| Literature DB >> 32787935 |
Poom Adisakwattana1, Tippayarat Yoonuan2, Orawan Phuphisut2, Akkarin Poodeepiyasawat2, Nirundorn Homsuwan2, Catherine A Gordon3, Donald P McManus3, Louise E Atkinson4, Angela Mousley4, Geoffrey N Gobert5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Under-regulated national borders in Southeast Asia represent potential regions for enhanced parasitic helminth transmission and present barriers to helminthiasis disease control.Entities:
Keywords: Helminthiases; Kato-Katz; Southeast Asia; Thailand border regions; molecular diagnostics; qPCR
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32787935 PMCID: PMC7425172 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-04290-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Location of field sites. The Thai-Myanmar (Tak-Thasongyang) with the Moei River, Thai-Lao (Ubon Ratchathani-Sirindhorn) with the Mekong River, and Thai-Cambodia (Sisaket- Khun Han) border regions are shown. Specific field collections sites are marked for the three regions in the enlargements
Summary of prevalence and intensity levels for helminth species determined by Kato-Katz and qPCR combined for all three regions surveyed
| Kato-Katz | qPCR | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. positivea | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | EPG | 95% CI | GMEPG | 95% CI | No. positivea | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | ||
| Positive any species | 102 | 17.99 | 14.82–21.16 | Positive any species | 139 | 24.51 | 20.96–28.07 | ||||
| 50 | 8.82 | 6.48–11.16 | 11.52 | 5.29–17.74 | 65.49 | 48.28–88.83 | 97 | 17.28 | 14.16–20.41 | ||
| Hookworm | 33 | 5.82 | 3.89–7.75 | 12.55 | 3.78–21.33 | 83.83 | 53.42–121.54 | 13 | 2.29 | 1.06–3.53 | |
| 9 | 1.59 | 0.56–2.62 | |||||||||
| 12 | 2.12 | 0.93–3.30 | 313.8 | 0–632.24 | 2595.6 | 452.83–14878.05 | 12 | 2.12 | 0.93–3.30 | ||
| 9 | 1.59 | 0.56–2.62 | 11.16 | 0–30.30 | 92.87 | 22.23–387.90 | 2 | 0.35 | 0–0.84 | ||
| 7 | 1.23 | 0.03–2.15 | 71.45 | 0–149.33 | 1009.19 | 73.35–13884.48 | 6 | 1.06 | 0.21–1.90 | ||
| 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 | |||||||||
| 4 | 0.71 | 0–1.40 | 0.4 | 0–0.96 | 39.93 | 9.60–166.09 | |||||
| 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 | 0.044 | 0–0.133 | 25.51 | na | |||||
| 7 | 1.23 | 0.03–2.15 | |||||||||
aFrom 567 samples
Abbreviations: EPG, arithmetic EPG; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; na, not available
Kappa analysis for agreement of the qPCR vs Kato-Katz methods
| No. positive Kato-Katza | No. positive qPCRa | Kappa | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 2 | 0.18 | |
| Hookwormb | 33 | 23 | 0.53 |
| 50 | 97 | 0.54 | |
| 7 | 7 | 0.86 | |
| 12 | 12 | 0.91 |
aFrom 567 samples
bqPCR results from Ancylostoma spp. and N. americanus probes
cqPCR results from T. solium and T. saginata probes
Helminth species detected using combined Kato-Katz and qPCR data for the three border regions collectively
| Numbera | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive by Kato-Katz only | 102 | 17.99 | 14.82–21.16 |
| Positive by qPCR only | 139 | 24.51 | 20.96–28.07 |
| Positive by Kato-Katz or qPCR | 162 | 28.57 | 24.84–32.30 |
| Negative all species | 405 | 71.43 | 67.70–75.16 |
| | 13 | 2.29 | 1.06–3.53 |
| | 10 | 1.76 | 0.68–2.85 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 4 | 0.71 | 0–1.40 |
| | 104 | 18.34 | 15.15–21.54 |
| Hookworm | 39 | 6.88 | 4.79–8.97 |
| | 8 | 1.41 | 0.44–2.38 |
| | 7 | 1.23 | 0.03–2.15 |
| | 2 | 0.35 | 0–0.84 |
| | 4 | 0.71 | 0–1.40 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 0 | na | na |
| | 95 | 16.75 | 13.67–19.84 |
| Hookworm only | 29 | 5.11 | 3.30–6.93 |
| | 3 | 0.53 | 0–1.13 |
| | 5 | 0.88 | 0.11–0.65 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 2 | 0.35 | 0–0.84 |
| | 6 | 1.06 | 0.21–1.90 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 2 | 0.35 | 0–0.84 |
| | 2 | 0.35 | 0–0.84 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
| | 4 | 0.71 | 0–1.40 |
| Hookworm + | 1 | 0.18 | 0–0.52 |
aFrom 567 samples
Abbreviation: na, not available
Fig. 2Venn diagram demonstrating the overall prevalence and agreement between the Kato-Katz and qPCR diagnostic methods used in this study
Prevalence of helminthiases for each of the three regions surveyed using the combined Kato-Katz and qPCR data
| Tak | Ubon Ratchathani | Sisaket | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Number b | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Number c | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | |
| Positive any species | 47 | 28.14 | 21.25–35.03 | 62 | 31.00 | 24.53–37.47 | 53 | 26.50 | 20.33–32.67 |
| Negative all species | 120 | 71.86 | 64.97–78.75 | 138 | 69.00 | 62.52–75.47 | 147 | 73.50 | 67.33–79.67 |
| 13 | 3.68–11.89 | 0 | na | na | 0 | na | na | ||
| 8 | 1.52–8.06 | 2 | 1.00 | 0–2.39 | 0 | na | na | ||
| 1 | 0.60 | 0–1.79 | 0 | na | na | 0 | na | na | |
| 2 | 1.20 | 0–2.86 | 2 | 1.00 | 0–2.39 | 0 | na | na | |
| 4 | 2.40 | 0–4.74 | 56 | 21.72–34.28 | 44 | 16.21–27.79 | |||
| Hookworm | 30 | 12.08–23.85 | 1 | 0.50 | 0–1.49 | 8 | 1.26–6.74 | ||
| 1 | 0.60 | 0–1.78 | 7 | 0.93–6.07 | 0 | na | na | ||
| 3 | 1.80 | 0–3.83 | 2 | 1.00 | 0–2.39 | 2 | 1.00 | 0–2.39 | |
Note: The highest prevalence rates species for each region are given in bold
aFrom 167 samples
bFrom 200 samples
cFrom 200 samples
Abbreviation: na, not available