| Literature DB >> 34968418 |
Camila Massae Sato1, Thaisa da Silva Vargas Rodrigues2, Pãmela Rodrigues de Souza Silva2, Emerson Soares Dos Santos3, Diego Ricardo Xavier4, Ida Maria Foschiani Dias Baptista5, Denise da Costa Boamorte Cortela6, Eliane Ignotti7, Silvana Margarida Benevides Ferreira2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the prevalence of Mycobacterium leprae detection and the associated factors among social contacts in the school environment of multibacillary cases living in a hyperendemic municipality of the state of Mato Grosso.Entities:
Keywords: Contact tracing; Leprosy; Mycobacterium leprae
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34968418 PMCID: PMC9432267 DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2021.11.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pediatr (Rio J) ISSN: 0021-7557 Impact factor: 2.990
Fig. 1Spatial distribution of the prevalence of Mycobacterium leprae infection by neighborhoods of residence.
Bivariate detection's analysis of the Mycobacterium leprae among social contacts, according to demographic/socioeconomic, epidemiological and immunological variables.
| Demographic/ socioeconomic variables | Positive PCR ( | Negative PCR ( | PR Crude | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | ||||||
| Age range | |||||||
| 10 – 14 years old | 24 | 72.7 | 157 | 77.3 | 0.81 | 0.40-1.64 | 0.561 |
| 5 – 9 years old | 09 | 27.3 | 46 | 22.7 | 1 | ||
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 17 | 51.5 | 91 | 44.8 | 1.25 | 0.66-2.37 | 0.474 |
| Female | 16 | 48.5 | 112 | 55.2 | 1 | ||
| Region of residence | |||||||
| Others | 28 | 84.8 | 192 | 94.6 | 0.40 | 0.18-0.91 | 0.039 |
| West | 05 | 15.1 | 11 | 5.4 | 1 | ||
| Residence condition | |||||||
| Rented/donated | 14 | 42.4 | 46 | 22.7 | 2.16 | 1.16-4.04 | 0.015 |
| Own | 19 | 57.6 | 157 | 77.3 | 1 | ||
| Economic class | |||||||
| C/D/E | 22 | 66.7 | 134 | 67.3 | 0.97 | 0.49-1.90 | 0.939 |
| A/B | 11 | 33.3 | 65 | 32.7 | 1 | ||
| n | % | n | % | ||||
| BCG scar | |||||||
| Absent | 2 | 6.1 | 10 | 4.9 | 1.20 | 0.32-4.44 | 0.677 |
| Present | 31 | 93.9 | 193 | 95.1 | 1 | ||
| Presented lesion | |||||||
| Yes | 8 | 24.2 | 35 | 17.2 | 1.43 | 0.69-2.96 | 0.334 |
| No | 25 | 75.8 | 168 | 82.8 | 1 | ||
| Sits Close to the case | |||||||
| Yes | 07 | 21.2 | 37 | 18.2 | 1.17 | 0.54-2.53 | 0.682 |
| No | 26 | 78.8 | 166 | 81.8 | 1 | ||
| Contact outside school | |||||||
| Yes | 2 | 6.1 | 06 | 3.0 | 1.83 | 0.53-6.38 | 0.310 |
| No | 31 | 93.9 | 197 | 97.0 | 1 | ||
| Number of people in the household | |||||||
| ≥ 5 | 12 | 36.4 | 103 | 50.7 | 0.60 | 0.31-1.16 | 0.125 |
| From 1 to 4 | 21 | 63.6 | 100 | 49.3 | 1 | ||
| Family leprosy case | |||||||
| Yes | 5 | 15.2 | 38 | 18.8 | 0.80 | 0.32-1.95 | 0.622 |
| No | 28 | 84.8 | 165 | 81.2 | 1 | ||
PR, prevalence ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Others: clustered regions (North, South and East).
Negative PCR: ignored = 4
Analysis of the final model for the detection of Mycobacterium leprae among social contacts, according to cohabitation variables.
| Cohabitation variables | PR Crude | PR Adjusted | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region of residence | ||||
| Others | 0.40 | 1.09 | 0.96-1.24 | 0.164 |
| West | 1 | 1 | ||
| Condition of residence | ||||
| Rented/donated | 2.16 | 0.94 | 0.88-1.00 | 0.069 |
| Own | 1 | 1 | ||
| Number of people in the household | ||||
| ≥ 5 | 0.60 | 1.03 | 0.98-1.08 | 0.229 |
| From 1 to 4 | 1 | 1 |
PR, prevalence ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Others: clustered regions (North, South and East).
Calculated based on a Poison regression model with robust variance.