Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T01:46:10.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new approach to morbidity risk assessment in hookworm endemic communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

N. J. S. Lwambo ,
D. A. P. Bundy  and
G. F. H. Medley
N. J. S. Lwambo
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
D. A. P. Bundy
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
G. F. H. Medley
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The relationship between paired hookworm prevalence and mean intensity of infection data from geographically defined communities was examined. The results show that, in spite of major socio-economic and environmental differences between communities, the relationship is consistent and non-linear. A generalized value of k (the exponent of the negative binomial distribution) for hookworms was estimated to be 0.34, which is consonant with previous estimates from cross-sectional data. Maximum likelihood analysis indicates that the severity of hookworm aggregation in humans has an inverse relationship to mean worm burden which is less marked than for Ascaris lumbricoides. A simple model, based on published estimates of hookworm burdens associated with hookworm anaemia, was used to predict prevalence of morbidity from prevalence of infection data for Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia. Predictions correspond to the observation that hookworm anaemia is highly focal, and largely coastal, in distribution. These analyses suggest that locality-targeting of chemotherapy is particularly appropriate for the control of hookworm morbidity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 469 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Layrisse, M, Roche, M. The relationship between anaemia and hookworm infection. Am J Hyg 1964; 79: 279–301.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Yokogawa, RW. WHO informal document. 1976; World Health Organisation document no. WHO/HELM/67.76.Google Scholar
3.Bloch, M, Rivera, HG. Hookworm disease: the magnitude of the problem and the reason why we ignore it. Rev Inst Invest Med 1977; 6: 131–42.Google Scholar
4.Walsh, JA, Warren, KS. Selective primary health care: an interim strategy for disease control in developing countries. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 967–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Pawlowski, ZS. Strategies for hookworm control. In: Schad, GA, Warren, KS, eds. Hookworm disease: current status and new directions. London: Taylor and Francis, 1990: 210–17.Google Scholar
6.WHO. Prevention and control of intestinal parasitic infections. Geneva 1987; World Health Organisation Technical Report Series No. 749.Google Scholar
7.Guyatt, HL, Bundy, Dap, Medley, GF, Grenfell, BT. The relationship between the frequency distribution of Ascaris lumbricoides and the prevalence and intensity of infection in human communities. Parasitology 1990; 101: 139–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Guyatt, HL, Bundy, Dap. The prevalence of intestinal helminths infection as an indicator of the prevalence of disease. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1991. In press.Google Scholar
9.Anderson, RM, Schad, GA. Hookworm burdens and faecal egg counts: an analysis of the biological basis of variation. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1985; 79: 812–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Hill, RB. The estimation of the number of hookworms harboured, by the use of the dilution egg count method. Am J Hyg 1926; 6: 19–41.Google Scholar
11.Sweet, WC. The effect of carbon tetrachloride on the egg-laying powers of the female hookworm. Am J Hyg 1924; 4: 691–8.Google Scholar
12.Davis, NC. Experience with the Stoll egg counting method in an area lightly infested with hookworm. Am J Hyg 1924; 4: 226–36.Google Scholar
13.Smillie, WG. A comparison of the number of ova in the stool with the actual number of hookworms harboured by the individual. Am J Trop Med 1921; 1: 389–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Pritchard, DI, Quinnell, RJ, Slater, AFG et al. , Epidemiology and immunology of Necator americanus infection in a community in Papua New Guinea: humeral responses to excretory–secretory and cuticular collagen antigens. Parasitology 1990; 100: 317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Haswell-Elkins, MR, Elkins, DB, Manjula, K, Michael, E, Anderson, RM. An investigation of hookworm infection and re-infection following mass treatment in the South Indian fishing community of Vairavankuppam. Parasitology 1988; 96: 565–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Chowdury, AB, Schiller, EL. A survey of parasitic diseases in a rural community near Calcutta. Am J Epidemiol 1968; 87: 299–312.Google Scholar
17.Sweet, WC. Hookworm re-infection: an analysis of 8,239 Ceylon egg counts. Ceylon J Sci Dis 1925; 1: 129–40.Google Scholar
18.Bradley, M, Chandiwana, SK, Bundy, DAP, Medley, GF. The epidemiology and population biology of Necator americanus infection in a rural community in Zimbabwe. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1991. In press.Google Scholar
19.Anderson, RM. The dynamics and control of direct life cycle helminth parasites. Lecture Notes Biomath 1980; 39: 278–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Udonsi, JK.Necator americanus infection: a cross-sectional study of a rural community in relation to some clinical symptoms. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 1984; 78: 443–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Areekul, S. The relationship between anaemia and hookworm infection. J Med Assoc Thai 1979; 62: 378–82.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Crompton, DWT, Stephenson, LS. Hookworm infection, nutritional status and productivity. In: Schad, GA, Warren, KS, eds. Hookworm disease: current status and new directions. London: Taylor and Francis, 1990: 231–65.Google Scholar
23.WHO. Nutritional anaemias. Geneva 1972: World Health Organisation Technical Report Series No. 503.Google Scholar
24.Kihamia, CM. Intestinal helminths in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam Med J 1981; 8: 122–9.Google Scholar
25.Tanner, M, Burnier, E, Mayombana, C et al. , Longitudinal study on health status of children in a rural Tanzanian community: parasitoses and nutrition following measures against intestinal parasites. Acta Trop(Basel) 1987; 44: 139–74.Google Scholar
26.Stephenson, LS, Latham, MC, Oduori, ML. Costs, prevalence and approaches for control of Ascaris infection in Kenya. J Trop Paediatr 1980; 26: 246–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Wenlock, RW. The prevalence of hookworm and of S. haematobium in rural Zambia. Trop Geogr Med 1977; 29: 415–20.Google Scholar
28.Anderson, RM, Gordon, DM. Processes influencing the distribution of parasite numbers within host populations with special emphasis on parasite-induced host mortalities. Parasitology 1982; 85: 373–98.Google Scholar
29.Pacala, SW, Dobson, AP. The relation between the number of parasites/host and host age: population dynamics causes and maximum likelihood estimation. Parasitology 1988; 96: 197–210.Google Scholar
30.Michael, E, Bundy, DAP. Density dependence in establishment, growth and worm fecundity in intestinal helminthiasis: the population biology of Trichuris muris (Nematoda) infection in CBA/Ca mice. Parasitology 1989; 98: 451–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Holland, C. Hookworm infection. In: Stephenson, LS, Holland, C, eds. The impact of helminth infections on human nutrition. London: Taylor and Francis, 1987: 128–60.Google Scholar
32.Gilles, HM, Watson-Williams, EJ, Ball, PAJ. Hookworm infection and anaemia. Q J Med 1964; 33: 1–24.Google Scholar
33.Roche, M, Layrisse, M. The nature and causes of ‘hookworm anaemia’. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1966; 15: 1030–100.Google Scholar
34.Foy, H, Kondi, A. Hookworms in the etiology of tropical iron deficiency anaemia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1960; 54: 419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Latham, MC, Stephenson, LS, Wolgemuth, JC, Elliot, TC, Hall, A, Crompton, Dwt. Nutritional status, parasitic infections and health of roadworkers in 4 areas of Kenya. Part I. Kwale District – Coastal lowlands. East Afr Med J 1983; 60: 2–10.Google Scholar
36.Latham, MC, Wolgemuth, JC, Hall, A. Nutritional status, parasitic infections and health of roadworkers in 4 areas of Kenya. Part II. Kirinyanga and Murang'a Districts, the highlands. East Afr Med J 1983; 60: 75–80.Google Scholar
37.Latham, MC, Stephenson, LS, Elliot, TC, Hall, A, Crompton, DWT. Nutritional status, parasitic infections and health of roadworkers in 4 areas of Kenya. Part III. Kisumu district – Lake Victoria Basin. East Afr Med J 1983; 60: 221–7.Google Scholar
38.Latham, MC, Stephenson, LS, Hall, A. Nutritional status, parasitic infections and health of roadworkers in 4 areas of Kenya. Part IV. West Pokot District – the semi-arid highlands. East Afr Med J 1983; 60: 282–9.Google Scholar
39.Bundy, DAP. New initiatives in the control of helminths. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1990; 84: 467–8.Google Scholar
40.Bundy, DAP, Wong, MS, Lewis, LL, Horton, J. Control of geohelminths by delivery of targeted chemotherapy through schools. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1990; 84: 115–20.Google Scholar
41.Bundy, DAP. Is the hookworm just another geohelminth? In: Schad, GA, Warren, KS, eds. Hookworm disease: current status and new directions. London: Taylor and Francis, 1990: 147–64.Google Scholar