4.6 Article

Divergent Profile of Emerging Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Subtropical Brazil: New Endemic Areas in the Southern Frontier

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056177

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. FAPESC
  3. PPSUS
  4. CNPq
  5. CAPES scholarship (Brazilian Government Agency)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although known to be highly endemic in the Amazon regions of Brazil, the presence of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in the subtropical southern part of the country has largely been ignored. This study was conducted to demonstrate CL is emerging in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, as well as to characterize the epidemiological profile and Leishmania species involved. Methodology/Principal Findings: For this cross-sectional study, data from all CL cases from Santa Catarina, Brazil, reported to the Brazilian National Notifiable Diseases Information System from 2001 to 2009 were investigated. Amplification of the kDNA minicircle conserved region followed by restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) was conducted to screen for Leishmania species present in patient biopsy. Overall, 542 CL cases were reported, with majority resulting from autochthonous transmission (n = 401, 73.99%) and occurring in urban zones (n = 422, 77.86%). Age, gender, zone of residence, origin of case, clinical form and case outcome were found to differ significantly by region. Imported cases were over seven times more likely to relapse (95% CI 2.56-21.09). Mapping of cases revealed new endemic areas in northeastern Santa Catarina with two species present. With the exception of three L. (Leishmania) amazonensis cases (1.20%), majority of PCR positive samples were found to be L. (Viannia) braziliensis (n = 248, 98.80%). Conclusions/Significance: CL is now endemic in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, with case profiles varying significantly by region. L. (V.) braziliensis has been identified as the predominant species in the region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据