Title |
Understanding the relationship between egg- and antigen-based diagnostics of Schistosoma mansoni infection pre- and post-treatment in Uganda
|
---|---|
Published in |
Parasites & Vectors, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13071-017-2580-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Joaquín M. Prada, Panayiota Touloupou, Moses Adriko, Edridah M. Tukahebwa, Poppy H. L. Lamberton, T. Déirdre Hollingsworth |
Abstract |
Schistosomiasis is a major socio-economic and public health problem in many sub-Saharan African countries. After large mass drug administration (MDA) campaigns, prevalence of infection rapidly returns to pre-treatment levels. The traditional egg-based diagnostic for schistosome infections, Kato-Katz, is being substituted in many settings by circulating antigen recognition-based diagnostics, usually the point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen test (CCA). The relationship between these diagnostics is poorly understood, particularly after treatment in both drug-efficacy studies and routine monitoring. We created a model of schistosome infections to better understand and quantify the relationship between these two egg- and adult worm antigen-based diagnostics. We focused particularly on the interpretation of "trace" results after CCA testing. Our analyses suggest that CCA is generally a better predictor of prevalence, particularly after treatment, and that trace CCA results are typically associated with truly infected individuals. Even though prevalence rises to pre-treatment levels only six months after MDAs, our model suggests that the average intensity of infection is much lower, and is probably in part due to a small burden of surviving juveniles from when the treatment occurred. This work helps to better understand CCA diagnostics and the interpretation of post-treatment prevalence estimations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 15 | 47% |
United States | 3 | 9% |
Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 3% |
Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
Scientists | 6 | 19% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
Researcher | 7 | 10% |
Lecturer | 6 | 8% |
Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
Other | 15 | 21% |
Unknown | 21 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 10% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
Other | 11 | 15% |
Unknown | 27 | 38% |