 4 | |
| Lazi | 4 | |
| Nanmulin | 9 | |
| Nielamu | 4 | |
| Renbu | 4 | |
| Saga | 4 | |
| Sajia | 4 | |
| Sangzhuzi | 16 | |
| Xietongmen | 4 | |
| Yadong | 3 | |
| Zhongba | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 100 | |
| Shannan | Cuomei | 4 |
| Cuona | 4 | |
| Gongga | 4 | |
| Jiacha | 4 | |
| Langkazi | 4 | |
| Longzi | 4 | |
| Luozha | 4 | |
| Naidong | 8 | |
| Qiongjie | 4 | |
| Qusong | 4 | |
| Sangri | 4 | |
| Zhanang | 4 | |
| Subtotal | 52 | |
| Total | 380 |
Prevalence of AE and CE echinococcosis across populations in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016
| Prefecture | Total population | Surveyed population | CE Prevalence/% | AE Prevalence/% | CE & AE Prevalence/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lhasa | 559 423 | 10 917 | 1.05 (0.86–1.24) | 0.22 (0.13–0.31) | 1.27 (1.06–1.48) |
| Changdu | 657 505 | 14 289 | 1.22 (1.04–1.40) | 0.28 (0.19–0.37) | 1.50 (1.30–1.70) |
| Shannan | 328 990 | 11 184 | 1.31 (1.10–1.52) | 0.04 (0.00–0.08) | 1.35 (1.14–1.56) |
| Shigatse | 703 292 | 21 497 | 1.00 (0.87–1.13) | 0.10 (0.06–0.14) | 1.11 (0.97–1.25) |
| Naque | 462 381 | 11 897 | 2.98 (2.67–3.29) | 0.30 (0.20–0.40) | 3.37 (3.05–3.69) |
| Ali | 95 465 | 4740 | 1.95 (1.56–2.34) | 0.27 (0.12–0.42) | 2.31 (1.88–2.74) |
| Linzhi | 195 109 | 5860 | 1.34 (1.05–1.63) | 0.20 (0.09–0.31) | 1.55 (1.23–1.87) |
| Total | 3 002 165 | 80 384 | 1.45 (1.37–1.53) | 0.20 (0.17–0.23) | 1.66 (1.57–1.75) |
CE Cystic echinococcosis;
AE Alveolar echinococcosis
CI Confidence interval
Fig. 1Prevalence distribution by county of AE and CE echinococcosis in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016. Note: Yellow dot represents counties where AE found
Fig. 2Distribution of AE and CE echinococcosis across different gender and age groups in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016
Positive rates of AE and CE echinococcosis among different occupations, education levels, and type of area in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016
| Surveyed population | No. of cases | Constituent ratio/% | Positive rate/% (95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupation | ||||
| Herdsman | 18 759 | 686 | 50.04 | 3.66 (3.39–3.93) |
| Monks | 345 | 12 | 0.88 | 3.48 (1.55–5.41) |
| Farmer/herdsman | 10 078 | 175 | 12.76 | 1.74 (1.48–2.00) |
| Houseworker | 879 | 12 | 0.88 | 1.37 (0.60–2.14) |
| Farmer | 31 369 | 364 | 26.55 | 1.16 (1.04–1.28) |
| Student | 9467 | 79 | 5.76 | 0.83 (0.65–1.01) |
| Public officer | 2104 | 21 | 1.53 | 1.00 (0.57–1.43) |
| Others | 7383 | 22 | 1.60 | 0.30 (0.18–0.42) |
| Educational level | ||||
| Illiterate | 46 112 | 968 | 70.61 | 2.10 (1.97–2.23) |
| Elementary school | 26 331 | 303 | 22.10 | 1.15 (1.02–1.28) |
| Junior high school | 5383 | 69 | 5.03 | 1.28 (0.98–1.58) |
| High school | 970 | 17 | 1.24 | 1.75 (0.92–2.58) |
| College and above | 1588 | 14 | 1.02 | 0.88 (0.42–1.34) |
| Type of area | ||||
| Pastoral area | 25 098 | 660 | 48.14 | 2.63 (2.43–2.83) |
| Pastoral and farm area | 33 482 | 487 | 35.52 | 1.45 (1.32–1.58) |
| Farm area | 17 696 | 183 | 13.35 | 1.03 (0.88–1.18) |
| Urban area | 4108 | 41 | 2.99 | 1.00 (0.70–1.30) |
CI confidence interval
Echinococcus coproantigen ELISA positive rates among dogs in prefectures and by type of area in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016
| Surveyed population | No. of positive cases | Positive rate/% (95% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prefecture | |||
| Lhasa | 1047 | 66 | 6.30 (4.83–7.77) |
| Changdu | 1358 | 78 | 5.74 (4.50–6.98) |
| Shannan | 1046 | 107 | 10.23 (8.39–12.07) |
| Shigatse | 1945 | 94 | 4.83 (3.88–5.78) |
| Naqu | 1127 | 128 | 11.36 (9.51–13.21) |
| Ali | 423 | 34 | 8.04 (5.45–10.63) |
| Linzhi | 618 | 45 | 7.28 (5.23–9.33) |
| Total | 7564 | 552 | 7.30 (6.71–7.89) |
| Type of area | |||
| Pastoral area | 2224 | 187 | 8.41 (7.26–9.56) |
| Semi-Pastoral and semi-farm area | 3033 | 168 | 5.54 (4.73–6.35) |
| Farm area | 1637 | 80 | 4.89 (3.85–5.93) |
| Urban area | 365 | 23 | 6.30 (3.81–8.79) |
| Total | 7564 | 552 | 7.30 (6.71–7.89) |
CI confidence interval
Positive rates of echinococcosis among livestock by clinical examination in Tibet Autonomous Region, 2016
| Tooth age by year | Yaks | Sheep | Pigs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surveyed population | No. positive | Positive rate/% | Surveyed population | No. positive | Positive rate/% | Surveyed population | No. positive | Positive rate/% (95% | |
| 0–2 | 118 | 4 | 3.39 (0.12–6.66) | 50 | 6 | 12.00 (2.99–21.01) | 34 | 0 | 0.00(−) |
| 3–5 | 222 | 4 | 1.80 (0.05–3.55) | 562 | 62 | 11.03 (8.44–13.62) | 64 | 1 | 0.16 (0.00–1.14) |
| 6–8 | 417 | 41 | 9.83 (6.97–12.69) | 340 | 76 | 22.35 (17.92–26.78) | 3 | 0 | 0.00(−) |
| 9–11 | 186 | 25 | 13.44 (8.54–18.34) | 55 | 13 | 23.63 (12.40–34.86) | 0 | 0 | 0.00(−) |
| 12–20 | 52 | 17 | 32.69 (19.94–45.44) | 0 | 0 | 0.00(−) | 0 | 0 | 0.00(−) |
| Total | 995 | 91 | 9.15 (7.36–10.94) | 1007 | 157 | 15.59 (13.35–17.83) | 101 | 1 | 0.99 (0.00–2.92) |
-: Not applicable;
CI: Confidence interval