Canine visceral leishmaniasis: perception, prevalence, and spatial distribution in municipality of Nossa Senhora do Livramento, Mato Grosso, Brazil

Carvalho, Matheus Roberto; Dias, Álvaro Felipe de Lima Ruy; Almeida, Arleana do Bom Parto Ferreira de; Alves, Mário Ribeiro; Paes, Adilson Santos; Sousa, Valéria Régia Franco

doi:10.1590/S1984-29612020017

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 29 (2) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-29612020017 copy

Canine visceral leishmaniasis: perception, prevalence, and spatial distribution in municipality of Nossa Senhora do Livramento, Mato Grosso, Brazil

Leishmaniose visceral canina: percepção, prevalência e distribuição espacial em Nossa Senhora do Livramento, Mato Grosso, Brazil

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The midwest region of Brazil has witnessed an increase in the number of cases of human (HVL) and canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the population’s perception of these diseases, factors associated with CVL, its spatial distribution, and the prevalence of anti-Leishmania spp. in 385 dogs, determined using a commercially available immunochromatographic rapid test and confirmed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Of the 385 samples, 54 were positive for CVL and confirmed by ELISA, corresponding to a prevalence of 14%. Knowledge of signs of CVL by tutors (p = 0.038); previous occurrence of CVL in the vicinity (p = 0.022); symptomatic dog(s) (p = 0.014), splenomegaly (p = 0.055), and ear ulcer(s) (p = 0.059) were significantly associated with CVL. The results revealed a significant prevalence of CVL spatially distributed in rural and urban contexts. The association between environmentally related variables and perception and the occurrence of CVL underscores the importance of implementing control and prevention strategies primarily focused on environmental management and health education activities.

Keywords:
Epidemiology; associated factors; Leishmania infantum

Variables	Seroreactive dogs/Sampled	Prevalence	OR (CI 95%)	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
Variables	(54/385)	(%)	OR (CI 95%)	p-value^* * Chi-square with Yate’s correction and Fisher exact test;	p-value^ Logistic Regression Model.
Gender
Male	33/223	14.7
Female	21/162	12.9	1.16 (0.64-2.10)	0.608

Breed
Pure	52/375	13.8 20
Mixed	2/10		0.64 (0.13-3.11)	0.928

Age groups
≥ 0.5-y 1	7/76	9.2	-	-
>1-≤ 3 y	21/136	15.4	0.55 (0.22-1.37)	0.198
>3-≤ 7y	8/78	10.2	0.88 (0.30-2.58)	0.826
> 7 y	15/68	22	0.35 (0.13-0.94)	0.032	0.627
Undefined age	3/27	11.1	0.81 (0.19-3.39)	0.774

Symptomatology
Symptomatic	49/295	16.6	3.38 (1.30-8.77)	0.008	0.014
Asymptomatic	5/90	50	3.38 (1.30-8.77)	0.008	0.014

Variables	Seroreactive dogs/Sampled	Prevalence	OR (CI 95%)	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis
Variables	(54/385)	(%)		p-value^* * Chi-square with Yate's correction and Fisher’s Exact test;	p-value^ Logistic Regression Model.
Residence location
Urban area	14/159	8.8	0.44 (0.23-0.85) 0.013		0.200
Countryside area	40/226	17.7	0.44 (0.23-0.85) 0.013		0.200
Proximity of residence
Forest	41/273	15	1.34 (0.69-2.62) 0.475
Forest and river	9/38	23.6	1.88 (0.80-4.38) 0.216
None of the options	4/74	5.4	- -
CVL in the vicinity
Yes	7/19	36.8	3.95 (1.48-10.56) 0.003		0.022
No	47/366	12.8	3.95 (1.48-10.56) 0.003		0.022
Rodents and marsupials
Yes	44/257	17.1	2.40 (1.20-5.25) 0.020		0.138
No	10/128	8.3	2.40 (1.20-5.25) 0.020		0.138
Hen house
Yes	45/274	16.4	2.22 (1.04-4.72) 0.049		0.327
No	9/111	8.1	2.22 (1.04-4.72) 0.049		0.327
Garbage collection
Yes	20/207	9.6	0.45 (0.25-0.82) 0.012		0.079
No	34/178	19.1
Trees in the yard
Yes	38/249	15.2	1.35 (0.72-2.52) 0.344
No	16/136	11.7	1.35 (0.72-2.52) 0.344
Inseticide use
Yes	6/13	46.15	5.78 (1.86-17.94) 0.004		0.089
No	48/372	12.90	5.78 (1.86-17.94) 0.004		0.089

Variables	Number of answers			Seroreactive dogs		OR (CI 95%)	Univariate analysis
Variables	N	%		N	%	OR (CI 95%)	p-value^* * Chi-square with Yate's correction and Fisher’s Exact test.
Have heard about VL
Yes	115	68.8		28	24.3	0.32 (0.16-0.64)	0.001
No	52	31.1		26	50
Know transmission
Yes	55	32.9		12	21.1	0.46 (0.22-0.98)	0.062
No	112	67		42	37.5	0.46 (0.22-0.98)	0.062
Know CVL signals
Yes	57	34.1		12	21	0.43 (0.20-0.90)	0.038
No	110	65.8		42	38.1	0.43 (0.20-0.90)	0.038
Know CVL treatement
Yes	36	21.5		8	22.2	0.52 (0.22-1.25)	0.206
No	131	78.4		46	35.1	0.52 (0.22-1.25)	0.206
There is CVL vaccine
Yes	23	13.7		2	8.6	0.16 (0.37-0.74)	0.070
No	144	86.2		52	36.1	0.16 (0.37-0.74)	0.070
Know how to prevent
Yes	19	11.3		3	15.7	0.35 (0.99-1.28)	0.126
No	148		88.6	51	34.4

Colégio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinária FCAV/UNESP - Departamento de Patologia Veterinária, Via de acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane s/n, Zona Rural, , 14884-900 Jaboticabal - SP, Brasil, Fone: (16) 3209-7100 RAMAL 7934 - Jaboticabal - SP - Brazil
E-mail: cbpv_rbpv.fcav@unesp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: Valéria Régia Franco Sousa. E-mail: valeriaregia27@gmail.com