| Literature DB >> 33883871 |
Bhavana Singh1,2, Linda Batsa Debrah1, Godfred Acheampong3, Alexander Yaw Debrah4.
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the prevalence and risk factors of Toxoplasma gondii infection among pregnant women in a district-level hospital in Ghana and compared the diagnostic performance of the rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for T. gondii diagnosis. Method: This cross-sectional study included 400 consecutive consenting women in their first-trimester stage of pregnancy. A validated well-structured closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data and possible risk factors of each participant. Blood samples were collected for analysis of T. gondii IgG and IgM using the commercial ELISA Kit and RDT.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33883871 PMCID: PMC8041552 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6670219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol ISSN: 1064-7449
Sociodemographic factors and Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence.
| Variable |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative (171) | Positive (229) | |||
| Age (years) | 0.97, 2 | 0.616 | ||
| 20-29 | 73 (42.7) | 109 (47.6) | ||
| 30-39 | 91 (53.2) | 112 (48.9) | ||
| 40 and above | 7 (4.1) | 8 (3.5) | ||
| Parity | 1.02, 4 | 0.907 | ||
| 0 | 70 (40.9) | 88 (38.4) | ||
| 1 | 34 (20.5) | 56 (24.9) | ||
| 2 | 41 (24.7) | 53 (23.5) | ||
| 3 | 18 (10.8) | 24 (10.6) | ||
| >3 | 7 (4.2) | 9 (4.0) | ||
| Marital status | 7.95, 2 |
| ||
| Married | 156 (91.2) | 191 (83.4) | ||
| Single | 11 (6.4) | 35 (15.3) | ||
| Separated | 4 (2.3) | 3 (1.3) | ||
| Educational level | 9.27, 4 |
| ||
| Primary | 9 (5.3) | 18 (7.9) | ||
| Junior high | 39 (22.8) | 59 (25.8) | ||
| Senior high | 35 (20.5) | 61 (26.6) | ||
| Tertiary | 82 (48.0) | 77 (33.6) | ||
| No formal education | 6 (3.5) | 14 (6.1) | ||
| Income ( | 1.13, 2 | 0.588 | ||
| Low income (<$100 per month) | 66 (58.4) | 101 (64.7) | ||
| Middle income ($100-400 per month) | 46 (40.7) | 54 (34.6) | ||
| High income (>$400 per month) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.6) | ||
| Occupation | 4.17, 4 | 0.384 | ||
| Unskilled | 44 (25.7) | 76 (33.2) | ||
| Skilled | 33 (19.3) | 39 (17.0) | ||
| Self-employed | 35 (20.5) | 40 (17.5) | ||
| Professional | 38 (22.2) | 40 (17.5) | ||
| Unemployed | 21 (12.3) | 34 (14.8) | ||
| Family size ( | 2.08, 2 | 0.353 | ||
| 1-3 | 89 (56.7) | 102 (50.0) | ||
| 4-6 | 64 (40.8) | 93 (45.6) | ||
| >6 | 4 (2.5) | 9 (4.4) | ||
Hygienic predisposing factors and Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence.
| Variable |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | |||
| Source of water | 1.22, 1 | 0.285 | ||
| Pipe-borne | 109 (63.7) | 158 (69.0) | ||
| Borehole | 62 (36.3) | 71 (31.0) | ||
| Waste disposal facility | 3.11, 2 | 0.211 | ||
| WC | 123 (74.5) | 145 (66.2) | ||
| Public toilets | 41 (24.8) | 72 (32.9) | ||
| Land, rivers, and streams | 1 (0.6) | 2 (0.9) | ||
| Ingestion of raw vegetables | 1.19, 1 | 0.332 | ||
| No | 23 (13.5) | 40 (17.50) | ||
| Yes | 148 (86.5) | 189 (82.5) | ||
| Ingestion of uncooked meat | 0.02, 1 | 0.916 | ||
| No | 61 (35.7) | 80 (34.9) | ||
| Yes | 110 (64.3) | 149 (65.1) | ||
| Cleaning cooking materials | 1.40, 1 | 0.258 | ||
| No | 6 (3.5) | 14 (6.1) | ||
| Yes | 165 (96.5) | 215 (93.9) | ||
| Meat handling (e.g., beef mutton) | 0.38, 1 | 0.558 | ||
| No | 21 (12.3) | 33 (14.4) | ||
| Yes | 150 (87.7) | 196 (85.6) | ||
| Contact with soil | 1.35, 1 | 0.262 | ||
| No | 104 (60.8) | 126 (55.0) | ||
| Yes | 67 (39.2) | 103 (45.0) | ||
| Owning pets | 1.13, 1 | 0.339 | ||
| No | 117 (68.4) | 145 (63.3) | ||
| Yes | 54 (31.6) | 84 (36.7) | ||
| Owning cats | 3.39, 1 | 0.083 | ||
| No | 148 (86.5) | 182 (79.5) | ||
| Yes | 23 (13.5) | 47 (20.5) | ||
| Contact with cats | 4.79, 1 |
| ||
| No | 140 (81.9) | 166 (72.5) | ||
| Yes | 31 (18.1) | 63 (27.5) | ||
| Housing of cats | 1.11, 1 | 0.304 | ||
| No | 143 (83.6) | 182 (79.5) | ||
| Yes | 28 (16.4) | 47 (20.5) | ||
| Litter box for cats | 2.99, 1 | 0.109 | ||
| No | 153 (89.5) | 191 (83.4) | ||
| Yes | 18 (10.5) | 38 (16.6) | ||
Figure 1Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies among the study participants by ELISA. Percentages were calculated from the number of positives over the total number of participants.
Figure 2Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies (IgG) among the study participants. The number of IgG-positive cases based on RDT was compared with ELISA using kappa statistics.
Figure 3Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii antibodies (IgM) among the study participants. The number of IgM-positive cases based on RDT was compared with ELISA using kappa statistics.
Bivariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors significantly associated with Toxoplasma gondii seroprevalence in this present study.
| Risk factors | Number tested | % positives | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| |||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Married | 347 | 55.0 | 1.6 (0.4-7.4) | 0.525 | 1.4 (0.3-6.6) | 0.640 |
| Single | 46 | 76.1 | 4.2 (0.8-21.9) | 0.085 | 3.4 (0.6-18.1) | 0.149 |
| Separated | 7 | 42.9 | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Educational level | ||||||
| No formal education | 20 | 70.0 | 2.5 (0.9-6.8) | 0.076 | 2.6 (0.9-7.1) | 0.066 |
| Primary | 27 | 66.7 | 2.1 (0.9-5.0) | 0.084 | 2.0 (0.8-4.7) | 0.121 |
| Junior high | 98 | 60.2 | 1.6 (1.0-2.7) | 0.067 | 1.5 (0.9-2.6) | 0.107 |
| Senior high | 96 | 63.5 | 1.9 (1.1-3.1) | 0.020 | 1.8 (1.0-3.0) | 0.034 |
| Tertiary | 156 | 48.4 | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Owning cats | ||||||
| No | 330 | 55.2 | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Yes | 70 | 67.1 | 1.7 (1.0-2.9) | 0.067 | 1.3 (0.6-2.6) | 0.517 |
| Contact with cats | ||||||
| No | 306 | 54.2 | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | ||
| Yes | 94 | 67.0 | 1.7 (1.1-2.8) | 0.030 | 1.3 (0.7-2.4) | 0.475 |
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showing the diagnostic consistency.
Diagnostic performance of T. gondii RDT-IgG and RDT-IgM diagnostic tests against the ELISA technique.
| Diagnostic test | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | NPV | Cohen's kappa | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RDT-IgG | 0.31 | 0.912 | 0.56 | 0.38 | 0.83 | 0.201 | 0.611 |
| RDT-IgM | 0.43 | 0.960 | 0.94 | 0.27 | 0.97 | 0.304 | 0.694 |
NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; AUC: area under the curve.