| Literature DB >> 31937366 |
Andernice Dos Santos Zanetti1, Antonio Francisco Malheiros1, Tatiane Amorim de Matos1, Fabiana Gulin Longhi2, Luciana Melhorança Moreira3, Samuel Laudelino Silva3, Solange Kimie Ikeda Castrillon1, Silvana Margarida Benevides Ferreira2,4, Eliane Ignotti1,5, Omar Ariel Espinosa6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blastocystis sp. affects a wide variety of animals and is the most common protozoan in human fecal samples with potential pandemic distribution. In the present study, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the prevalence and distribution of Blastocystis sp. in different classes of hosts in Brazil.Entities:
Keywords: Blastocystis; Blastocystis infection; Brazil; Meta-analysis; Systematic review
Year: 2020 PMID: 31937366 PMCID: PMC6961275 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-3900-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
A summary of the included studies
| No. | Reference | Total no. of tests | Prevalence (%) | City (State) | Diagnostic method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human hosts | |||||
| 1 | Barbosa et al. [ | 294 | 55.8 | Sumidouro (RJ) | C and M |
| 2 | Oliveira-Arbex et al. [ | 181 | 41.9 | Botucatu (SP) | M |
| 3 | Seguí et al. [ | 766 | 28.2 | Paranaguá (PR) | C and M |
| 4 | Valença-Barbosa et al. [ | 180 | 35.5 | Duque de Caxias (RJ) | C and M |
| 5 | Faria et al. [ | 3245 | 2.9 | Metropolitan region (RJ) | C |
| 6 | Melo et al. [ | 60 | 78.3 | São Paulo (SP) | C and M |
| 7 | Seguí et al. [ | 217 | 31.8 | Paranaguá (PR) | C |
| 8 | Rebolla et al. [ | 205 | 83.4 | Sebastião da Grama (SP) | C |
| 9 | Cabrine-Santos et al. [ | 1323 | 17.8 | Uberaba (MG) | C |
| 10 | David et al. [ | 126 | 53.2 | Botucatu e Santa Maria da Serra (SP) | C and M |
| 11 | Santos et al. [ | 1 | 100 | Niterói (RJ) | C and M |
| 12 | Gil et al. [ | 1338 | 21.2 | Belo Horizonte (MG) | C |
| 13 | Gil et al. [ | 110 | 24.5 | Sete Lagoas (MG) | C |
| 14 | Santos et al. [ | 97 | 13.4 | Ilhéus (BA) | C |
| 15 | Amâncio et al. [ | 105 | 2.8 | Botucatu (SP) | C |
| 16 | Branco et al. [ | 185 | 2.2 | Campos do Jordão (SP) | C |
| 17 | Batista et al. [ | 1754 | 0.7 | São Paulo (SP); Belo Horizonte e Uberlândia (MG); Fortaleza (CE) | C |
| 18 | Malheiros et al. [ | 382 | 17.3 | Confresa (MT) | C and M |
| 19 | Visser et al. [ | 362 | 0.3 | Manaus (AM) | C |
| 20 | Eymael et al. [ | 100 | 40.0 | Novo Hamburgo (RS) | C |
| 21 | Borges et al. [ | 83 | 57.8 | Oriximiná (PR) | C |
| 22 | Takizawa et al. [ | 343 | 10.7 | Cascavel (PR) | C |
| 23 | Kulik et al. [ | 86 | 20.9 | Campo Mourão (PR) | C |
| 24 | Miné et al. [ | 503 | 4.6 | Américo Brasiliense, Gavião Peixoto, Motuca, Rincão e Araraquara (SP) | C |
| 25 | Aguiar et al. [ | 313 | 40.9 | Sidrolândia (MS) | C |
| 26 | Alarcón et al. [ | 272 | 19.9 | São Paulo (SP) | C |
| 27 | Carvalho-Costa et al. [ | 213 | 1.4 | Rio de Janeiro (RJ) | C |
| 28 | Souza-Júnior et al. [ | 393 | 0.5 | Goiânia (GO) | C |
| 29 | Nascimento et al. [ | 181 | 26.5 | Pitanga (PR) | C |
| 30 | Amato-Neto et al. [ | 227 | 38.3 | São Paulo (SP) | C |
| 31 | Quadros et al. [ | 200 | 0.5 | Lages (SC) | C |
| 32 | Cimerman et al. [ | 200 | 0.5 | São Paulo (SP) | C |
| 33 | Guimarães et al. [ | 147 | 32 | Botucatu (SP) | C |
| 34 | Kobayashi et al. [ | 222 | 37.8 | Holambra (SP) | C |
| 35 | Guimarães et al. [ | 173 | 34.7 | Botucatu (SP) | C |
| Animal hosts | |||||
| 36 | Valença-Barbosa et al. [ | 89 non-human primates; 2 raccoons; 11 rodents; 26 marsupials; 1 armadillo; 57 birds; 39 pigs; 13 reptiles; 96 cockroaches | 37.0; 0; 64.0; 81.0; 100; 21.0; 77.0; 69.0; 2.0. respectively | Metropolitan region (RJ) | M |
| 37 | Moura et al. [ | 78 dogs; 16 cats; 18 pigs; 28 cattle; 3 sheep | 2.6; 0; 72.2; 21.4; 33.3, respectively | Uberaba (MG) | C and M |
| 38 | Marques et al. [ | 130 (bird) | 2.3 | Contagem, Poços de Caldas, São Gonçalo do Rio Abaixo, Betim, Belo Horizonte (MG) | C |
| 39 | Marietto-Gonçalves et al. [ | 207 (bird) | 1.4 | Botucatu (SP) | C |
| 40 | Mundim et al. [ | 79 (boar) | 12.6 | Uberlândia (MG) | C |
Abbreviations: RJ, Rio de Janeiro; SP, São Paulo; MG, Minas Gerais; CE, Ceará; PR, Paraná; RS, Rio Grande do Sul; SC, Santa Catarina; BA, Bahia; MT, Mato Grosso; MS, Mato Grosso do Sul; GO, Goiás; AM, Amazonas; C, conventional methods, based on optical microscopy detection; M, molecular methods, based on DNA detection
Fig. 1A flowchart of the steps performed in the systematic review
Fig. 2Forest plot for a random-effect meta-analysis of Blastocystis sp. infection in the Brazilian population
Distribution of the pooled prevalence of Blastocystis sp. infection according to state and sex
| State | Overall prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Weight (%) | Male | 95% CI | Weight (%) | Female | 95% CI | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mato Grosso do Sul | 41.0 | 36.0–46.0 | 29.4 | 36.0 | 29.0–43.0 | 13.0 | 47.0 | 39.0–55.0 | 12.4 |
| Rio Grande do Sul | 40.0 | 31.0–50.0 | 23.4 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| São Paulo | 33.0 | 21.0–46.0 | 37.3 | 7 | 4.00–10.0 | 25.0 | 6,00 | 4.00–9.00 | 24.6 |
| Paraná | 29.0 | 19.0–39.0 | 16.7 | 28.0 | 24.0–33.0 | 25.0 | 27.0 | 23.0–31.0 | 25.4 |
| Rio de Janeiro | 23.0 | 12.0–35.0 | 12.3 | 63.0 | 55.0–71.0 | 13.0 | 48.0 | 40.0–56.0 | 12.4 |
| Minas Gerais | 20.0 | 17.0–23.0 | 9.13 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Mato Grosso | 17.0 | 14.0–21.0 | 3.14 | 20.0 | 15.0–27.0 | 13.0 | 15.0 | 11.0–20.0 | 12.7 |
| Bahia | 13.0 | 8.00–22.0 | 2.76 | 19.0 | 11.0–31.0 | 11.0 | 7.00 | 2.00–18.0 | 12.5 |
| Amazonas | 0 | 0.00–2.00 | 3.34 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Goiás | 0 | 0.00–1.00 | 3.35 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Santa Catarina | 0 | 0.00–3.00 | 3.33 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| São Paulo, Minhas Gerais and Cearáa | 1.00 | 0.00–1.00 | 3.35 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
aA single study included from these states
Abbreviations: ns, not specified; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
Distribution of the pooled prevalence of Blastocystis sp. infection according to the type of immunosuppression
| Type of immunosuppression | Overall prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hemodialysis | 23.0 | 17.0–29.0 | 12.4 |
| HIV infection | 5.0 | 5.00–8.00 | 33.6 |
| Organ transplant | 1.0 | 0.00–1.00 | 27.2 |
| Immunosuppressive drugs | 1.0 | 0.00–2.00 | 26.8 |
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
Fig. 3Forest plot for a random-effect meta-analysis of Blastocystis sp. infection in different taxonomic classes of animals in Brazil, according to the type of interaction with humans
Distribution of the pooled prevalence of Blastocystis sp. according to taxonomic class and species
| Taxonomic class | Overall prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mammals | 39.0 | 21.0–56.0 | 47.31 |
| | 60.0 | 42.0–75.0 | 6.13 |
| | 35.0 | 18.0–57.0 | 5.67 |
| | 76.0 | 57.0–89.0 | 6.23 |
| | 24.0 | 16.0–33.0 | 7.19 |
| | 21.0 | 10.0–40.0 | 6.43 |
| | 3.0 | 1.0–9.0 | 7.52 |
| | 0 | 0.0–5.0 | 15.66 |
| Birds | 18.0 | 10.0–27.0 | 39.31 |
| | 70.0 | 62.0–87.0 | 6.68 |
| | 23.0 | 13.0–37.0 | 6.78 |
| | 4.0 | 1.0–18.0 | 6.78 |
| | 6.0 | 2.0–19.0 | 7.25 |
| Reptile | 3.0 | 0.0–0.06 | 13.38 |
| | 69.9 | 42.0–87.0 | 5.10 |
| Interaction with humans | |||
| Captive | 23.0 | 17.0–29.0 | 27.76 |
| Wild | 19.0 | 7.0–31.0 | 42.60 |
| Domestic | 17.0 | 13.0–21.0 | 29.64 |
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval
Fig. 4Geographical distribution of Blastocystis subtypes detected in Brazil. a Subtypes detected in 473 human and 118 animal samples. b Distribution of subtypes in Brazilian states. In the state of Rio de Janeiro, all STs found in human samples were also found in animal samples. Abbreviations: MT, Mato Grosso; SP, São Paulo; RJ, Rio de Janeiro; PR, Paraná; MG, Minas Gerais
Fig. 5A dendrogram inferred by Maximum Likelihood analysis using 255 sequences of the SSU rRNA gene fragment (365 characters, see alignment in Additional file 6: Text S2). Bootstrap node support values ≥ 0.95 are shown as circles at the nodes, and bootstrap node support values of 0.75–0.94 are shown as squares at the nodes