Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2016
Understanding the relationship between prevalence of microfilariae and antigenaemia using a model of lymphatic filariasis infection.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Irvine Michael A, Njenga Sammy M, Gunawardena Shamini, Njeri Wamae Claire, Cano Jorge, Brooker Simon J, Hollingsworth T Deirdre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis is a debilitating neglected tropical disease that affects impoverished communities. Rapid diagnostic tests of antigenaemia are a practical alternative to parasitological tests of microfilaraemia for mapping and surveillance. However the relationship between these two methods of measuring burden has previously been difficult to interpret.
METHODS: A statistical model of the distribution of worm burden and microfilariae (mf) and resulting antigenaemic and mf prevalence was developed and fitted to surveys of two contrasting sentinel sites undergoing interventions. The fitted model was then used to explore the relationship in various pre- and post-intervention scenarios.
RESULTS: The model had good quantitative agreement with the data and provided estimates of the reduction in mf output due to treatment. When extrapolating the results to a range of prevalences there was good qualitative agreement with published data.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed relationship between antigenamic and mf prevalence is a natural consequence of the relationship between prevalence and intensity of adult worms and mf production. The method described here allows the estimation of key epidemiological parameters and consequently gives insight into the efficacy of an intervention programme.
METHODS: A statistical model of the distribution of worm burden and microfilariae (mf) and resulting antigenaemic and mf prevalence was developed and fitted to surveys of two contrasting sentinel sites undergoing interventions. The fitted model was then used to explore the relationship in various pre- and post-intervention scenarios.
RESULTS: The model had good quantitative agreement with the data and provided estimates of the reduction in mf output due to treatment. When extrapolating the results to a range of prevalences there was good qualitative agreement with published data.
CONCLUSIONS: The observed relationship between antigenamic and mf prevalence is a natural consequence of the relationship between prevalence and intensity of adult worms and mf production. The method described here allows the estimation of key epidemiological parameters and consequently gives insight into the efficacy of an intervention programme.