4.5 Article

Schistosoma mansoni Infections in Young Children: When Are Schistosome Antigens in Urine, Eggs in Stool and Antibodies to Eggs First Detectable?

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000938

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In Uganda, control of intestinal schistosomiasis with preventive chemotherapy is typically focused towards treatment of school-aged children; the needs of younger children are presently being investigated as in lakeshore communities very young children can be infected. In the context of future epidemiological monitoring, we sought to compare the detection thresholds of available diagnostic tools for Schistosoma mansoni and estimate a likely age of first infection for these children. Methods and Findings: A total of 242 infants and preschool children (134 boys and 108 girls, mean age 2.9 years, minimum 5 months and maximum 5 years) were examined from Bugoigo, a well-known disease endemic village on Lake Albert. Schistosome antigens in urine, eggs in stool and host antibodies to eggs were inspected to reveal a general prevalence of 47.5% (CI95 41.1-54.0%), as ascertained by a positive criterion from at least one diagnostic method. Although children as young as 6 months old could be found infected, the average age of infected children was between 3 1/4-3 3/4 years, when diagnostic techniques became broadly congruent. Conclusion: Whilst different assays have particular (dis)advantages, direct detection of eggs in stool was least sensitive having a temporal lag behind antigen and antibody methods. Setting precisely a general age of first infection is problematic but if present Ugandan policies continue, a large proportion of infected children could wait up to 3-4 years before receiving first medication. To better tailor treatment needs for this younger ageclass, we suggest that the circulating cathodic antigen urine dipstick method to be used as an epidemiological indicator.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据