Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Review 2: "Current Schistosoma Mansoni Exposure and Infection have Distinct Determinants: A Data-driven Population-Based Study in Rural Uganda"

The reviewers commend the study for its comprehensive analysis of water contact and Schistosoma mansoni infection in rural Uganda but express concerns about using the term "exposure" to refer to water contact rather than contact with cercariae, the actual infectious agents.

Published onJun 04, 2024
Review 2: "Current Schistosoma Mansoni Exposure and Infection have Distinct Determinants: A Data-driven Population-Based Study in Rural Uganda"
1 of 2
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Current Schistosoma mansoni exposure and infection have distinct determinants: a data-driven population-based study in rural Uganda
Current Schistosoma mansoni exposure and infection have distinct determinants: a data-driven population-based study in rural Uganda
Description

Abstract Exposure to parasitic flatworms causing schistosomiasis is a complex set of human-environment interactions. Yet, exposure often is equated to current infection. Here we studied risk factors and population patterns of exposure (water contact) within the SchistoTrack Cohort for 2867 individuals aged 5-90 years in Eastern and Western Uganda. Households within 0.34 km of waterbodies accounted for 80% of all water contact. We found a 15-year gap between population-level peak in water contact (age 30) and infection (age 15) with practically no correlation (ρ=0.03) of individual-level water contact and current infection. Bayesian selection for 30 biosocial variables was used to separately predict water contact and current infection. Water contact was positively associated with older age, female gender, fishing occupation, lack of site contamination, unsafe village drinking water, number of sites and type (beach/pond), lower village-level infection prevalence, and fewer village roads. Among these variables, only older age and fishing were positively, though inconsistently associated with infection status/intensity. Water, sanitation, and hygiene influenced water contact but not infection. Our findings highlight that exposure was highly focal and at-risk groups for exposure and infection were different. Precision mapping and targeted treatment/interventions directly focused on exposure are needed to save medicines and reduce transmission.

RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:

  • Strong. The main study claims are very well-justified by the data and analytic methods used. There is little room for doubt that the study produced has very similar results and conclusions as compared with the hypothetical ideal study. The study’s main claims should be considered conclusive and actionable without reservation.

***************************************

Review: This reviewer enjoyed reading the manuscript and would like to commend the authors for conducting a detailed and very thorough analysis. The authors also have a rich dataset which enable the authors to look across multiple outcomes and arrive at very interesting conclusions that in many ways are counter-intuitive and surely will help advance the state of knowledge in the field.

Comments:

I have only minor comments because this paper to well written and thorough in addressing all their findings are results. Below are two minor comments:

  1. At the start of the section titled Gender and age-specific water contact patterns, there is a sentence that reads: “The duration of water contact was higher for females than males (median of 7 vs 5 trips per week, respectively….” Should this read as  the prevalence of water contact? In the next sentence you again refer to the duration of contact terms of hours which is more intuitive.

  2. The findings that the presence of contamination (fecal or otherwise) resulted in a lower chance of water contact to be intriguing. Beyond how individual-level exposure patterns are influenced by collective sanitation, is there anything else that the authors think may be driving this?

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?