Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:28:41.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative prevalences of Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura and hookworm infections and the prospects for combined control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

M. Booth  and
D. A. P. Bundy
M. Booth
Affiliation:
Wellcome Trust Research Centre for Parasitic Infections, Department of Biology, 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, Department of Biology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Programmes to control Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura and hookworm infections have often been targeted at each infection separately, but the advent of benign and broad-spectrum anthelmintics suggests that combined control ma be feasible. The extent to which the infections co-occur in communities will determine the need for, and potential benefits of, such a combined approach. This paper examines the comparative distribution of the three geohelminths in different geographical areas and shows that A. lumbricoides and T. trichiura have closely related distributions, while hookworm infection is largely independent of the other two. These results indicate that many communities are at risk of disease from infection by more than one species of helminth. The similar distributions and epidemiological characteristics of A. lumbricoides and T. trichiura suggest that simultaneous control of these two parasites by the same strategy would be feasible and highly beneficial to communities. Multiple species control strategies which aim to control hookworm infection may require a more complicated protocol with more precise locality targeting.

Keywords

Ascaris lumbricoidesTrichuris trichiurahookwormsprevalencemorbiditycontrol.
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , August 1992 , pp. 151 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bundy, D. A. P. (1990). Is the hookworm just another geohelminth?. In Hookworm Disease–Current Status and New Directions (ed. Schad, G. A. & Warren, K. S.), pp. 147–64. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Bundy, D. A. P., Cooper, E. S., Thompson, J. M., Didier, J. M. & Simmons, I. (1987). Epidemiology and population dynamics of Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris trichiura in the same community. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 81, 987–93.Google Scholar
Bundy, D. A. P., Wong, M. S., Lewis, L. L. & Horton, J. (1990). Control of geohelminths by delivery of targeted chemotherapy through schools. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 84, 115–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carney, W. P., Masri, S., Stafford, E. E. & Putrali, J. (1977). Intestinal and blood parasites in the North Lore District, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 82, 165–72.Google Scholar
Chandiwana, S. K. (1990). Hookworm population ecology in Zimbabwe. In Hookworm Disease–Current Status and New Direction (ed. Schad, G. A. & Warren, K. S.), pp. 165–76. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1962 a). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part I. Introduction and methods. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 185–94.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 b). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part II. Eastern Bengal. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 195–218.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 c). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part III. Central, Western and Northern Bengal. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 451–80.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 d). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part IV. Assam and the hill areas of Eastern Bengal. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 481–92.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 e). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part V. Tea estates of Assam and Bengal. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 493–504.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 f). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part VI. Burma. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 733–44.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 g). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part VII. Bihar and Orissa. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 743–59.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 h). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part VIII. United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 761–73.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1926 i). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part IX. North-West India. Indian Journal of Medical Research 14, 955–71.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1927 a). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part X. Central India and Bombay. India Journal of Medical Research 15, 143–58.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1927 b). The prevalence and epidemiology of hookworm and other helminthic infections in India. Part XI. Madras Presidency and Southern States. Indian Journal of Medical Research 15, 159–80.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. D., Cross, J. H., Carney, W. P., Bechner, W. M., Oemijati, S., Partono, P., Hudojo, , Arbain, J. & Noermhajati, S. (1973). A parasitological survey in the Jogjakarta area of Central Java, Indonesia Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 4, 195–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Cross, J. H., Clarke, M. D., Cole, W. C., Lien, J. C., Partono, F., Arbain, J. & Kosin, E. H. (1976). A parasitological survey in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Medicine 79, 123–31.Google Scholar
Guyatt, H. L. & Bundy, D. A. P. (1991). Estimating prevalence of community morbidity due to intestinal helminths: prevalence of infection as an indicator of the prevalence of disease. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, H. L., Bundy, D. A. P., Medley, G. F. & Grenfell, B. T. (1990). The relationship between the frequency distribution of Ascaris lumbricoides and the prevalence and intensity of infection in human communities. Parasitology 101, 139–43.Google Scholar
Hall, A., Latham, M. C., Crompton, D. W. T., Stephenson, L. S. & Wolgemuth, J. C. (1982). Intestinal parasitic infections of men in four regions of rural Kenya. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 76, 728–33.Google Scholar
Holland, C. V., Asaolu, S. O., Crompton, D. W. T., Stoddart, R. C., Macdonald, R. & Torimiro, S. E. A. (1989). The epidemiology of Ascaris lumbricoides and other soil-transmitted helminths in primary school children from Ife-Ife, Nigeria. Parasitology 99, 275–85.Google Scholar
Keymer, A. & Bundy, D. A. P. (1989). Seventy-five years of solicitude. Nature, London 337, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keymer, A. & Pagel, M. (1990). Predisposition to helminth infection. In Hookworm Disease–Current Status and New Directions (ed. Schad, G. A. & Warren, K. S.), pp. 177–209. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Kihamia, C. M. (1981). Intestinal helminths in Tanzania. The Dar Es Salam Medical Journal 8, 122–9.Google Scholar
Kinoti, G. K. (1971). The prevalence of helminth infections in the Kismu area of Kenya. East African Medical Journal 48, 490–5.Google Scholar
Lwambo, N. S., Bundy, D. A. P. & Medley, G. F. (1992). A new approach to morbidity risk assessment in hookworm endemic communities. Epidemiology and Infection (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melo, J. E. M., Cutrium, R. N. M., Bulcao, J. R. N. & Araujo, J. P. (1983). Prevalencia das principas helmintiases no estada do maranhão – Brasil. Revista Brasileria de Malariologia e Doenças Tropicais 35, 65–71.Google Scholar
Neghme, A. R., Silva, R. & Artigas, J. (1952). Neuvos aspectos sobre epidemiología de la amebiasis y enteroparasitosis. Revista Chilena de Higiene y Medicina Preventiva 14, 243–57.Google Scholar
Ratard, R. C., Kouemeni, L. E., Ekani Bessala, M. M., Ndamkou, C. N., Sama, M. T. & Cline, B. L. (1991). Ascariasis and trichuriasis in Cameroon. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 85, 84–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, L. J., Crompton, D. W. T., Walters, D. E., Nesheim, M. C., Sanjur, D. & Walsh, E. A. (1989). Soil-transmitted helminth infections in school children from Cocle province, Republic of Panama. Parasitology 99, 287–92.Google Scholar
Tedla, S. & Ayele, T. (1986). Ascariasis distribution in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Medical Journal 24, 79–86.Google Scholar
Vinha, C. (1971). Incidencia no Brasil de helmintos transmitidas pelo solo–rotina coproscopica do ex departmento nacional de endemias rurais. Revista Brasileira de Malariologia e Doenças Tropicais 23, 3–17.Google Scholar
Warren, K. S., Bundy, D. A. P., Anderson, R. M., Davies, A. R., Henderson, D. A., Jamison, D. T., Prescott, N. & Senft, A. (1990). Helminth infections. In Disease and Disease Control in Developing Countries (ed. Jamison, D. T. & Mosely, W. H.). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wenlock, R. W. (1977). Prevalence of hookworm and of S. haemotobium in rural Zambia. Tropical and Geographical Medicine 29, 415–21.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1987). Prevention and Control of Intestinal Parasitic Infections. Technical Report Series No. 749. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar