A retrospective cohort investigation of seroprevalence of Marburg virus and ebolaviruses in two different ecological zones in Uganda.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Animals
Child
Child, Preschool
Chiroptera
/ virology
Disease Outbreaks
Ebolavirus
/ immunology
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
Female
Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola
/ blood
Humans
Male
Marburg Virus Disease
/ blood
Marburgvirus
/ immunology
Middle Aged
Miners
Retrospective Studies
Seroepidemiologic Studies
Uganda
/ epidemiology
Young Adult
ELISA
Ebola virus disease
Ebolaviruses
Epidemiology
Filovirus
Marburg virus disease
Seroprevalence
Uganda
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2020
01 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
06
01
2020
accepted:
22
06
2020
entrez:
3
7
2020
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
16
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Uganda has experienced seven Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreaks and four Marburg Virus Disease (MVD) outbreaks between 2000 and 2019. We investigated the seroprevalence and risk factors for Marburg virus and ebolaviruses in gold mining communities around Kitaka gold mine in Western Uganda and compared them to non-mining communities in Central Uganda. A questionnaire was administered and human blood samples were collected from three exposure groups in Western Uganda (gold miners, household members of miners, non-miners living within 50 km of Kitaka mine). The unexposed controls group sampled was community members in Central Uganda far away from any gold mining activity which we considered as low-risk for filovirus infection. ELISA serology was used to analyse samples, detecting IgG antibodies against Marburg virus and ebolaviruses (filoviruses). Data were analysed in STATA software using risk ratios and odds ratios. Miners in western Uganda were 5.4 times more likely to be filovirus seropositive compared to the control group in central Uganda (RR = 5.4; 95% CI 1.5-19.7) whereas people living in high-risk areas in Ibanda and Kamwenge districts were 3.6 more likely to be seropositive compared to control group in Luweeero district (RR = 3.6; 95% CI 1.1-12.2). Among all participants, filovirus seropositivity was 2.6% (19/724) of which 2.3% (17/724) were reactive to Sudan virus only and 0.1% (1/724) to Marburg virus. One individual seropositive for Sudan virus also had IgG antibodies reactive to Bundibugyo virus. The risk factors for filovirus seropositivity identified included mining (AOR = 3.4; 95% CI 1.3-8.5), male sex (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.01-9.5), going inside mines (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.2-8.2), cleaning corpses (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.04-9.1) and contact with suspect filovirus cases (AOR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.04-14.5). These findings indicate that filovirus outbreaks may go undetected in Uganda and people involved in artisan gold mining are more likely to be exposed to infection with either Marburg virus or ebolaviruses, likely due to increased risk of exposure to bats. This calls for active surveillance in known high-risk areas for early detection and response to prevent filovirus epidemics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Uganda has experienced seven Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreaks and four Marburg Virus Disease (MVD) outbreaks between 2000 and 2019. We investigated the seroprevalence and risk factors for Marburg virus and ebolaviruses in gold mining communities around Kitaka gold mine in Western Uganda and compared them to non-mining communities in Central Uganda.
METHODS
METHODS
A questionnaire was administered and human blood samples were collected from three exposure groups in Western Uganda (gold miners, household members of miners, non-miners living within 50 km of Kitaka mine). The unexposed controls group sampled was community members in Central Uganda far away from any gold mining activity which we considered as low-risk for filovirus infection. ELISA serology was used to analyse samples, detecting IgG antibodies against Marburg virus and ebolaviruses (filoviruses). Data were analysed in STATA software using risk ratios and odds ratios.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Miners in western Uganda were 5.4 times more likely to be filovirus seropositive compared to the control group in central Uganda (RR = 5.4; 95% CI 1.5-19.7) whereas people living in high-risk areas in Ibanda and Kamwenge districts were 3.6 more likely to be seropositive compared to control group in Luweeero district (RR = 3.6; 95% CI 1.1-12.2). Among all participants, filovirus seropositivity was 2.6% (19/724) of which 2.3% (17/724) were reactive to Sudan virus only and 0.1% (1/724) to Marburg virus. One individual seropositive for Sudan virus also had IgG antibodies reactive to Bundibugyo virus. The risk factors for filovirus seropositivity identified included mining (AOR = 3.4; 95% CI 1.3-8.5), male sex (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.01-9.5), going inside mines (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.2-8.2), cleaning corpses (AOR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.04-9.1) and contact with suspect filovirus cases (AOR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.04-14.5).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that filovirus outbreaks may go undetected in Uganda and people involved in artisan gold mining are more likely to be exposed to infection with either Marburg virus or ebolaviruses, likely due to increased risk of exposure to bats. This calls for active surveillance in known high-risk areas for early detection and response to prevent filovirus epidemics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32611400
doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05187-0
pii: 10.1186/s12879-020-05187-0
pmc: PMC7329513
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
461Subventions
Organisme : NCEZID CDC HHS
ID : RFA-CK-13-001
Pays : United States
Références
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2016 Aug 05;23(8):717-24
pubmed: 27335383
J Infect Dis. 2005 Mar 15;191(6):964-8
pubmed: 15717273
Res Virol. 1989 Jul-Aug;140(4):319-31
pubmed: 2505350
J Infect Dis. 1999 Feb;179 Suppl 1:S102-7
pubmed: 9988172
J Infect Dis. 2015 Oct 1;212 Suppl 2:S119-28
pubmed: 26209681
Trop Geogr Med. 1986 Sep;38(3):209-14
pubmed: 3092415
J Infect Dis. 1999 Feb;179 Suppl 1:S192-8
pubmed: 9988184
J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204 Suppl 3:S796-9
pubmed: 21987753
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Sep-Oct;87(5):536-8
pubmed: 8266403
Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Mar;11(3):385-90
pubmed: 15757552
Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1987;80(1):51-61
pubmed: 3607998
South Med J. 2008 Jul;101(7):730-4
pubmed: 18580722
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Jan;101(1):64-78
pubmed: 17010400
Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales. 1988;81(4):679-82
pubmed: 3064937
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1989 May-Jun;83(3):407-9
pubmed: 2515626
World Health Stat Q. 1991;44(3):98-106
pubmed: 1949887
J Infect Dis. 1999 Feb;179 Suppl 1:S65-75
pubmed: 9988167
Int J Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;45(1):102-16
pubmed: 26589246
J Infect Dis. 1980 Sep;142(3):372-6
pubmed: 7441008
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Jun;5(6):e1175
pubmed: 21666792
Med Microbiol Immunol. 1992;181(1):43-55
pubmed: 1579085
PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(10):e1002877
pubmed: 23055920
Ann Soc Belg Med Trop. 1979 Mar;59(1):87-92
pubmed: 395911
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Nov 25;16(1):708
pubmed: 27887599
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1983 Nov;32(6):1465-6
pubmed: 6650749
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 18;7(1):8763
pubmed: 28821722
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993 Sep-Oct;87(5):530-5
pubmed: 8266402
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1988 Mar;38(2):407-10
pubmed: 3128130
Bull World Health Organ. 1983;61(6):997-1003
pubmed: 6370486
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1983;77(5):731-3
pubmed: 6419422
PLoS Pathog. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000536
pubmed: 19649327
Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 Oct;20(10):1761-4
pubmed: 25272104
J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204 Suppl 3:S768-75
pubmed: 21987749
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Jun;17(6):645-653
pubmed: 28256310
Sci Data. 2017 Jan 31;4:160133
pubmed: 28140390
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1481-95
pubmed: 25244186
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Apr;60(4):610-5
pubmed: 10348236
Emerg Infect Dis. 2003 Dec;9(12):1531-7
pubmed: 14720391
PLoS One. 2010 Feb 09;5(2):e9126
pubmed: 20161740
Microbes Infect. 2000 Jan;2(1):39-44
pubmed: 10717539