4.6 Article

Loa loa and Mansonella perstans microfilaremia in the department of Lékoumou, Republic of Congo

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-023-06056-w

关键词

Filariasis; Loa loa; Mansonella perstans; Parasitological survey; Republic of Congo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the prevalence and intensity of loiasis in the Lekoumou Department of the Republic of Congo, and found that the infection rates remained generally stable over the past few decades.
Background Loiasis is endemic in the northern and western part of the Republic of Congo. Between 2004 and 2010, surveys were conducted, using the RAPLOA method, in all departments of the Republic of Congo to assess the distribution of loiasis. Prior to 2004, only two parasitological surveys on loiasis had been conducted in Congo and mainly in the Department of Lekoumou, in the southwestern of the country. In 2019, we conducted a parasitological survey in this same department, more than 30 years after the first surveys.Methods The study was conducted in 21 villages. Loa loa and Mansonella perstans microfilaremia levels were quantified using 50 mu l calibrated blood smears.Results A total of 2444 individuals were examined. The median age of the screened individuals was 43 (interquartile range: 30-57, range: 18-91) years old. The overall prevalences of L. loa and M. perstans microfilaremia were 20.0% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 18.0-21.6%] and 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.4%) respectively. The proportion of individuals with a microfilarial density of L. loa > 8000 mf/ml and > 30,000 mf/ml were 5.1% (95% CI 4.3-6.1%) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.8-1.7%), respectively. The overall community microfilarial load was 3.4 mf/ml.Conclusions Prevalences and intensities of L. loa infection remained generally stable between the late 1980s and 2019 in the Lekoumou Department. In contrast, parasitological indicators for M. perstans have declined sharply in the intervening years for an unknown reason.

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

4.6
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