Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Jul 31;18(7):e0288560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288560

Epidemiology of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis amongst children 3–15 years of age during the dry season in Northern Cameroon

Francis N Nkemngo 1,2,*, Lymen W G Raissa 1, Derrick N Nebangwa 3, Asongha M Nkeng 4,5, Alvine Kengne 6, Leon M J Mugenzi 1, Yvan G Fotso-Toguem 1, Murielle J Wondji 1,7, Robert A Shey 8, Daniel Nguiffo-Nguete 1, Jerome Fru-Cho 2,11, Cyrille Ndo 1,9, Flobert Njiokou 6, Joanne P Webster 10, Samuel Wanji 2,11, Charles S Wondji 1,7,*
Editor: David Zadock Munisi12
PMCID: PMC10389741  PMID: 37523402

Abstract

Background

The double burden of malaria and helminthiasis in children poses an obvious public health challenge, particularly in terms of anemia morbidity. While both diseases frequently geographically overlap, most studies focus on mono-infection and general prevalence surveys without molecular analysis. The current study investigated the epidemiological determinants of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis transmission among children in the North Region of Cameroon.

Methodology

School and pre-school children aged 3–15 year-of-age were enrolled from three communities in March 2021 using a community cross-sectional design. Capillary-blood samples were obtained, and each was examined for malaria parasites using rapid-diagnostic-test (RDT), microscopy, and PCR while hemoglobin level was measured using a hemoglobinometer. Stool samples were analyzed for Schistosoma mansoni, S. guineensis, and soil-transmitted-helminthiasis (STH) infections using the Kato Katz method, and urine samples were assessed for the presence of S. haematobium eggs (including hybrids) using the standard urine filtration technique.

Result

A malaria prevalence of 56% (277/495) was recorded by PCR as opposed to 31.5% (156/495) by microscopy and 37.8% (186/495) by RDT. Similarly, schistosomiasis was observed at prevalence levels of up to 13.3% (66/495) overall [S. haematobium (8.7%); S. mansoni (3.8%); mixed Sh/Sm (0.6%); mixed Sh/Sm/Sg (0.2%). Both infections were higher in males and the 3–9 year-of-age groups. A high frequency of PCR reported P. falciparum mono-infection of 81.9% (227/277) and mixed P. falciparum/P. malariae infection of 17.3% (48/277) was observed. Malaria-helminths co-infections were observed at 13.1% (65/495) with marked variation between P. falciparum/S. haematobium (50.8%, 33/65); P. falciparum/S. mansoni (16.9%, 11/65) and P. falciparum/Ascaris (9.2%, 6/65) (χ2 = 17.5, p = 0.00003). Anemia prevalence was 32.9% (163/495), categorically associated with P. falciparum (45.8%, 104/227), Pf/Sh (11.5%, 26/227), and Pf/Sm (3.9%, 9/227) polyparasitism.

Conclusion

Polyparasitism with malaria and helminth infections is common in school-aged children despite periodic long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) distribution and regular school-based praziquantel (for schistosomiasis) and albendazole (for STH) campaigns. Co-existence of Plasmodium parasites and helminths infections notably Schistosoma species among children may concurrently lead to an increase in Plasmodium infection with an enhanced risk of anemia, highlighting the necessity of an integrated approach for disease control interventions.

Introduction

Despite the implementation of control measures since the early 2000s, malaria and helminth infections rank as the most prevalent parasitic diseases in Cameroon where they impose a tremendous public health burden, particularly on children [1, 2]. Malaria was responsible for 6,840,000 cases and more than 3,500 deaths in 2019, with P. falciparum accounting for approximately 95% of the attributed deaths in the country [2, 3]. Additionally, the circulation and expansion of non-P. falciparum species, particularly P. malariae and P. ovale [4], often co-existing with P. falciparum have been reported to widen the force of transmission and increase the magnitude of disease severity with anemia being the most profound outcome [5]. The disease exerts a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, particularly amongst infants and children under five (0–5 years) due, at least in part, to minimal acquired protective immunity [3]. As such, interventions such as long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), artemisinin combination therapy (ACTs), intermittent preventive treatment for infants (IPTi), seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), and potential vaccination programs are concentrated on this under five years-of-age group to significantly reduce the risk of death [3]. However, whilst malaria-associated mortality is relatively lower amongst school-aged children (SAC) (5–15 years), this age group also represents a key epidemiological demographic grouping [6]. Due to repeated exposure to malaria and acquisition of partial immunity to disease in high transmission settings, SAC are frequently subjected to the prolonged carriage of untreated asymptomatic parasitemia, thereby serving as potential infectious reservoirs for sustaining transmission [7]. From a logistical perspective, primary school children also tend to be easily accessible for large scale surveillance of a range of infectious diseases including malaria. Moreover, with the changing pattern and dynamics of malaria transmission in Cameroon following the scale-up of national control interventions since 2015, monitoring the infection profiles and morbidity in the SAC age group remains fundamental to evaluating the success of malarial control programs.

Furthermore, evidence from epidemiological studies to date has demonstrated that in areas of co-endemicity, children exposed to malaria often have a high likelihood of helminth co-infections [5]. Helminthic infections particularly schistosomiasis (Schistosoma haematobium (and hybrids therein), S. mansoni, and S. guineensis) and soil-transmitted worms (Ascaris lumbricoides, Ancylostoma duodenale, Necator americanus, and Trichuris trichiura) are chronic debilitating neglected tropical diseases prevalent in Cameroon, and affecting more than 200,000 people [8, 9]. Like malaria, these diseases thrive mostly in poor and rural communities where the vulnerable groups suffer from anemia, reduced productivity, and poor psychological development [10]. Transmission of the diseases is primarily governed by social-ecological factors where access to safe water, poor latrine systems, inadequate hygiene, and sanitation practices combined with domestic activities predispose the high-risk groups, particularly children to water contacts or infected soils harboring the infective larva forms of the parasites [1113]. Pathology of these diseases notably schistosomiasis is largely mediated by the eggs which are often excreted in urine or feces to ensure the continuity of the parasite life cycle [14]. Preventive chemotherapy (PCT) through school-based periodic administration of praziquantel (PZQ) and albendazole (ABZ) to school-age children remains the cornerstone of schistosomiasis and STH control respectively in endemic foci in Cameroon [8, 9]. While this strategy reduces the egg load and minimizes transmission, it does not prevent infection or re-infection, thereby posing concerns about the potential long-term interruption of disease transmission [15]. Moreover, the exclusion of infected preschool children and adults from treatment campaigns implies that these groups continually serve as transmission hotspots and may suffer from anemia, organ dysfunction, and serious reproductive and mental health outcomes [10].

In Cameroon, helminth infections, particularly schistosomiasis, are endemic in the Northern Region [8]. However, whilst there is now a substantial body of evidence concerning the prevalence and seasonal transmission of malaria and helminthiasis during the rainy season in the region, there remains limited available data during the dry season. Furthermore, where data exist, the majority of research efforts still focus on the epidemiology of single infections [16], without assessing the epidemiological and morbidity impact of polyparasitism. Thus, here we sought to provide an update on the prevalence of malaria and helminths infections and to comprehensively assess the risk factors associated with the disease transmission in the North Region of Cameroon, with a specific focus on the dry season. These findings will contribute to the design or improvement of policy decision strategies to concomitantly interrupt malaria and helminths transmission in Cameroon.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study received ethical approvals (2021/1250-10/UB/SG/IRB/FHS) and (N0 2020/05/1234/CE/CNERSH/SP) from the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Buea and the Cameroon National Committee on Ethics for Human Health Research respectively. Administrative authorization was sought from the North Regional Delegations of Public Health and Basic Education, Garoua, Cameroon. The study was conducted conforming to the World Medical Association (WMA) guidelines as highlighted in the Declaration of Helsinki. Sensitization of the population was done in the various communities before the study. The purpose, risks, and benefits of the study were explained to the parents and guardians of children both in French and the local dialect (Fulfulde), and written informed consent was obtained from all the parents/guardians whose children were enrolled in the study. By signing the form, the children ≤ 5 years-of-age (assisted by their respective guardian/parent) and children > 5 years-of-age agreed to answer a questionnaire and to provide finger-prick blood, urine, and stool samples for parasitological analysis. Confidentiality was respected as participants responded to the questionnaire and even during data processing and analyses, as well as during data sharing. Participation was voluntary, and individuals could freely terminate involvement in the study at any time, even without prior notice. Children who were positive for malaria were administered first-line treatment as recommended by the national treatment guideline policy. However, children positive for schistosomiasis and worm infections were referred to the local district hospital where free praziquantel (40 mg/kg body weight) and albendazole (400 mg) treatments were respectively given, in association with the Cameroon Schistosomiasis Control Program (PNLSHI) [8].

Study area

This study was conducted in March 2021 during the dry season in three community health districts (HD) of the sudano-guinean climatic zone of the North Region of Cameroon (Fig 1), an area with an average annual precipitation level of <100mm [17]. These communities, mainly dominated by Muslims, include Pitoa Centre (9°38’95” N, 13°50’15” E) and Wouro-kessoum (PWK) (9°38’93” N, 13°50’14” E) in the Pitoa health district (PHD), Bainga Assoura (9°85’35” N, 13°95’68” E) and Kola (BAK) (9°85’86” N, 13°95’94” E) harboring a major touristic feature—Georges de Kola- in the Guider health district (GHD) and Gounougou (GNG) (9°03′00″N, 13°43′59″E) in the Lagdo health district (LHD). Daily temperature ranges from 28°C to 35°C. The choice of selected sites was guided by the geo-cardinal positions (Fig 1) combined with the existence of previously available malaria and helminths parasitological data during the rainy season [18, 19]. The climate of these localities is characterized by a short rainy season from May to September (mean annual rainfall of 900 to 1000 mm) and a long dry season from October to April. Farming (cotton and rice cultivation), cattle rearing and fishing are the primary occupation of the inhabitants since these communities are proximal to natural and artificial water bodies including major rivers (e.g., River Benoué), streams, and a hydroelectric power plant (Lagdo dam) [20, 21]. These water bodies constitute the principal breeding sites of the snail intermediate host. Poor infrastructure planning with most houses lacking toilets or water systems and the common practice of open defecation is the norm in these villages. Moreover, the influx of displaced persons from the Boko-Harram conflict-hit areas in the Far-North Region [22] coupled with conditions of poor personal and environmental sanitation facilities, exacerbates the transmission of diseases like schistosomiasis. Indeed, the general lack of latrines and inadequate potable water supply at the community level compels the population to utilize these water bodies for personal, household, and livelihood activities; further risking exposure to Schistosoma cercariae. However, sustained annual preventive chemotherapy-based mass drug administration (MDA) of PZQ and ABZ to SAC has been ongoing for over 15 years [8]. Furthermore, malaria transmission is seasonal [2] with the peak period ranging from September to October. Anopheles coluzzii and An. arabiensis are the main vectors involved with the majority of the households administered an LLIN by the Cameroon National Malaria Control Program at a coverage of ~ 76% during the 2018 mass distribution campaign [2].

Fig 1. Study sites in North Cameroon.

Fig 1

Study design and sample size determination

A community-based cross-sectional design was utilized to recruit—children (3–15 years-of-age) residing in the North Region of Cameroon. The sample size of the study population was calculated based on a previous schistosomiasis prevalence of 38.5% during the rainy season [8] considering that malaria is endemic in this Region. The sample size, N was determined using the Cochran’s formulaby: N = Z2 x P (1-P)/d2 [23] where Z is the standard normal deviation, Z = 1.96 for the confidence level of 95%, P = 0.385; the proportion of schistosomiasis prevalence, d is the error width of the confidence interval (0.05). The minimum estimated sample size required was calculated as 370. A total of 555 participants were, however, considered for recruitment to anticipate attrition factors such as voluntary withdrawal, and/or to accommodate for the loss of sample due to the inability of all the children to provide capillary blood or urine/stool samples at the time of specimen collection. Each participant provided three specimens including blood spots, stool, and urine samples. Parents and their respective children were invited by local community leaders to assemble at a major focal point in each of the selected communities for sample collection. Health education talks on preventive measures for these diseases were delivered before each screening exercise. Furthermore, a questionnaire was administered to each participant by a trained research assistant to obtain anthropometric and socio-demographic data. As inclusion criteria, only children who had lived for at least a year in the selected villages and whose parents/guardians consented to participate were enrolled in the study. Parents who brought more than one child were registered under the same household (or a different household if the child was not theirs). Those who failed to provide feces or urine samples after the interview were excluded.

Administration of questionnaire

A simple structured questionnaire (S1 File) was used to collect information about each individual based on the following variables: socio-demographic data (including name, address, age, gender, and educational level), clinical data, malaria risk factors (including knowledge on malaria, history of fever, long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) ownership and use, antimalarial intake), schistosomiasis risk factors (including knowledge on schistosomiasis, source of water supply, frequency of water contact, open-air defecation practice, hand washing and hygienic practice, deworming history). Overall, a total of thirty-seven variables were assessed with scores either between Yes or No and multiple provided answers (S1 File). These scores were computed to give the total counts of the response to each variable. For example, the KAP scoring system for variables with Yes/No response employed a cut-off binary code digit where 0 indicates poor KAP and 1 denotes good KAP. The basis of the decided cut-off was to categorize the data set and establish relevant epidemiological associations between the level of risk/exposure and outcome.

Clinical assessment

A digital thermometer was used to measure the axillary temperature and fever was defined as body temperature ≥ 37.5°C. Participants’ heights were measured using a stadiometer (Seca 206IN, Hamburg, Germany) while a weighing balance (Michiels, Luitberg, Belgium) of 120 Kg was used to measure the body weight.

Parasitological examination of blood samples

Finger prick (capillary) blood sample was collected from each individual to measure hemoglobin (Hb) level using a hemoglobinometer (URIT Medical Electronic Co., Shenzhen, China) and perform malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) using the CareStartTM Malaria Pf/Pan (HRP2/pLDH) antigen Combo kit following manufacturer’s guidelines. Blood aliquots were used to prepare thick and thin films on labeled slides to determine the malaria parasite density using the Giemsa staining technique. Slides were observed under X100 objective lens (oil immersion) of a light microscope [24]. Each blood film was independently examined under the light microscope (limit of detection: 50–100 parasites/μL) by two trained and experienced microscopists, based on established protocols for the detection and identification of Plasmodium parasites. Slides were considered positive when asexual stages (trophozoites and schizonts) or gametocytes were identified. Parasite density was determined on thick blood films by systematic counting of parasite numbers against at least 200 white blood cells (WBCs), assuming a standard WBC count of 8000/μL. If gametocytes were detected, the count was extended to 500 leukocytes [24]. Malaria parasitemia was categorized as low (≤ 1,000 parasite/μL of blood), moderate (1,000–5,000 parasites/μL of blood), and high (> 5,000 parasites/μL of blood). Slides were considered negative after scanning through the entire stained smear [24].

Following the same slide and RDT numerical codes, three drops of capillary blood aliquoted onto an ID labeled Whatman 3 mm filter paper were air-dried, kept in a sealed plastic bag, and stored at room temperature for subsequent laboratory analysis. The dried blood spots (DBS) samples were used to detect and identify the malaria parasite species and to determine sub-microscopic Plasmodium infection. Genomic DNA was extracted from the DBS using chelex beads [25] while primary and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays were run to discriminate the Plasmodium species. The primary PCR was done using a pair of Plasmodium genus-specific primers which amplifies a 1100-base pair (bp) PCR product from the 18S rRNA small subunit gene. Briefly, amplification was performed using rPLU5 and rPLU6 primers to identify the Plasmodium genus. The PCR mixture of 20 μl total volume, contained 10X buffer, 200 Mm dNTPs, 10 μM of each primer, 2.5 mM MgCl2, 1 unit of Taq DNA polymerase (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA), and 5 μl of extracted DNA. The thermocycling consisted of an initial denaturation step at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 25 cycles at 94°C for 30s, 58°C for 2 min, and 72°C for 2 min, and a final extension step at 72°C for 10 min. Similarly, the nested PCR (nPCR) with primers specific to the four human Plasmodium species (P. falciparum, P. malariae, P. ovale, and P. vivax) were used to amplify each species. The master mix composition was similar except that 4 μl aliquot of the primary PCR product was used as a template in a cocktail mix of the species-specific primers. The PCR thermocycling conditions were initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 30 cycles each of 30 sec at 94°C, 2 min at 58°C, 2 min at 72°C, and 5 min final elongation at 72°C.

The PF3D7 laboratory strain and distilled water were used as positive and negative controls respectively [26].

Parasitological examination of urine samples

On the day of enrolment, all parents/guardians of children who participated in the questionnaire sampling received a 50 mL sterile, wide-mouthed; screw-capped plastic containers carrying their identification information for urine collection. Considering the circadian pattern of schistosome egg excretion, participants were requested to collect urine samples between 10 am– 2 pm [27]. Upon receipt of urine, hematuria was immediately determined by visual inspection and urine reagent strips (Uric11V, ACCU-ANSWER®) following the manufacturer’s instructions. All urine and stool samples were stored in cooling boxes containing air cooler ice packs at a temperature of about 4˚C to prevent S. haematobium eggs from hatching and hookworm eggs from degrading during transportation to the laboratory for processing within 12–18 hours of collection. The urine samples were processed using the Nucleopore syringe urine filtration technique and examined microscopically for the presence of S. haematobium infection based on the morphology of the ova [28]. Briefly, 10-mL homogenized urine collected using a syringe was forced through a polycarbonate membrane filter (STERLITECH Corporation, USA). The filter was removed from the filter holder and placed on a glass slide using blunt-ended forceps. The slide template was stained with 1% Lugol’s Iodine Solution, covered with a cover slip, and examined microscopically under X10 objective of the light microscope. Terminal-spined eggs characteristic of S. haematobium were identified and counted manually. The infection intensity was defined by the number of eggs per 10 mL of urine and categorized as light (<50 eggs/10 mL of urine) or heavy (≥50 eggs/10ml of urine) infection as defined by the WHO [29].

Parasitological examination of stool samples

Similarly, an ID-labeled sterile 50 mL plastic containing the fecal specimen of each enrolled child was submitted for examination. The fresh stool samples were analyzed using the Kato Katz technique employing a 41.7 mg template. Briefly, the feces were pressed through a mesh screen to remove large particles. A portion of the sieved sample was then transferred into the template orifice on each slide. After filling the hole, the template was removed and the sample (~ 41.7 mg) was firmly covered with a piece of cellophane soaked overnight in glycerol-malachite green solution. The glycerol clears the fecal debris from around the eggs. The prepared slides were mounted under a Leica® light microscope and observed under X40 objective to identify the presence of S. mansoni, S. guineensis, and STH eggs based on identification charts. The fecal smears were examined within 1 hour of preparation to avoid missing hookworm ova. Duplicate smears were prepared for each sample and examined by trained and experienced microscopists. The intensity of infection was expressed as eggs/gram of feces (epg) [30].

Data analysis

Data collected were entered in MS Excel, imported into and analyzed using GraphPad Prism V8 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, California USA). Children were categorized into 3–9 and 10–15 years age groups. Descriptive statistics involving continuous variables were summarized into means and standard deviations (SD), and categorical variables were reported as frequencies. General and species prevalence of malaria and schistosomiasis were calculated as the proportion of individuals that were identified as positive for the presence of parasites (or species) considering the villages, age group, and gender category. Fisher exact test was employed to verify whether a significant association exists between two categorical variables. Also, independent variables were subjected to chi-square (χ2) analysis for test of association. Variables with a p-value < 0.25 underwent step-wise logistic regression analysis for adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Significant levels were measured at a 95% confidence interval (CI) with statistically acceptable differences set at p < 0.05.

Definitions of endpoints

Sub-microscopic infection was defined as low-density blood-stage parasitemia that was not detected by gold-standard microscopy but positive by nested PCR (nPCR). Asymptomatic malaria parasitemia was defined as the presence of Plasmodium parasite by microscopy or nPCR with an axillary temperature of < 37.5°C and the absence of fever within the past 14 days while clinical malaria parasitemia was considered as the presence of Plasmodium, with an axillary temperature of ≥ 37.5°C, joint pains, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, chills [31]. Anemia was defined as Hb < 11.0 g/dL and further categorized as severe (Hb < 7.0 g/dL), moderate (Hb level: 7.0–10.0 g/dL), and mild (10.1 and < 11 g/dL) [32]. Symptomatic urogenital schistosomiasis was defined as the presence of S. haematobium eggs in the urine associated with dysuria, hematuria, and abdominal pain while non-symptomatic urogenital schistosomiasis as the presence of S. haematobium eggs in urine without any visible signs and symptoms of fever, hematuria, abdominal pain, and difficult/painful urination [33]. Similarly, symptomatic intestinal schistosomiasis was defined as the presence of S. mansoni eggs in feces with abdominal pain/blood spots in feces as opposed to ectopic egg excretion which is considered as the presence of S. mansoni eggs in urine or S. haematobium eggs in feces [21].

True positive (TP)–individuals have the disease and test positive; False positive (FP)–individuals do not have the disease but test positive; True negative (TN)–individuals do not have the disease and test negative; False negative (FN)—individuals have the disease but test negative. Sensitivity (Se) of the test is the ability of the test to identify correctly those who have the disease (true positive rate), usually denoted by Se = TP/ (TP + FN) while Specificity (Sp) of the test is the ability of the test to identify correctly those who do not have the disease (true negative rate), designated by Sp = TN/ (TN + FP). Positive predictive value (PPV) is the probability that a disease is present when the test is positive [PPV = TP/ (TP + FP)]. Negative predictive value (NPV) is the probability that the disease is not present when the test is negative [NPV = TN/ (TN + FN)]. Accuracy (Acc) is the overall probability that a patient will be correctly classified [Acc = (TP + TN)/ (TP + TN + FP + FN)] [34].

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study participants

A total number of 495 children (3–15 years) who completed questionnaires were enrolled and provided capillary blood, urine, and stool samples for this study. The baseline characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. Stratification of the age group showed that 62.6% (310) of the participants were between 3 to 9 years old while 37.4% (185) were within the 10–15 years range. Among the 495 participants enrolled in this study, 45.5% (225) were females while 54.5% (270) were males. The respective mean age and weight for females of the 3–9 years age group were 6 years (±1.8) and 23.8 kg alongside 11.4 years (±1.4) and 37.7 kg for the 10–15 years age group (Table 1). Similarly, the mean age and weight for males of the 3–9 years group was 5.9 years (±1.8), 24.9 kg with the 10–15 group recording 11.7 years (±1.5), 37.4 kg Females (87.6%) with body temperature < 37.5°C were more than males (χ2 = 17.79, p = 0.02). At the time of the survey, 13.2% of children were currently not enrolled in the local basic educational system, accounting for the literacy gap observed in this region.

Table 1. Characteristics of study participants by sex and age in the three communities.

Category Age (yr) Total
Variables 3–9 10–15
% (n) 62.6 (310) 37.4 (185) 100 (495)
Sex Female 64.4 (145) 35.6 (80) 45.5 (225)
Male 61.1 (165) 38.9 (105) 54.5 (270)
Locality Pitoa & Wourokessoum 58.1 (132) 41.9 (95) 45.9 (227)
Bainga Assoura & Kola 67.8 (80) 32.2 (38) 23.8 (118)
Gounougou 65.3 (98) 34.7 (52) 30.3 (150)
Mean age (yr ± SD) 5.9 ±1.8 11.4±1.4 8.7±1.6
Mean height (m ± SD) 1.2±0.1 1.4±0.1 1.3±0.1
Mean weight (kg ± SD) 23.8±6.6 37.7±8.1 30.7±7.3
Mean body temp (°C) 36.8 36.8 36.8
Mean Hb (g/dL) 11.1 12.0 11.6
* School enrollment Yes 51.5 (189) 48.5 (178) 86.8 (367)
No 87.5 (49) 12.5 (07) 13.2 (56)
Fever Yes 75.0 (27) 25.0 (09) 7.3 (36)
No 61.7 (283) 38.3 (176) 92.7 (459)
History of fever in the past 3 days Yes 33.3 (03) 66.7 (06) 1.8 (09)
No 63.2 (307) 36.8 (179) 98.2 (486)

*School enrollment excluded unregistered preschoolers (children ≤ 5 years); n = 423

Prevalence of malaria and associated risk factors among study participants

Out of the 495 participants examined by microscopy, 31.5% (156/495) tested positive for malaria parasites (Table 2). Generally, males (34.8%, 94/270) recorded a higher parasite prevalence than females (27.6%, 62/225) (χ2  = 2.99, p = 0.08). Considering the sample size, children of 3–9 years were similarly infected (30.6%, 95/310) as the 10–15 years (32.9%, 61/185) age group although no significant difference in malaria prevalence was observed (χ2 = 0.29, p = 0.59). Among females, the 3–9 years age group had the highest malaria prevalence of 28.9% (42/145). Likewise, for the male gender, 32.1% (53/165) prevalence was observed in the 3–9 years category and 39% (41/105) in the 10–15 age cohort with no significant difference observed (χ2  = 1.36, p = 0.24). P. falciparum was the most dominant malaria causative species accounting for 62.1% (59/95) and 72.1% (44/61) of cases in the 3–9 and 10–15 age groups respectively. Mix infection of P. falciparum and P. malariae (Pf+Pm) was pronounced in the 3–9 years age group (10.5%, 10/95) and male gender (6.4%, 6/94) (χ2  = 13.3, p = 0.04). Mean P. falciparum trophozoite density was higher in males [1351 parasites/μL; (440–13040)] and the 3–9 years age group [1426 parasites/μL; (440–49840)]. Contrary to microscopy, RDT and nPCR reported a malaria prevalence of 37.6% (186) (χ2  = 4.02, p = 0.04) and 55.9% (277) (χ2  = 60.1, p < 0.0001) respectively as shown in Table 2. The proportion of the infected population by gender varied between female [36.9% (83) RDT vs 58.2% (131) nPCR] (χ2  = 46.2, p < 0.0001) and male [38.1% (103) RDT vs 54.1% (146) nPCR] (χ2  = 29.4, p < 0.0001). Similarly, the 3–9 years age group documented higher prevalence [36.8% (114) RDT vs 56.1% (174) nPCR] (χ2  = 43.4, p < 0.0001) than the 10–15 years [38.9% (72) RDT vs 55.7% (103) nPCR] (χ2  = 30.5, p < 0.0001) (Fig 2). PCR assay revealed that the majority of the asymptomatic malaria infections among children were due to P. falciparum mono-infections accounting for a prevalence of 81.9% (227); with a substantial proportion [17.3% (48)] of P. falciparum + P. malariae mixed infection. The 3–9 age structure [Pf: 83.9% (146); Pf+Pm: 14.9% (26)] and the male sex [Pf: 78.8% (115); Pf+Pm: 20.5% (30)] recorded the highest prevalence for both species (Fig 2). While a single case of triple Pf+Pm+Po was observed, no infection with P. vivax was detected (Fig 2).

Table 2. Malaria prevalence, parasitemia indices and associated risk factors by study communities.

Category Age (yr) Total
Variables 3–9 10–15
% (n) 62.6 (310) 37.4 (185) 100 (495)
Malaria prevalence RDT
Microscopy
PCR
61.3 (114)
60.9 (95)
62.8 (174)
38.7 (72)
39.1 (61)
37.2 (103)
37.6 (186)
31.5 (156)
55.9 (277)
Prevalence of Plasmodium species Microscopy
P. falciparum
P. malariae
P.f/P.m

57.3 (59)
63.4 (26)
83.3 (10)

42.7 (44)
36.6 (15)
16.7 (02)

66.0 (103)
26.3 (41)
7.7 (12)
PCR
P. falciparum
P. malariae
P.f/P.m
P.f/P.m/P.o

64.3 (146)
100 (01)
54.2 (26)
100 (01)

35.7 (81)
0.0 (0)
45.8 (22)
0.0 (0)

81.9 (227)
0.4 (01)
17.3 (48)
0.4 (01)
Geometric mean trophozoite
(trophozoite/μL
P. falciparum
P. malariae
1515
1020
1201.3
1091.8
1358.2
1055.9
Geometric mean gametocyte
(gametocyte/uL)
P. falciparum
P. malariae
5.3
2.7
13.3
0
9.3
1.4
Have you heard of malaria? Yes
No
30.8 (74)
92.5 (236)
69.2 (166)
7.5 (19)
48.5 (240)
51.5 (255)
Source of information about malaria? Radio/TV
School
CHW
Sch/CHW
Radio/Sch
Nil
0.0 (0)
28.7 (56)
46.7 (14)
0.0 (0)
0.0 (0)
93.0 (240)
100 (03)
71.3 (139)
53.3 (16)
100 (03)
100 (07)
7.0 (18)
0.6 (03)
39.4 (195)
6.1 (30)
0.6 (03)
1.4 (07)
52.1 (258)
Do you own an LLIN? Yes
No
58.1 (225)
78.7 (85)
41.9 (162)
21.3 (23)
78.2 (387)
21.8 (108)
Do you sleep under a LLIN? Yes
No
58.1 (137)
66.8 (173)
41.9 (99)
33.2 (86)
47.7 (236)
52.3 (259)
How frequent do you sleep under a LLIN? Always
Often
Rarely
Never
65.8 (73)
52.2 (59)
41.7 (05)
66.8 (173)
34.2 (38)
47.8 (54)
58.3 (07)
33.2 (86)
22.4 (111)
22.8 (113)
2.4 (12)
52.3 (259)
Anti-malaria intake last 30days Yes
No
23.1 (06)
64.8 (304)
76.9 (20)
35.2 (165)
5.3 (26)
94.7 (469)
What is the cause of malaria? Mosquito bite
Dirty water
Sour food
Swimming
Barefoot
Mosq/DW
Mosq/SF
Mosq/SF/DW
No idea
27.2 (49)
37.5 (12)
50.0 (04)
0.0 (00)
100 (01)
16.7 (01)
0.0 (00)
0.0 (00)
92.4 (244)
72.8 (131)
62.5 (20)
50.0 (04)
100 (02)
0.0 (00)
83.3 (05)
100 (02)
100 (01)
7.6 (20)
36.4 (180)
6.5 (32)
1.6 (08)
0.4 (02)
0.2 (01)
1.2 (06)
0.4 (02)
0.2 (01)
53.3 (264)

Key: Sch = School, CHW = Community Health Worker, Mosq = Mosquito bite, DW = Dirty water, SF = Sour Food; LLIN = Long-lasting Insecticide Treated Net

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Age and Sex related prevalence and species composition of (a) Plasmodium and (b) Schistosome.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between RDT and microscopy using nPCR as the reference for malaria parasite detection

The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of microscopy and RDT against PCR are presented in Table 3. Using the highly sensitive PCR as the reference test, 314/495 participants were positive for malaria. Out of the 314 positive samples, RDT identified 62.3% (202) infections while microscopy detected 36.3% (114) true positives (χ2 = 49.3, p < 0.0001) (S1 & S2 Figs). However, RDT and microcopy each recorded 3.2% (16) and 8.3% (41) false positives respectively (χ2 = 12.1, p = 0.0005). Microscopy reported a higher false negative rate (42.2%), missing out on 209 PCR positive samples than RDT which had a false negative rate of 24.6% failing to detect 122 PCR positive samples (χ2 = 48.4, p < 0.0001). Generally, RDT had a 2-fold more sensitive score than microscopy (3.5% vs 1.8%) with the sensitivity of microscopy and RDT being 35.3% and 62.3% respectively. Also, RDT reported higher specificity (90.6% vs 76.2%), PPV (92.7% vs 73.5%), and NPV (55.9% vs 38.5%) than microscopy. Cohen’s kappa statistic revealed moderate agreement (k = 0.5) between RDT and PCR and slight agreement (k = 0.1) between microscopy and PCR. Generally, PCR and RDTs recorded a higher sensitivity than microscopy in malaria diagnosis during the dry season. A high prevalence of 42.2% sub-microscopic infection carriage was recorded in this study (Table 3; S1 & S2 Figs).

Table 3. Test performance of the different diagnostic assays used for evaluating malaria positivity from blood samples.

nPCR
Positive Negative Total
Microscopy Positive 114 41 155
Negative 209 131 340
Total 323 172 495
nPCR
Positive Negative Total
RDT Positive 202 16 218
Negative 122 155 277
Total 324 171 495

Association between KAP, LLINs ownership, LLINs use, and malaria prevalence

There was no significant difference in malaria prevalence between children who reported good KAP [χ2 = 0.8; p = 0.37] and those who did not. Similarly, children who owned and slept under insecticide-treated nets had a 1.1% lower Plasmodium infection prevalence than their counterparts who did not possess nor sleep under LLINs [χ2 = 2.6; p = 0.1] as shown in Table 4. Additionally, a 1.5% reduction in malaria prevalence was observed among children who owned and slept under a LLIN compared to children who owned a LLIN without sleeping under.

Table 4. KAP and LLINs predictors of malaria prevalence.

Malaria prevalence (PCR); % (n)
Predictor Malaria outcome Age groups (yr) Statistic
3–9 10–15 χ2 [p-value]
KAP (+) Positive 63.5 (33) 70.3 (90) 0.80 [0.37]
Negative 36.5 (19) 29.7 (38)
KAP (-) Positive 59.5 (141) 61.9 (13) 0.05 [0.83]
Negative 40.5 (96) 38.1 (8)
LLINs ownership (+) & LLINs use (+) Positive 25.6 (34) 23 (23) 17.1 [0.03*]
Negative 74.4 (99) 77 (77)
LLINs ownership (-) & LLINs use (-) Positive 55.3 (47) 73.9 (17) 2.59 [0.1]
Negative 44.7 (38) 26.1 (6)
LLINs ownership (+) & LLINs use (-) Positive 58.2 (53) 69.8 (44) 2.15 [0.14]
Negative 41.8 (38) 30.2 (19)

The prevalence of schistosomiasis, geohelminthiasis, and the intensity of infection

In this study, 13.3% (66/495) of participants were positive for schistosomiasis comprising 9.5% (47/495) urogenital and 3.8% (19/495) intestinal forms. Generally, males [69.7% (46/66)] documented significantly higher infection prevalence than females [30.3% (20/66)] (χ2 = 11.5, p = 0.0007). Likewise, the 3–9 years category [75.8% (50/66)] was more remarkably infected than the 10–15 years [24.2% (16/66)] (χ2 = 16.8, p < 0.0001) (Fig 2). The 3–9 years age group recorded a high prevalence of 72.3% (34/47) S. haematobium-only infection compared to 19.1% (9/47) of the 10–15 group in the urogenital schistosomiasis cohort (χ2 = 29.1, p < 0.0001) as seen in Table 5. Males (59.6%, 28/47) were more infected than females (31.9%, 15/47) (χ2 = 15.1, p = 0.0003). Similarly, for intestinal schistosomiasis, S. mansoni egg infection rate was higher in the 3–9 years range [78.9% (15/19)] and the male gender [78.9% (15/19)]. Interestingly, mixed-species infection of S. haematobium + S. mansoni and S. haematobium + S. mansoni + S. guineensis were observed in urine samples of infected individuals at a frequency of 6.4% (3/47) and 2.1% (1/47) respectively (Fig 2). Gender disparity data showed that males [62.1% (41/66)] had a higher schistosome egg infection rate than females [37.9% (25/66)] with the former scoring a prevalence of 57.4% (27/47) S. haematobium mono-and 78.9% (15/19) S. mansoni mono-infections than the later [S. haematobium: 34.0% (16/47) and S. mansoni: 21.1% (4/19)]. The disparity in excretion of S. haematobium only eggs reveals that 27.9% (12/43) had a heavy infection (HI: ≥50 eggs/10ml of urine) while 72.1% (31/43) had a light infection (LI: <50 eggs/10ml of urine). The geometric mean load was 211.1 (range: 76–1079) and 11.0 (range: 2–48) eggs per 10ml of urine for heavy and light infections respectively. Generally, high mean egg loads were observed in males and the 3–9 years group. Egg shedding varied between females [HI = 22.2% (4/18); LI = 77.8% (14/18); mean egg count = 25.5 (range: 3–384)] and males [HI = 31.0% (9/29); LI = 68.9% (20/29); mean egg count = 34.4 (range: 2–1079)] and among the different age groups including the 3–9 years [HI = 32.4% (11/34); LI = 67.6% (23/34); mean egg count = 19.9 (range: 2–384)] and 10–15 category [HI = 22.2% (2/9); LI = 77.8% (7/9); mean egg count = 69.1 (range: 3–1079)]. Similarly, S. mansoni egg excretion was reported for 28.8% (19/66) infected children categorized as 10.5% (2/19) heavy; 42.1% (8/19) moderate, and 47.4% (9/19) light infections. The geometric mean egg counts were 605.9 (range: 510–720), 211.9 (range: 264–384), and 55.1 (range: 24–96) eggs per gram of stool for heavy (HI: ≥400), moderate (MI: 100–399) and light (LI: 1–99) infections respectively. Egg expulsion differed between males [HI = 13.3% (2/15); MI = 40% (6/15); LI = 46.7% (7/15); mean egg count = 128 (range: 24–1254)] and females [MI = 50% (2/4); LI = 50% (2/4); mean egg count = 80.7 (range: 24–192)] and among the 3–9 age group [HI = 20% (3/15); MI = 40% (6/15); LI = 40% (6/15); mean egg count = 102.4 (range: 24–384)] and 10–15 years cluster [MI = 25% (1/4); LI = 75% (3/4); mean egg count = 106.4 (range: 24–720)]. Variation in S. haematobium + S. mansoni infection prevalence between gender and age groups reveals that males [66.7% (2/3); MEC = 17.9% were more infected than females [33.3% (1/3); MEC = 6]. Similarly, only the 3–9 years [88.9% (8/9); MEC = 23.7%] documented infection. Triple mixed S. haematobium + S. mansoni + S. guineensis eggs were observed only in males [25% (1/4); MEC = 53.2] with no apparent difference between age groups.

Table 5. Prevalence and intensity of Schistosoma spp and STHs infections.

Category Age (yr) Total
Variables 3–9 10–15
% (n) 62.6 (310) 37.4 (185) 100 (495)
Schistosomiasis prevalence 75.8 (50) 24.2 (16) 13.3 (66)
Prevalence of Schistosoma species S. haematobium
S. mansoni
S.h/S.m1
S.h/S.m/S.g1
79.1 (34)
63.2 (12)
100 (03)
100 (01)
20.9 (09)
36.8 (07)
0.0 (00)
0.0 (00)
65.2 (43)
28.8 (19)
4.5 (03)
1.5 (01)
Prevalence of STHs A. lumbricoides
Hookworms
T. trichuris
70.0 (14)
66.7 (02)
100 (01)
30.0 (06)
33.3 (01)
00
30.3 (20)
4.5 (03)
1.5 (01)
*Intensity of helminths eggs S. haematobium
S. mansoni
S. guineensis
Ascaris
Hookworm
Trichuris
153.4
125.2
3.2
381.5
12
04
62.9
47.4
8.0
180.7
04
00
108.2
86.3
5.6
281.1
08
02

Key: Sh = S. haematobium; Sm = S. mansoni; Sg = S. guineensis; 1Presence of mixed Schistosoma species in urine. *The following WHO egg count classifications were used to determine infection intensity for: A. lumbricoides infection: light = 1–4,999 epg, moderate = 5,000–49,999 epg and heavy = ≥ 50,000 epg; Hookworm: light = 1–1,999 epg; moderate = 2,000–3,999 epg; and heavy = ≥4,000 epg while for T. trichiura: light = 1–999 epg, moderate = 1,000–9,999 epg and heavy = ≥ 10,000 epg.

There was a significant correlation (r = 0.8) between microhematuria (prevalence: 10.3%) and nucleopore urine filtration in the diagnosis of urogenital schistosomiasis with a marked difference (χ2 = 279.7, p < 0.0001) between infected (MH+NUF+ = 38) and un-infected (MH-NUF- = 435) individuals as highlighted in Table 6. Microhematuria exhibited a sensitivity and specificity of 80.9% and 97.1%. Among the STHs, A. lumbricoides was the most common [4.0% (20/495); 3–9 years: 70% (14); male: 65% (13)]; Hookworms [0.6% (3/495)] and Trichuiris [0.2% (1/495)].

Table 6. Pairwise comparison between microhematuria and nucleopore urine filtration in urogenital schistosomiasis diagnosis.

Category: Age/Sex Microhematuria (MH)
Positive Negative Total
Nucleopore Urine filtration (NUF) Positive 38 9 47
Negative 13 435 448
Total 51 444 495

Association between KAP, WaSH, Praziquantel (PZQ) intake and schistosomiasis outcome among the study participants

There was a significant association between schistosomiasis risk factors and disease outcome. The most important factors associated with infection in the study areas were age and gender. Variables such as poor knowledge, insufficient WaSH practices, and poor PZQ uptake during school-based treatment campaigns were higher in children between 3–9 years, correlating with high schistosomiasis prevalence. Similarly, higher schistosomiasis prevalence was recorded in males exhibiting high-risk factor scores including KAP, WaSH, and PZQ intake as shown in S1 Table.

Higher prevalence values correlated with lower class levels [unregistered to class (I-III): 75.8%]; poor knowledge on the cause of bilharzia (81.8%); bathing in streams (80.3%); use of streams as a daily water source (68.2%); absence of communal toilets (69.7%); open-air defecation and use of stream as excretion site (68.2%); lack of functional health club in school (78.8%); unawareness about periodic school deworming program (69.7%) and the tendency of missing PZQ administration in school by the teacher (81.8%) (Table 7).

Table 7. Schistosomiasis risk factors analysis with age and sex.

Category Schistosomiasis risk factor score: % (n)
Age (years) Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
3–9 10–15 cOR (95% CI); [p-value] aOR (95% CI); [p-value]
Class level: unregistered to class (I-III) 59.1 (39) 16.7 (11) 1.6 (0.46–5.63)
[0.45]
/
Poor knowledge of schistosomiasis 65.2 (43) 21.2 (11) 2.79 (0.74–10.50)
[0.12]
3.05 (0.87–11.13)
[0.09]
Absence of communal pipe-borne water 28.8 (19) 4.5 (3) 2.66 (0.67–10.55)
[0.15]
2.61 (0.63–10.59)
[0.15]
Bathing in streams 62.1 (41) 18.2 (12) 1.52 (0.39–5.81)
[0.54]
/
Use of stream as a daily water source 59.1 (39) 9.1 (6) 7.09 (2.16–23.23)
[0.002*]
8.11 (3.52–24.76)
[0.002*]
Absence of communal toilets 63.6 (42) 6.1 (4) 15.75 (4.03–61.42)
[< 0.00001*]
19.75 (7.22–63.87)
[< 0.00001*]
Absence of household toilets 25.8 (17) 4.5 (3) 2.23 (0.56–8.92)
[0.25]
/
Open-air defecation and excrete in streams 60.6 (40) 7.6 (5) 8.80 (2.49–31.15)
[0.0003*]
11.05 (3.99–29.37)
[0.0003*]
Lack of functional health club in school 65.2 (43) 13.6 (9) 4.78 (1.34–17.02)
[0.01*]
4.13 (1.01–13.69)
[0.02*]
Unaware of periodic school deworming 56.1 (37) 13.6 (9) 2.21 (0.69–7.15)
[0.18]
5.91 (1.37–9.22)
[0.23]
Missed taking PZQ regularly 62.1 (41) 19.6 (13) 1.05 (0.25–4.47)
[0.35]
/

Significant: *

Prevalence of malaria and schistosome polyparasitism and impact on anemia level

The prevalence of malaria/schistosomiasis and malaria/STHs polyparasitism was 11.9% (59/495) and 1.2% (6/495) respectively with the predominance of P. falciparum/S. haematobium co-infection followed by P. falciparum/S. mansoni. The overall anemia prevalence was 32.9% (163/495) with a greater proportion categorized as moderate. A positive association (r = 0.9; p < 0.01) between P. falciparum prevalence and schistosome infection was observed. Children infected with S. mansoni had higher P. falciparum parasite density compared to S. haematobium/Plasmodium spp co-infection (χ2 = 10.31; p = 0.04) or P. falciparum mono-infection (χ2 = 4.77; p = 0.08). P. falciparum/S. haematobium-infected children had lower mean parasite density than their P. falciparum-only counterpart (χ2 = 2.09; p = 0.13) with a reduction in hemoglobin concentration. Similarly, mixed P. falciparum + P. malariae infection with S. mansoni was associated with a two-fold higher malaria parasite load than the S. haematobium equivalent (χ2 = 13.16; p = 0.02). Contrarily, P. falciparum, and Ascaris infection were negatively correlated although a higher mean trophozoite density compared to P. falciparum mono-infection (χ2 = 3.39; p = 0.08) was observed for the few co-infected cases as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Association between Plasmodium species and helminths worms and impact on mean parasite density and Hb level.

Category Prevalence: % (n) +Geometric mean parasite density (parasites/μL) Anemia status: Hb level [% (n)]
Age (years) Fisher exact test
3–9 10–15
§Pf only 62.8 (174) 1263.8 10.2 [46.6 (81)] 10.4 [13.2 (23)] < 0.00001*
§Pf + Pm only 13.4 (37) 806.1 9.6 [51.4 (19)] 10.4 [27.0 (10)] 0.0554
Pf/Sh 55.9 (33) 1072.9 9.9 [63.6 (21)] 10.1 [15.2 (5)] 0.0025*
Pf/Sm 18.6 (11) 2249.9 10.3 [72.7 (8)] 10.8 [9.1 (1)] 0.0545
Pf/Sh + Sm 5.1 (3) 160 10.5 [100 (3)] 0 1
Pf + Pm/Sh 11.9 (7) 415.7 9.6 [71.4 (5)] 0 0.0476*
Pf + Pm/Sm 6.8 (4) 784.1 10.3 [75 (3)] 0 1
Pf/Ascaris 30 (6) 2287.5 10.2 [50 (3)] 10.5 [16.7 (1)] 1

§Prevalence of Pf and Pm was inferred from PCR; +Mean Parasite density was computed from microscopy/PCR true positives.

*Significant p < 0.05; Key: Pf = P. falciparum; Pm = P. malariae; Sh = S. haematobium; Sm = S. mansoni; Hb = Hemoglobin

Discussion

Malaria and helminth infections are responsible for a significant burden of morbidity and mortality in children across many parts of the world. Dependent on Anopheles mosquito and snail intermediate host (for schistosomiasis) for complete life-cycle propagation, Plasmodium and schistosome parasites in particular encounter a remarkable challenge during the dry season in regions where the absence of rain limits the vector or intermediate host abundance and survival for several months [35, 36]. Moreover, the social, ecological, and environmental drivers facilitating the transmission of these diseases are significantly lessened during the dry season. While the majority of malaria and helminthiasis cases are predominant during the wet season, clinically silent asymptomatic P. falciparum and helminth infections can persist through the dry season and constitute an important reservoir for transmission during the advent of the next rainy season. This study, therefore, investigated the prevalence and factors driving sustained malaria and helminths transmission despite regular delivery of long-lasting insecticide-treated nets and systematic PZQ/ALB preventive chemotherapy campaigns by control programs. Whilst there has been a sizeable reduction in malaria burden among children < 5 years in the North Region of Cameroon from 2000 to 2020; [2] the current study reports a high Plasmodium prevalence in children notably between 5–10 years of age.

This epidemiological shift in malaria prevalence from younger preschool children (< 5 years) who constitute the primary at-risk group to school-age children (5–15 years) is attributed to the massive implementation of various control strategies that have largely contributed to protecting the under-five vulnerable populations [7]. Compared with younger children, SAC often experiences mild clinical disease, usually harboring infections that go untreated. Also, their reduced likelihood of utilizing malaria prevention methods such as insecticide-treated bed nets further predisposes them to infectious mosquito bites that facilitate transmission. This is contrary to the preschool where the scale-up of LLINs and ACTs has led to a decline in malaria prevalence in this age group although mean parasite density is often high owing to low-level acquired immunity.

Significant attention still surrounds the public health relevance of asymptomatic and sub-microscopic infections due to their involvement in parasite transmission and the potential threat of compromising malaria control and elimination efforts. A high prevalence of P. falciparum asymptomatic malaria in the SAC group was observed at a prevalence of 46.9%, lower than the 91.6% recorded during the rainy season in this Region by a previous study [18]. These asymptomatic infection carriages are the major reservoir of silent circulating parasite biomass; especially in areas with seasonal transmission patterns. These asymptomatic infections may affect the performance of epidemiological diagnostic tools such that detection of these parasites becomes difficult and is missed by traditional microscopy and RDTs [31]. These results expand on growing evidence across Africa that SAC are significant contributors to the P. falciparum infection burden and should be a focus of future malaria control interventions such as school-based preventive treatment and expanded seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) [6].

Males were found to have a higher Plasmodium infection prevalence and mean parasite density than their female counterparts probably because of the tendency to participate in outdoor activities for longer periods without protection and the non-adherent to sleeping under LLINs. Although a low gametocyte prevalence (0.8%) and density (29.8 gametocytes/μL) were observed in this study using microscopy, the prevalence is likely underestimated as submicroscopic infections have been shown to yield high gametocyte counts when a more sensitive and accurate technique like RT-qPCR is employed [31]. Nevertheless, the reduced gametocyte frequency may be due to parasites minimizing their investment in transmission to coincide with the apparent reduction in vector abundance particularly during the dry season [37].

The substantial prevalence of PCR-detected P. malariae co-existing with P. falciparum (17.3%) among asymptomatic children in the dry season is mainly due to its sensitivity in detecting low sub-microscopic parasitemia which often occurs in mixed infections and is frequently underestimated by microscopy. Moreover, the parasite’s biological attributes such as its ability to undergo recrudescence [38] and a 72hrs lengthy asexual life cycle in RBCs than P. falciparum triggers an infection pattern mediated by a low number of merozoites per erythrocytic cycle making it difficult to capture by microscopy; as such constituting a reservoir for continuous transmission. Co-infection of P. falciparum and P. malariae in children was responsible for anemia (10.5%, 29/277) probably as a result of the double impact on RBC lysis, further contributing to the substantial morbidity burden.

On the other hand, the epidemiology and transmission of schistosomiasis in the North Region is governed by a nexus of human behavior, cultural factors, socio-economic status, and ecology cooperating to spur the biological interaction between the human and snail host life cycle stages of the parasite. This establishes the relevance of community monitoring and evaluation of the prevalence and intensity of infection to document the impact of treatment success and optimize control program outputs [27]. Schistosomiasis presents a public health challenge in this Region where a majority of the inhabitant population rely on water networks of the Geoges de Kola and Lagdo dam for daily activities [19]. This may also be influenced by the population influx from the Boko Haram conflict-hit zones which further imposes a huge reliance on water bodies for daily activities thereby facilitating disease transmission [22]. This study, therefore, highlights the sympatric transmission of persistent urogenital and intestinal schistosomiasis in three communities characterized by a high prevalence, risk, and severity of infection in the 3–9 years age cohort and males than their respective counterparts despite fifteen years of regular PZQ and ABZ school-based mass deworming campaigns. However, due to the constrained 2020 COVID pandemic wave, PZQ and ABZ MDA campaigns were not implemented in this Region. Age and gender were two key predictive determinants of infection. Children in the age groups 3–9 years were twice more likely to be at risk of schistosomiasis infection than their counterpart. This younger age group exhibits a high frequency of water contact for domestic purposes [36]. Also, since PZQ does not prevent reinfection of the immature worm stages, parasite transmission cannot be interrupted. However, besides PZQ administration, the contribution of age-acquired immunity to (re)infection accounts for a decrease in infection prevalence for the older 10–15 years children [36]. The intensity of both S. haematobium and S. mansoni egg excretion was significantly lower in the older aged children. T Intensity of egg excretion is largely influenced by age-mediated immunity to a reduction in worm fecundity and egg load [39]. This well-documented inverse relationship between prevalence, infection intensity, and increasing age could be explained by the direct effect of parasite metabolic regulation and host-mediated innate resistance to infection that drives a strong protective immunity associated with increased hormonal levels during puberty [36]. Additionally, the wide access and use of ACTs may have also contributed to the observed reduction in egg intensity [40].

As predicted, sex variation in prevalence and intensity of egg excretion was significantly higher in the male gender due to prolonged exposure to cercariaeted-snail-infested streams during swimming and fishing activities which are more common amongst males than females [41]. However, this differs from other studies reporting females as the predominantly infected gender probably owing to the frequent water contact tendencies involved during laundry activities. The observed intensity of egg infection in both males and females poses a high risk of genital schistosomiasis; amplified by the high frequency of unawareness (58.5% males; 64% females) about schistosomiasis risk factors [39]. This is further supported by the presence of S. haematobium eggs in urine alongside verbal reports of females experiencing hematuria, dysuria and itchy urination. Additionally, a low frequency of mixed schistosome infections (S. haematobium, S. mansoni, and S. guineensis) were identified in children. This could be due to the focal distribution of the snail intermediate hosts and substantial human mobility between transmission sites [42]. Indeed, Leger & Webster (2016) previously revealed evidence of mating between S. haematobium males and S. mansoni female adult worms in Central Africa leading to the deposition and excretion of hybrid eggs through the urogenital tract [42]. Although genotyping was no performed, some of the observed S. haematobium eggs may actually be hybrids and consequently impact the nature of disease morbidity (e.g. anemia, liver pathology) and the success of MDA control programs [43]. Infection load, defined by egg count was generally low with 9.5% shedding eggs in urine characterized by a majority (72.3%) of light infection intensity status (< 50 eggs/10 ml urine). This could be attributed to shrinkage in the factors favoring schistosomiasis transmission and infection intensity including age, minimal water contact, the drying-up of temporal water bodies, marked reduction in snail population density during the dry season, and concomitant immunity as a consequence of past infections or poly-parasitism [36]. In particular, the geographical distribution and abundance of the snail intermediate host (Bulinus spp or Biomphalaria spp) is a principal determinant, accounting to a large extent for variation in the seasonal transmission of the disease. Adult snails die during the dry season while the younger snail population aestivates under the soil to ensure adaptation and survival during the next rainy season [44]. This may explain the reason for the decreased prevalence compared to previous studies conducted during the rainy season in this region.

This study also assessed the association between schistosomiasis infection, school attendance, KAP, and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) practices among children. The observed schistosomiasis prevalence aligns with the high prevalence of children who are unenrolled and do not attend school regularly; further leading to poor therapeutic compliance outcomes. The generally observed low primary school attendance in the study localities hinders the non-school enrolled SAC and PSAC from treatment campaign benefits, thus, emphasizing the necessity to effectively include this neglected group. In line with the current WHO guidelines on schistosomiasis control and elimination [29], this study, therefore, underscores the opinion of a treatment scale-up from the school-centered approach to an intensified community-based preventive chemotherapy strategy inclusively targeting all at-risk groups (SAC, PSAC, occupation-related, pregnant women) to reduce disease morbidity [29]. Furthermore, the lack of comprehension about the factors associated with schistosomiasis transmission even after several years of school system-based PZQ campaigns reflects the limited public health knowledge about the disease. Indeed, many of the older children (9–15 years) usually accompany their parents for cattle rearing activities during school periods; further favoring the poor knowledge and reduced treatment uptake [36]. Moreover, the absence of functional health education clubs in primary schools in these communities is also contributing to the disease knowledge gap. Emphasis must be directed towards strengthening health education through the promotion and implementation of local language-based comic cartoons in schools of endemic areas as a complementary intervention for interrupting disease transmission. However, despite the fundamental role of health education in disease prevention, improvement of community water supply is imperative to limit frequent contact with streams [13]. The observed “non-symptomatic” urinary schistosomiasis in the older age group may be attributed to the combined effect of immune response and low egg infection intensity leading to possibly undetected microhematuria by urine strips which was otherwise identified by the more sensitive urine filtration technique. Importantly, the biologically significant minority hotspot of high egg shedding individuals in these localities poses concern in sustaining disease transmission necessitating further investigation on the genetic determinants predisposing such reservoir carriers.

Consistent with past research, STHs were not common in these localities [9]. Although replicate slides of a single individual fecal sample may be adequate at baseline in moderate to high endemic zones, the Kato-Katz technique may have a low sensitivity for S. mansoni and STHs diagnosis. In addition to mono-parasite infections, this study demonstrated the common occurrence of polyparasitism whereby 13.1% of children were simultaneously co-infected with mixed Plasmodium species and helminths worms. Bivariate analysis revealed a positive association between schistosomiasis and malaria possibly attributed to schistosome-mediated polarized Th2/Treg immunomodulation that leads to increased susceptibility to Plasmodium infection and may increase the risk of malaria transmission in areas of co-endemicity [45]. Notably, while S. mansoni infection was an important predictor of malaria parasite density, S. haematobium infection was a significant predictor of anemia and malaria prevalence. However, this correlation was negatively skewed for Ascaris infections probably due to the arid eco-epidemiological limitations of factors that favor the worm transmission. While previous studies have shown the protective effect of Ascaris worms on P. falciparum infection [46] this observation should be interpreted with caution as only six cases of Ascaris/P. falciparum prevalence was documented eventhough concomitant Ascaris/P. falciparum infection was associated with a high geometric mean asexual P. falciparum trophozoite carriage than P. falciparum mono-infection. This shows that the association between malaria and helminthic infections may depend on the host age and specific type of worm infection and therefore underscores further investigation [5, 46]. Both Plasmodium parasite and Plasmodium-helminth infection types were associated with moderate anemia as indicated by the mean hemoglobin score. This may probably be explained by the “light” majority of helminth infections observed supported by the fact that anemia caused by helminths is dependent on the intensity of infection [5]. In agreement with other studies, lower Hb levels and anemia correlated with single and multi-parasitic infections [46]. This observation reveals that synergistic interaction between multiple parasite infections increases the risk and clinical outcome of anemia particularly in children.

The cross-sectional design of this study is a limitation; implying that a longitudinal characterization involving a higher sample size of children in these localities will provide fine insights into the biology, interaction, and transmission dynamics of malaria, schistosomiasis, and STHs. Similarly, this study focused on quantifying schistosomiasis prevalence majorly in school-age children without including other high-risk groups including pregnant women, and occupation-related inhabitants. Also, schistosomiasis diagnosis was based on parasitological capture that employed only a single collection of urine and stool samples instead of the standard three consecutive samples and this may have underestimated the prevalence by missing patent infection. Molecular technique will be relevant for future studies on schistosomiasis in this region particularly for genotyping of the S. haematobium eggs to identify hybrid populations. Likewise, malacological and ecological surveys including snail population bionomics and cercariae infection in mollusks which constitute key targets in schistosomiasis control were not done. However, the current findings provide a situational prevalence of these diseases during the dry season.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that despite regular LLIN distribution and over fifteen years of preventive chemotherapy campaigns, multiple parasite infections are frequent in children who constitute hidden reservoirs of asymptomatic malaria infections and epidemiological carriers of schistosome worms. This suggests that malaria control must prioritize targeting asymptomatic cases through sensitive diagnostic testing strategies and expanded treatment interventions. Likewise, interruption of schistosomiasis transmission in these villages requires multisectoral health system strengthening efforts involving high-level PZQ/ALB geographic coverage and therapeutic compliance of all at-risk groups, unlimited access to WASH facilities, and community-driven health education programs structured towards improving behavioral change. This study also highlights that schistosomiasis enhances the susceptibility to Plasmodium infection and increases the risk of malaria and anemia in school children. Moreover, the study provides further evidence that optimizing helminth control interventions in children dually contribute to reducing malaria and anemia burden in endemic areas where both diseases geographically overlap.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Numerical positivity comparison between microscopy, rapid diagnostic test, and PCR in the 3–9 years age group.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Numerical positivity comparison between microscopy, rapid diagnostic test, and PCR in the 10–15 years age group.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Summary data on risk factors of malaria and schistosomiasis among children in Northern Cameroon.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Study questionnaire.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images. Gel images of Plasmodium species PCR and microscopy image of S. haematobium eggs.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors express thankfulness to the school children who took part in this study and to their parents/guardians for consenting. Special thanks to the community leaders and district health workers of the various study localities for their assistance in data collection. The authors are also grateful to the fieldwork and laboratory staff members particularly Mr. Agbor Jean Pierre, Mr. Simon Daga, and Mr. Ahmadou Ahidjo for the specimen preparation and reading of slides. Also, appreciate Dr. Wirsy Frankline for the statistical analysis.

Data Availability

The minimal dataset for this submission has been uploaded in the OSF repository: https://osf.io/cbdm6 and Identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FH6MR.

Funding Statement

FNN received a Joint Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene (RSTMH) and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) early career research grant, https://rstmh.org/grants/grant-awardees-2020/nihr-awardees-2020. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Tchuem Tchuenté L-A, Stothard JR, Rollinson D, Reinhard-Rupp J. Precision mapping: An innovative tool and way forward to shrink the map, better target interventions, and accelerate toward the elimination of schistosomiasis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2018;12(8):e0006563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.PNLP, 2019: Plan Strategique National de Lutte Contre le Paludisme au Cameroun 2019. –2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO. World malaria report 2021. World Health Organization; (2022) - https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240015791. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Abdulraheem MA, Ernest M, Ugwuanyi I, Abkallo HM, Nishikawa S, Adeleke M, et al. High prevalence of Plasmodium malariae and Plasmodium ovale in co-infections with Plasmodium falciparum in asymptomatic malaria parasite carriers in southwestern Nigeria. International journal for parasitology. 2022;52(1):23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2021.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brooker S, Akhwale W, Pullan R, Estambale B, Clarke SE, Snow RW, et al. Epidemiology of Plasmodium-helminth co-infection in Africa: populations at risk, potential impact on anemia and prospects for combining control. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2007;77(6 Suppl):88. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nankabirwa J, Brooker SJ, Clarke SE, Fernando D, Gitonga CW, Schellenberg D, et al. Malaria in school‐age children in A frica: an increasingly important challenge. Tropical medicine & international health. 2014;19(11):1294–309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nkumama IN O ’Meara WP, Osier FH. Changes in malaria epidemiology in Africa and new challenges for elimination. Trends in parasitology. 2017;33(2):128–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.PNLSHI: Programme National de Lutte contre la Schistosomiase et les Helminthiases Intestinales: 2003–2019 Progress report. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tchuem Tchuenté L-A, Kamwa Ngassam RI, Sumo L, Ngassam P, Dongmo Noumedem C, Nzu DDoL, et al. Mapping of schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis in the regions of centre, east and west Cameroon. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012;6(3):e1553. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stothard JR, Sousa-Figueiredo JC, Betson M, Bustinduy A, Reinhard-Rupp J. Schistosomiasis in African infants and preschool children: let them now be treated! Trends in parasitology. 2013;29(4):197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2013.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aagaard-Hansen J, Mwanga J, Bruun B. Social science perspectives on schistosomiasis control in Africa: past trends and future directions. Parasitology. 2009;136(13):1747–58. doi: 10.1017/S0031182009006404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stothard JR, Campbell SJ, Osei-Atweneboana MY, Durant T, Stanton MC, Biritwum N-K, et al. Towards interruption of schistosomiasis transmission in sub-Saharan Africa: developing an appropriate environmental surveillance framework to guide and to support ‘end game’interventions. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017;6(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grimes JE, Croll D, Harrison WE, Utzinger J, Freeman MC, Templeton MR. The roles of water, sanitation and hygiene in reducing schistosomiasis: a review. Parasites & vectors. 2015;8(1):1–16. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0766-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gryseels B, Polman K, Clerinx J, Kestens L. Human schistosomiasis. The Lancet. 2006;368(9541):1106–18. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69440-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dejon-Agobé JC, Edoa JR, Honkpehedji YJ, Zinsou JF, Adégbitè BR, Ngwese MM, et al. Schistosoma haematobium infection morbidity, praziquantel effectiveness and reinfection rate among children and young adults in Gabon. Parasites & vectors. 2019;12(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3836-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wepnje GB, Anchang-Kimbi JK, Ndassi VD, Lehman LG, Kimbi HK. Schistosoma haematobium infection status and its associated risk factors among pregnant women in Munyenge, South West Region, Cameroon following scale-up of communal piped water sources from 2014 to 2017: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Worl data infos: https://www.worlddata.info/africa/cameroon/climate.php.
  • 18.Tabue RN, Njeambosay BA, Zeukeng F, Esemu LF, Fodjo BAY, Nyonglema P, et al. Case Definitions of Clinical Malaria in Children from Three Health Districts in the North Region of Cameroon. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:9709013. doi: 10.1155/2019/9709013 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6500661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saotoing P, Wadoube Z, Nlôga AN. Epidemiological survey of urinary and intestinal schistosomiasis in Mayo-Louti Division, Northern Region Cameroon. Journal of Applied Biosciences. 2014;81:7233–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fadel AN, Ibrahim SS, Tchouakui M, Terence E, Wondji MJ, Tchoupo M, et al. A combination of metabolic resistance and high frequency of the 1014F kdr mutation is driving pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles coluzzii population from Guinea savanna of Cameroon. Parasites & Vectors. 2019;12(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3523-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cunin P, Tchuem Tchuenté LA, Poste B, Djibrilla K, Martin P. Interactions between Schistosoma haematobium and Schistosoma mansoni in humans in north Cameroon. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2003;8(12):1110–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-2276.2003.01139.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cameroon: Boko Haram Attacks Escalate in Far North- 5 Apr 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cochran WG. Methodological problems in the study of human populations. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 107. 1963:476–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1963.tb13293.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.World Health Organisation. Giemsa Staining of Malaria Blood Films. Malaria microscopy standard operating procedure—MM-SOP-07A. WHO; 2016.
  • 25.Plowe CV, Djimde A, Bouare M, Doumbo O, Wellems TE. Pyrimethamine and proguanil resistance-conferring mutations in Plasmodium falciparum dihydrofolate reductase: polymerase chain reaction methods for surveillance in Africa. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1995;52(6):565–8. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1995.52.565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Amoah LE, Donu D, Abuaku B, Ahorlu C, Arhinful D, Afari E, et al. Probing the composition of Plasmodium species contained in malaria infections in the Eastern region of Ghana. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ndassi VD, Anchang-Kimbi JK, Sumbele IUN, Ngufor LA, Nadege K, Kimbi HK. The epidemiological status of urogenital schistosomiasis among reproductive aged individuals in the Tiko Health Area-a semi-urban setting in the Mount Cameroon area. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2021;15(1):e0008978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mewabo AP, Moyou RS, Kouemeni LE, Ngogang JY, Kaptue L, Tambo E. Assessing the prevalence of urogenital schistosomaisis and transmission risk factors amongst school-aged children around Mapé dam ecological suburbs in Malantouen district, Cameroon. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017;6(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.WHO guideline on control and elimination of human schistosomiasis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.WHO (1994) Bench aids for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites. WHO; Geneva, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bousema T, Okell L, Felger I, Drakeley C. Asymptomatic malaria infections: detectability, transmissibility and public health relevance. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2014;12(12):833–40. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro3364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cheesbrough M. District laboratory practice in tropical countries: Part1&2. New York: Cambridge university press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wiegand RE, Fleming FM, Straily A, Montgomery SP, de Vlas SJ, Utzinger J, et al. Urogenital schistosomiasis infection prevalence targets to determine elimination as a public health problem based on microhematuria prevalence in school-age children. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2021;15(6):e0009451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Teh RN, Sumbele IUN, Asoba Nkeudem G, Meduke DN, Ojong ST, Kimbi HK. Concurrence of CareStart™ Malaria HRP2 RDT with microscopy in population screening for Plasmodium falciparum infection in the Mount Cameroon area: predictors for RDT positivity. Tropical medicine and health. 2019;47(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Andrade CM, Fleckenstein H, Thomson-Luque R, Doumbo S, Lima NF, Anderson C, et al. Increased circulation time of Plasmodium falciparum underlies persistent asymptomatic infection in the dry season. Nature Medicine. 2020;26(12):1929–40. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1084-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mazigo HD, Nuwaha F, Kinung’hi SM, Morona D, de Moira AP, Wilson S, et al. Epidemiology and control of human schistosomiasis in Tanzania. Parasites & vectors. 2012;5(1):1–20. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Oduma CO, Ogolla S, Atieli H, Ondigo BN, Lee M-C, Githeko AK, et al. Increased investment in gametocytes in asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum infections in the wet season. BMC infectious diseases. 2021;21(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Yman V, Wandell G, Mutemi DD, Miglar A, Asghar M, Hammar U, et al. Persistent transmission of Plasmodium malariae and Plasmodium ovale species in an area of declining Plasmodium falciparum transmission in eastern Tanzania. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2019;13(5):e0007414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sumbele IUN, Tabi DB, Teh RN, Njunda AL. Urogenital schistosomiasis burden in school-aged children in Tiko, Cameroon: a cross-sectional study on prevalence, intensity, knowledge and risk factors. Tropical Medicine and Health. 2021;49(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mbanzulu KM, Zanga JK, Mukendi JPK, Mbaya Ntita F, Matangila JR, Muhindo HM, et al. The impact of artesunate-amodiaquine on schistosoma mansoni infection among children infected by plasmodium in rural area of Lemfu, Kongo Central, Democratic Republic of the Congo. BioMed Research International. 2018;2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/3487183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mushi V, Zacharia A, Shao M, Mubi M, Tarimo D. Persistence of Schistosoma haematobium transmission among school children and its implication for the control of urogenital schistosomiasis in Lindi, Tanzania. PloS one. 2022;17(2):e0263929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Leger E, Webster JP. Hybridizations within the genus Schistosoma: implications for evolution, epidemiology and control. Parasitology. 2017;144(1):65–80. doi: 10.1017/S0031182016001190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fall CB, Lambert S, Léger E, Yasenev L, Garba AD, Diop SD, et al. Hybridized zoonotic Schistosoma infections result in hybridized morbidity profiles: A clinical morbidity study amongst co-infected human populations of Senegal. Microorganisms. 2021;9(8):1776. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9081776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Léger E, Borlase A, Fall CB, Diouf ND, Diop SD, Yasenev L, et al. Prevalence and distribution of schistosomiasis in human, livestock, and snail populations in northern Senegal: a One Health epidemiological study of a multi-host system. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2020;4(8):e330–e42. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30129-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Florey LS, King CH, Van Dyke MK, Muchiri EM, Mungai PL, Zimmerman PA, et al. Partnering parasites: evidence of synergism between heavy Schistosoma haematobium and Plasmodium species infections in Kenyan children. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2012;6(7):e1723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nacher M. Interactions between worms and malaria: good worms or bad worms? Malaria journal. 2011;10(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Zadock Munisi

31 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-34570Persistent co-transmission of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis among 3-15 years old children during the dry season in Northern CameroonPLOS ONE

Dear Nkemngo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your manuscript requires revision, following which it can possibly be reconsidered. All the four reviewers expressed interest on your manuscript, however two have expressed major concerns and another two have raised minor issues. According to the reviewers, major concerns were related to the study lacking focus by having a very broad background, study design, data analysis, results and discussion.  According to the reviewers, the results are not very well presented for readers to be able to comprehend well the presented information. In addition, a number of other issues should be clarified and/or changed/adjusted, particularly, in the results and discussion sections. Lastly the manuscript should be subjected to a professional proofreading process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 15, 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

In addition to the reviewer's comments, I have a few more comments in the following sections of the manuscript.

Methodology

Study design and sample size determination

  • The calculated sample size was 370 participants, but you included 555 participants, why did you decide to include 555 participants and what was the basis for your choice of that number of participants?.

  • The authors states that “As inclusion criteria, only children who had lived for at least a year in the selected villages and whose parents/guardians consented to participate were enrolled in the study. Those who declined to participate in the study or failed to provide feces or urine samples after the interview were excluded”. However, the authors should note that, an exclusion criterion is not the opposite of the inclusion criteria, it should be a criterion that you will use to exclude from participation individuals who have met all the inclusion criteria. In this case, those who declined participation were not qualified for inclusion in the first place. So, the exclusion criteria need to be rephrased.

Administration of questionnaire and clinical assessment: A simple structured questionnaire was used to collect information about each individual based on the following indicators: Instead of indicators, you may use the word “Variables”.

  • You have a questionnaire for information on malaria and schistosomiasis, no questionnaire for Soil-transmitted helminthiasis.

Devices and equipment used for taking measurement should be properly described (Brand, manufacturer’s etc). Equipment/devices such as Haemoglobinometer, Stadiometer, weighing balance etc.

Data analysis

Continuous variables were summarized into means and standard deviations (SD), and categorical variables reported as frequencies while percentages were used to document descriptive statistics. Are mean and SD, and frequencies not descriptive statistics? Kindly rephrase this.

  • Fisher exact test was employed for small size variable calculations - What does this mean, kindly rephrase to make it clear.

  • Independent variables were subjected to univariate analysis to obtain odds ratios (cOR). Univariate is a broad term, which Univariate analysis did you employ, kindly make this clear.

  • Furthermore, variables with a p-value < 0.25 underwent multivariate analysis for adjusted odds ratios (aOR) – Again, multivariate is a broad term, which multivariate analysis did you employ, kindly make this clear.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the study participants

“At the time of the survey, 26.2 % of females (59/225) and 25.6 % of males (69/270) were currently not enrolled in the local basic educational system, accounting for the literacy gap observed in this Region”…..But you also recruited prechoolers who were surely not registered in school, don’t you think those proportions also included the pre-schoolers? Is it correct to regard the proportion of unregistered preschoolers as accounting to the literacy gap in the region?

General comment

- All the tables need extensive revision, I suggest that the sex categorization should not appear column wise as it is now, it should rather appear once, row wise. This should apply for regions as well.

- For helminths infections, for intensity of infections to be meaningful, they have to be categorized as per WHO categorization. Just putting intensity of infection may be difficult for readers to comprehend.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Appropriate page numbers, as well as line number per page would have been very helpful in the reviewing process.

In this manuscript, the authors describe a community-based survey amongst 495 children of 3-15 years old, living in 3 communities in the North Region of Cameroon. Their survey has been performed in the dry season and the children have been examined for malaria, schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths. Several epidemiological determinants of infection have been examined.

I have the impression that this is a copy of a student’s thesis. I find the introduction and the discussion too broad for a scientific publication. With more than 80 references there is no clear research focus. The authors seem to be more familiar with malaria than with helminth infections. For example: for schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths (STH) most studies do focus on school aged and pre-school aged children, so I do not understand the statement on page 13 (pdf, page 8(?)) of the manuscript.

I agree with the authors that co-infection of different parasitic diseases needs more attention. The final conclusion that polyparasitism with malaria and helminth infections are still common, despite intervention via the distribution of bed nets and regular MDA treatment rounds with anti-helminthic drugs, is a relevant finding. But I have strong doubts about the scientific contribution of a study of this design, this size and this diagnostic quality. Follow-up studies of a larger cohort, preferably with different intervention arms, would have been far more informative.

The sample size calculation is based on a Schistosoma prevalence of 38.5% (page 15 of the pdf, page 8??), but it does not take into account the enormous amount of sub-analyses performed. The actual prevalence of Schistosoma infections was 13.3%, but this is based on microscopy on a single stool sample and a single urine samples. The authors do acknowledge the limitations of their diagnostics procedures for the helminths in the discussion, even repeatedly, but no explanation is given for why they did not use repeated microscopy or otherwise PCR. The use of schistosome circulating antigens is not mentioned. The lack of diagnostic sensitivity for the helminths is not in balance with the malaria.

For malaria, besides a rapid diagnostic test, also a nested PCR has been used. These procedures, as expected, detected a substantial number of additional cases. However, concerning the PCR, important details of the used laboratory procedures are lacking, only references are given. How do we know the specificity has been well controlled? Because the performed nested PCR is not a closed real-time system, this is highly relevant. Do the authors have any quality control measures in place within their laboratory? Has any internal control been used to control for potential inhibition factors.

I find the results concerning the epidemiological risk factors far too detailed and with a lot of repetition in the text of what is already depicted in the tables.

Most references are depicted with the first author’s name only. I find that not very helpful. Several key references on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths are lacking. On the other hand, I find 83 references far too much for an original research paper.

Finally: I have strong doubts whether all co-authors have seen and approved this manuscript. The name of Professor Joanne Webster has been misspelled, both in the list of authors and page 46 of the pdf (page 6???).

So, in conclusion, if this manuscript could be rewritten as a short report with much more focus on the diagnostic findings, leaving out all the epidemiological analysis and without over-interpretation of the data, I would reconsider publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-organized and easy to follow; however, some concerns need to be addressed.

-The last sentence in the Abstract section has to be corrected both for grammar and clarity. Also, correct the grammatical errors in the “competing interests” AND “ethics statement”.

-In “study design and sample size determination”: “Parents and their respective children were invited by local community leaders to assemble at a major focal point in each of the selected communities for sample collection”. Were all children in the region recruited to participate in the study OR there was a specific sampling method? How were the communities and children selected? What happened to parents who came with more than 1 child? This has not been clearly shown in the Methods’ section.

-In “study design and sample size determination”: you included 555 participants to anticipate factors like effect size, voluntary withdrawal and for greater precision. How did you reach to this conclusion as the calculated sample size was 370? Your sampling method used, was to determine the kind of adjustment to counter the factors you mentioned. Please describe the Recruitment strategy that was employed. And counter check if the formula used belongs to Lorenz.

-In “study design and sample size determination”: “The sample size of the study population was calculated based on a previous schistosomiasis prevalence of 38.5% during the rainy season considering that malaria is endemic in this region” the statement needs citation(s).

-One of the socio-demographic data collected was a NAME. What about anonymity? Or what was the relevance of taking participants’ names instead of using unique ID numbers.

-Please indicate clearly about who answered the questionnaire. You had a group of children ranging from 3-15 years old and their guardians/parents. “By signing the form, the participants agreed to answer a questionnaire and to provide finger-prick blood, urine and stool samples for parasitological analysis”: who are the participants you are talking about here? Please clarify this.

-In sample collection and parasitological examination : “while the nested primers are specific to the 04 human Plasmodium species..” put the 04 in wordings. Please write more description on nested PCR as how you did with the primary PCR.

-For better flow in Materials and Methods,

Data collection

Questionaire

-

Clinical assessment

-

Parasitological examination of blood samples

-

Parasitological examination of urine samples

-

Parasitological examination of stool samples

-

Then provide the detailed procedures in each subsection

-In “Definitions of endpoints” : Please clarify where to expect S. mansoni and S. haematobium eggs. Is it in urine and/or stool? Because the last statement in the first paragraph is not clear. Define symptomatic urinary and intestinal schistosomiasis, separately.

-In “Results” section: You report that there was no significant difference in malaria prevalence between children who reported good KAP and those who did not. Population of your interest was children aged between 3-15, how were you able to assess KAP among these children, especially the younger ones of 3 years? This question is highly linked to a previous question as to “who answered your questionnaires”. Also, describe how you scored the children with good KAP and bad KAP under the Methods section. How many items were tested and what was the decisive score.

-“There was a significant match between the determinants of risk factors of schistosomiasis and disease outcome”. Please clarify this sentence. Do the same for the statement “…and frequent absence of consuming PZQ during school-based treatment campaigns.”

-Check numbering of the pages. There is repetition of page numbers.

-There are some abbreviations that are not defined in the document. I believe it is appropriate that the first time you wish to use an abbreviation; it has to consist a long form. Then the subsequent time, you can use it.

Reviewer #3: The research is original work of the authors and reflects an epidemiological problem of multiple infections especially in the tropics where many parasites are prevalent. The social economical information from this country could also mirror other African countries that have the same problem thus, publication of these results will benefit other control programmes. Attached please find some comments to enrich the manuscript.

After addressing the comments, the manuscript can proceed for publication.

Reviewer #4: Nkemngo et al. report in their publication the results of a cross-sectional investigation of the co-infection of malaria and Schistosoma parasites, as well as geohelminths in children.

The subject is well introduced and the methodology well described. The authors report very high levels of parasitized children during the dry season in the specific rural area, which is interesting and should communicated. It would be highly interesting to compare the results between the dry season and the rainy season in that area.

The publication uses a broad methodology to investigate the prevalence of the disease. Agreement between the different diagnostic methods is relatively low, which is rather surprising especially for the slide-positive results and PCR-negative results. Representation of the data and the statistics would be easier by using a 2x2 table.

There is something wring in the statistical analysis in the section “Association between KAP, LLINs ownership, LLINs use and malaria Prevalence” – this chapter has to be carefully checked again. In the text, the authors speak about a reduction in “%”, whereas the talk about OR in the respective table. This needs careful revision by a statistician.

Table 6 is not clear what it is supposed to show.

Minor comments:

Methods:

In the study site description, the authors should add some information on the average rainfall during the season of the collection of samples in mean and specifically for the year of collection.

Using the described malaria slide reading method – what is the obtained limit of detection for the read?

Results:

Scholl enrolment is low in the young group – but at what age school is compulsory? Shouldn’t it start at 6 years of age rather than at three years of age?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jimmy Hussein Kihara

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 31;18(7):e0288560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288560.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Apr 2023

Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments and Concerns

Title: Persistent co-transmission of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis among 3-15 years old children during the dry season in Northern Cameroon [PONE-D-22-34570]

Change of title: The title of the MS has been slightly modified to reflect the data therein and now reads “Epidemiology of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis amongst children 3-15 years of age during the dry season in Northern Cameroon”.

Response to Editors’ comments

Question 1: Methodology

Study design and sample size determination

• The calculated sample size was 370 participants, but you included 555 participants, why did you decide to include 555 participants and what was the basis for your choice of that number of participants?.

• The authors states that “As inclusion criteria, only children who had lived for at least a year in the selected villages and whose parents/guardians consented to participate were enrolled in the study. Those who declined to participate in the study or failed to provide feces or urine samples after the interview were excluded”. However, the authors should note that, an exclusion criterion is not the opposite of the inclusion criteria; it should be a criterion that you will use to exclude from participation individuals who have met all the inclusion criteria. In this case, those who declined participation were not qualified for inclusion in the first place. So, the exclusion criteria need to be rephrased.

Response 1

• This research was conducted during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic with anticipation of low population turn-out due to community hesitancy linked to COVID-related myths and misinformation which we predicted could impact the overall participation. The calculated 370 was the minimum sample size. However, with the anticipated rate of compliance and study enrollment in different localities, a 50% (n = 185) sample was added, which then translated to an upper sample size of 555. This was performed to accommodate for potential attrition/loss of sample due to the inability of all the children to provide capillary blood or urine/stool samples at the time of specimen collection. Fortunately, there was a massive population turn-out in the field and we could only consider 495 participants who readily provided all three samples for analysis.

• Thank you for this intriguing remark. This has been corrected in the manuscript text. Kindly see line 214.

Question 2

• Administration of questionnaire and clinical assessment: A simple structured questionnaire was used to collect information about each individual based on the following indicators: Instead of indicators, you may use the word “Variables”.

• You have a questionnaire for information on malaria and schistosomiasis, no questionnaire for Soil-transmitted helminthiasis.

• Devices and equipment used for taking measurement should be properly described (Brand, manufacturer’s etc). Equipment/devices such as Haemoglobinometer, Stadiometer, weighing balance etc.

Response 2

• Agreed and amended

• The questionnaire also profiled information related to soil-transmitted helminthiasis, and this has now been clarified within our revised text (please see questionnaire in the supplementary file (S2File)).

• Thank you. This has been corrected in the text.

Question 3: Data analysis

• Continuous variables were summarized into means and standard deviations (SD), and categorical variables reported as frequencies while percentages were used to document descriptive statistics. Are mean and SD, and frequencies not descriptive statistics? Kindly rephrase this.

• Fisher exact test was employed for small size variable calculations - What does this mean, kindly rephrase to make it clear.

• Independent variables were subjected to univariate analysis to obtain odds ratios (cOR). Univariate is a broad term, which Univariate analysis did you employ, kindly make this clear.

• Furthermore, variables with a p-value < 0.25 underwent multivariate analysis for adjusted odds ratios (aOR) – Again, multivariate is a broad term, which multivariate analysis did you employ, kindly make this clear.

Response 3

• Thank you for this astute remark on descriptive statistics – we fully agree and the revised text has been amended accordingly (lines 306-308).

• The comment on Fisher exact test has been corrected in the text (line 311).

• Thank you for clarifying the univariate analysis term. This has been properly adjusted (line 313).

• All the possible variables selected with P < 0.25 underwent stepwise logistic regression analysis to neutralize confounding factors , and this has again been clarified within our revised text (line 314)

Question 4: Results

Baseline characteristics of the study participants

“At the time of the survey, 26.2 % of females (59/225) and 25.6 % of males (69/270) were currently not enrolled in the local basic educational system, accounting for the literacy gap observed in this Region”…..But you also recruited preschoolers who were surely not registered in school, don’t you think those proportions also included the pre-schoolers?

Is it correct to regard the proportion of unregistered preschoolers as accounting to the literacy gap in the region?

Response 4

• This is an interesting point – as technically one could say true, but equally it may be inappropriate to categorize children too young to be in school with those eligible to be in school but not attending/registered. However, for simplicity, we have updated our table and text accordingly to combine the two (with caveats acknowledged) (line 358 and Table 1)

General comment

- All the tables need extensive revision, I suggest that the sex categorization should not appear column wise as it is now, it should rather appear once, row wise. This should apply for regions as well.

- For helminths infections, for intensity of infections to be meaningful, they have to be categorized as per WHO categorization. Just putting intensity of infection may be difficult for readers to comprehend.

Response: Thank you for this comment. The tables have been extensively revised and the WHO classification score for intensity of infection has been added (lines 500-502). However, given current renewed interest by WHO and beyond in actual infection intensities, rather than the more restrictive categories, we have included both values here.

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer #1: Appropriate page numbers, as well as line number per page would have been very helpful in the reviewing process.

Agreed and amended (we apologize for not incorporating these within our original submission).

Comment 1:

� In this manuscript, the authors describe a community-based survey amongst 495 children of 3-15 years old, living in 3 communities in the North Region of Cameroon. Their survey has been performed in the dry season and the children have been examined for malaria, schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths. Several epidemiological determinants of infection have been examined.

� I have the impression that this is a copy of a student’s thesis. I find the introduction and the discussion too broad for a scientific publication. With more than 80 references there is no clear research focus. The authors seem to be more familiar with malaria than with helminth infections. For example: for schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths

(STH) most studies do focus on school aged and pre-school aged children, so I do not understand the statement on page 13 (pdf, page 8(?)) of the manuscript.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the manuscript synopsis and the relevant comments to improve the content of the paper. This is not a student thesis, but instead an original manuscript. The introduction and discussion were broad in an effort to provide a foundational basis for the current study. However, we have now constructively streamlined our revised manuscript for clarity and focus, and likewise reduced the number of references cited. The authors have complementary expertise on malaria and helminths with publication track record evidence in these research areas. However, the diagnostic limitation on the helminths aspect of this study is mainly due to the available resources. The statement has been corrected (line 193) and thank you for the keen observation.

Comment 2: I agree with the authors that co-infection of different parasitic diseases needs more attention. The final conclusion that polyparasitism with malaria and helminth infections are still common, despite intervention via the distribution of bed nets and regular MDA treatment rounds with anti-helminthic drugs, is a relevant finding. But I have strong doubts about the scientific contribution of a study of this design, this size and this diagnostic quality. Follow-up studies of a larger cohort, preferably with different intervention arms, would have been far more informative.

Response 2: Whilst larger follow-up studies ideally with specific and contrasting intervention arms are always necessary and welcome. However, we respectfully disagree with the reviewer on the doubts about the scientific contribution of this study. As stated in our original manuscript, the study employed a cross-sectional design with an appropriate sample size (495) to provide preliminary/baseline data on the situation of malaria and helminths (schistosomiasis and STH) prevalence after systematic implementation of long-lasting nets, antimalarial drugs and Praziquantel/albendazole-based programmatic annual mass drug administration. Data generated from this study is vital to reinforce policy decisions. Indeed, as you correctly stated, we have in mind to conduct longitudinal follow-up studies with additional sample size to monitor the seasonal dynamics and finely characterize the drivers of persistent transmission.

Comment 3: The sample size calculation is based on a Schistosoma prevalence of 38.5% (page 15 of the pdf, page 8??), but it does not take into account the enormous amount of subanalyses performed. The actual prevalence of Schistosoma infections was 13.3%, but this is based on microscopy on a single stool sample and a single urine samples. The authors do acknowledge the limitations of their diagnostics procedures for the helminths in the discussion, even repeatedly, but no explanation is given for why they did not use repeated microscopy or otherwise PCR. The use of schistosome circulating antigens is not mentioned. The lack of diagnostic sensitivity for the helminths is not in balance with the malaria.

Response 3: The initial sample size calculation was inferred from a schistosomiasis prevalence data obtained from the National Schistosomiasis & STH Control Program. The actual prevalence (13.3%) is just a single time point and more so during the dry season (where factors governing transmission are significantly lessened due to intense drought e.g drying-up of snail-infested streams). This study was funded by a small grant with constraints in resources. However, further studies are under consideration to employ sensitive tools like PCR for actual prevalence (which may be even higher). Nonetheless, the morphological characteristic of the schistosome eggs is also a well-established diagnostic criterion used in many epidemiological studies. The CCA/CAA test kits were not available for subsidized purchase from the National Schistosomiasis Program at the time of this study because these kits are expensive and limited to small number of research laboratories (particularly the CAA kit). We agree on the point raised about the minimal (not lack) diagnostic test systems for helminths in this study. That is what was present at the time of the study and certainly, we will employ circulating antigen kits and PCR in future studies. In addition, while we agree on your point, we feel that repeated microscopy would have been much more informative for routine monitoring and evaluation of the efficacy of MDA which was not the main objective of the study (rather, the study was focused on providing baseline prevalence in the dry season). We discuss further the inherent logistical limitations of the current study within our revised text.

Comment 4: For malaria, besides a rapid diagnostic test, also a nested PCR has been used. These procedures, as expected, detected a substantial number of additional cases. However, concerning the PCR, important details of the used laboratory procedures are lacking, only references are given. How do we know the specificity has been well controlled? Because the performed nested PCR is not a closed real-time system, this is highly relevant. Do the authors have any quality control measures in place within their laboratory? Has any internal control been used to control for potential inhibition factors.

Response 4: Nested PCR is a common and frequently used method to identify Plasmodium parasites. In order to avoid redundancy, we only indicated the reference. We have now added the details of the Plasmodium speciation nested PCR method (lines 238 – 250). We used the extracted DNA of the PF3D7 strain as the laboratory positive control to avoid any discrepancy in the PCR results. Please see previous data on this from our lab (PMIDs: 36698132 & 35183684).

Comment 5: I find the results concerning the epidemiological risk factors far too detailed and with a lot of repetition in the text of what is already depicted in the tables.

Response 5: Thank you for this remark. The data in the table has been simplified and significantly adjusted to avoid repetition

Comment 6: Most references are depicted with the first author’s name only. I find that not very helpful. Several key references on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths are lacking.

On the other hand, I find 83 references far too much for an original research paper.

Response 6: The referencing system has been corrected following the PLoS guidelines. We have streamlined and balanced the number and range of references cited within our revise text. replaced.

Comment 7: Finally: I have strong doubts whether all co-authors have seen and approved this manuscript. The name of Professor Joanne Webster has been misspelled, both in the list of authors and page 46 of the pdf (page 6???)

Response 7: Thank you for keenly picking up the spelling mistake and this has been corrected throughout the text. In the contrary, all co-authors particularly the experienced senior authors (FN, JPW, SW, CSW) read the manuscript in detail, provided critical comments and approved it for submission.

Comment 8: So, in conclusion, if this manuscript could be rewritten as a short report with much more focus on the diagnostic findings, leaving out all the epidemiological analysis and without over-interpretation of the data, I would reconsider publication.

Response 8: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time taking to critically assess and provide detail comments and corrections on the manuscript. The manuscript has now been extensively revised to avoid redundancy and over-interpretation of the data. We hope you will find it significantly improved and re-consider it for publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-organized and easy to follow; however, some concerns need to be addressed.

Response: Thank you for the positive remark and the comments to improve the quality of the manuscript

Comment 1:

� The last sentence in the Abstract section has to be corrected both for grammar and clarity. Also, correct the grammatical errors in the “competing interests” AND “ethics statement”.

� In “study design and sample size determination”: “Parents and their respective children were invited by local community leaders to assemble at a major focal point in each of the selected communities for sample collection”. Were all children in the region recruited to participate in the study OR there was a specific sampling method? How were the

communities and children selected? What happened to parents who came with more than 1 child? This has not been clearly shown in the Methods’ section.

Response 1: Thank you - last sentence in the Abstract section has been corrected accordingly (line 59). We appreciate the reviewer for this question. Recruitment followed a random sampling where children in the communities were invited in the study following the inclusion criteria. Communities were selected based on previous studies (PMID: 31139663 &14641846) and updated prevalence records from both the National Malaria Control and Schistosomiasis Control Programs. Children were selected based on age ((3 -15 years), duration of ≥ 1year in the communities, absence of severe health condition and guardian/parent consent of participation. Parents who brought more than one child were registered under the same household (or different household if the child was not theirs) once they fulfill the inclusion criteria. This has been further clarified in our revised methods section (line 212-213).

Comment 2: In “study design and sample size determination”: you included 555 participants to anticipate factors like effect size, voluntary withdrawal and for greater precision. How did you reach to this conclusion as the calculated sample size was 370? Your sampling method used, was to determine the kind of adjustment to counter the factors you mentioned. Please describe the Recruitment strategy that was employed. And counter check if the formula used belongs to Lorenz.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this pertinent comment, also highlighted by the editor. This study was conducted during the period of the COVID-pandemic and so we anticipated a low compliance rate and study enrollment in the different localities. In order to obtain an optimal sample size, a 50% (n = 185) sample was added to the actual calculated sample size (370) to give 555 participants. Moreover, this additive sample size was calculated to accommodate for loss of sample due to the inability of all the children to provide capillary blood or urine/stool samples at the time of specimen collection and voluntary withdrawal of participants; and that is why a random sampling strategy was employed (see Response 1) to overcome these anticipated limitations. The sentence mentioning the Lorenz formula has been modified (line 197) and the formula properly referenced. Thanks for this detail comment.

Comment 3: In “study design and sample size determination”: “The sample size of the study population was calculated based on a previous schistosomiasis prevalence of 38.5% during the rainy season considering that malaria is endemic in this region” the statement needs citation(s)

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this citation omission. This has been effected (line 196).

Comment 4: One of the socio-demographic data collected was a NAME. What about anonymity? Or what was the relevance of taking participants’ names instead of using unique ID numbers

Response 4: Each participant’s information was anonymized using a unique code. However, the names were relevant for allocation of results and treatment administration.

Comment 5: Please indicate clearly about who answered the questionnaire. You had a group of children ranging from 3-15 years old and their guardians/parents. “By signing the form, the participants agreed to answer a questionnaire and to provide finger-prick blood, urine and stool samples for parasitological analysis”: who are the participants you are talking about here? Please clarify this.

Response 5: Since the questionnaire was orally translated in their local language (Fulfude) by a community health worker, the guardians/parents assisted the ≤ 5 years old children (n = 86) in responding to the questionnaire while > 5 years of age responded to the questionnaire themselves. This has been clarified in the text (line 151).

Comment 6: In sample collection and parasitological examination : “while the nested primers are specific to the 04 human Plasmodium species..” put the 04 in wordings. Please write more description on nested PCR as how you did with the primary PCR.

Response 6: The corrections have been made (lines 256 – 268)

Comment 7:

For better flow in Materials and Methods,

Data collection

Questionaire

Clinical assessment

Parasitological examination of blood samples

Parasitological examination of urine samples

Parasitological examination of stool samples

Then provide the detailed procedures in each subsection

Response 7: This has been modified for clarity as suggested by the reviewer. Please see the marked-up version.

Comment 8: In “Definitions of endpoints” : Please clarify where to expect S. mansoni and S. haematobium eggs. Is it in urine and/or stool? Because the last statement in the first paragraph is not clear. Define symptomatic urinary and intestinal schistosomiasis, separately.

Response 8: Thank you for the comment. This has been corrected (lines 326 to 331).

Comment 9: In “Results” section: You report that there was no significant difference in malaria prevalence between children who reported good KAP and those who did not. Population of your interest was children aged between 3-15, how were you able to assess KAP among these children, especially the younger ones of 3 years? This question is highly linked to a previous question as to “who answered your questionnaires”. Also, describe how you scored the children with good KAP and bad KAP under the Methods section. How many items were tested and what was the decisive score

Response 9: Thanks for this remark. As previously stated, children in the 3 years category were aided to respond to the question by their respective guardian/parents. The 3year old children (n = 31) exhibited poor KAP knowledge and a total of thirty-seven variables were assessed with scores between Yes or No and 0 to 1 (please S2 file). These scores were computed to give the total counts of the response to each variable. The KAP scoring system has been included in the text (lines 223 – 226).

Comment 10: “There was a significant match between the determinants of risk factors of schistosomiasis and disease outcome”. Please clarify this sentence. Do the same for the statement

“…and frequent absence of consuming PZQ during school-based treatment campaigns.”

Response 10: Thanks for this remark. This has been corrected (lines 519 to 521).

Comment 11: Check numbering of the pages. There is repetition of page numbers.

Response 11: We apologize for the inconsistent page numbering. This has now been corrected.

Comment 12: There are some abbreviations that are not defined in the document. I believe it is appropriate that the first time you wish to use an abbreviation; it has to consist a long form.

Then the subsequent time, you can use it.

Response 12: We have now defined first use of each abbreviation all throughout the text for clarity. We thank you for detail reading through the MS and enumerating the vital comments to improve on the scientific quality.

Reviewer #3: The research is scientifically sound and addresses some of the challenges that programmes face during control of parasitic infections in the community. How to integrate control of malaria and helminthes will be interesting. At policy level it may be feasible. Reading through some points can be addressed;

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive commendation on the manuscript and the relevant comments to enrich the quality of the work.

Comment 1: The introduction can be reduced to address only what is relevant to the study as it is.

Response 1: The introduction has been reduced as suggested.

Comment 2: Some of the methods should be clearly documented with slightly more details, ie, the urine filtration, Kato katz and the delivery of the questionnaire. All information is available, just package well.

Response 2: Thank you – agreed and amended.

Comment 3: Where a test did not give different results, or conflicting information such as the immunological then the authors can ignore (such results may be good for a thesis)

Response 3: Thank you – agreed and amended.

Comment 4: In the results, the tables are many, highlight the most important glaring difference and avoid many analytical information. The narrative should be brief and up to the point of difference

Response 4: The tables have now been reorganized to make the narrative coherent and succinct.

Comment 5: The discussion can be reduced to be more specific to the research project and avoid repititition of what is obvious.

Response 5: The discussion has been reduced significantly with minimal repetition.

Comment 6: The references are many and probably, pick on the more recent.

Response 6: The references have been reduced to 46 with majority being the most recent studies.

Conclusion: The manuscript can be polished and proceed with the publication.

Response: Thank you for the comments. The MS has been significantly polished and we hope it can be considered for publication in the revised form.

Reviewer #4:

Nkemngo et al. report in their publication the results of a cross-sectional investigation of the co-infection of malaria and Schistosoma parasites, as well as geohelminths in children. The subject is well introduced and the methodology well described. The authors report very high levels of parasitized children during the dry season in the specific rural area, which is interesting and should communicated. It would be highly interesting to compare the results between the dry season and the rainy season in that area. The publication uses a broad methodology to investigate the prevalence of the disease. Agreement between the different diagnostic methods is relatively low, which is rather surprising especially for the slide-positive results and PCR-negative results. Representation of the data and the statistics would be easier by using a 2x2 table. There is something wrong in the statistical analysis in the section “Association between KAP, LLINs ownership, LLINs use and malaria Prevalence” – this chapter has to be carefully checked again. In the text, the authors speak about a reduction in “%”, whereas the talk about OR in the respective table. This needs careful revision by a statistician. Table 6 is not clear what it is supposed to show.

Response:

• We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. We agree that it would have been interesting to compare the data between the dry and rainy seasons and to this effect longitudinal sampling is in plan to study the dynamics of co-infection between malaria and helminthes among established cohorts of children. However, the current study focusing on the dry season was important to provide baseline data on both diseases within the scope of the available funding. Microscopic parasite density is often low in asymptomatic infection particularly during the dry season where sequestration is an advantage. With microscopy being a subjective diagnostic algorithm, artifacts may have been reported as parasites. In addition, cattle rearing are practiced in this Region and therefore Babesia (a blood-borne parasite transmitted by ticks) could have been microscopically misinterpreted for malaria parasite. That is why PCR was used for further confirmation.

• Here, we were more concerned at simultaneously and succinctly comparing the diagnostic parameters between the three methods.

• We apologize for this statistical error. This has been double-checked by a statistician and the data corrected.

• Table 6 reveals the association between Plasmodium species and helminthes parasite on malaria parasite density and the nature of anemia. For example, a key observation noted here was that children co-infected with P. falciparum and S. haematobium had similar parasite density and lower hemoglobin level as P. falciparum only infected children.

Comment

Methods:

In the study site description, the authors should add some information on the average rainfall during the season of the collection of samples in mean and specifically for the year

of collection. Using the described malaria slide reading method – what is the obtained limit of detection for the read?

Response: The information has been added (line 151). The limit of detection of the thick blood film slide reading ranges between 50 – 100 parasites/µL (line 239).

Comment

Results: Scholl enrolment is low in the young group – but at what age school is compulsory? Shouldn’t it start at 6 years of age rather than at three years of age?

Response: The basic educational system comprises both the nursery (3 – 5 years) and the primary (≥6 years) levels. Therefore, school enrollment and compulsoriness usually starts at the nursery level grade. However, this has been modified in the text to include the pre-school children (≤5 yr) that were not yet registered in schools at the time of the study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 1-Rebuttal_PONE-D-22-34570_FNN.docx

Decision Letter 1

David Zadock Munisi

8 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-34570R1Epidemiology of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis amongst children 3-15 years of age during the dry season in Northern CameroonPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nongley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The revised version of the manuscript is an improvement in clarity and focus. The authors have largely addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments 11.05.23.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jul 31;18(7):e0288560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288560.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Jun 2023

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

1. “Health education talks on preventive measures for these diseases were delivered before each screening exercise. Furthermore, a questionnaire was administered to each participant.” Don’t you think that by giving them health education pertaining before any screening, it would have affected participants’ responses on the questionnaires? Or what did want to achieve by doing so?

Response: Health talks were delivered as part of explaining the purpose and objectives of the study. This is because participants immediately disperse to their daily activities once their samples have been collected and sometimes most do not even come back for the results or treatment (which is often given to the health worker). Therefore it was logical to deliver the health education lessons once the population assembled for recruitment. Indeed, the fact that the participants responded with poor KAP to malaria and schisto suggests that the health education talks did not impact the response to the questionnaire.

2. I am so worried over the quality of responses from >5 years old children. Do 5 years old children able to comprehend the language in the questionnaire? Have they even ever heard of malaria, schistosomiasis or even remember their deworming history?

Response: We previously answered this question in the first revision (line 131). Children < 5 years were intermittently assisted to respond to the question by their parents and this was made straightforward because the questionnaire sampling was led and verbally translated by indigenes who speak/understand both English and the local dialect (Fulfude). These children are aware of and have local appellations for these infections as it constitutes their daily health challenges. The deworming history of participants < 5 years was inferred from the parents (where necessary) and further confirmed by the class teachers.

3. In definition of endpoints, have a sentence on symptomatic intestinal schistosomiasis as you did with urogenital schistosomiasis

Response: Thank you for this remark. This has been included (line 304).

4. Line 522, just change “frequent absence of consuming PZQ” to “poor PZQ uptake”

Response: Correction done.

5. Revise comment 9: I have seen the S2 file. But an important piece of information is still missing in your methodology. Simply state the cut-off score of good KAP and bad KAP out of the total 37 variables. And a justification/basis of the decided cut-off

Response: As earlier mentioned (lines 199 – 202), for KAP variables, the cut-off score was between 0 – 1 with 0 = poor KAP and 1 = good KAP, particularly for the Yes/No questions. The basis of the decided cut-off was to categorize the data set and establish relevant epidemiological associations between the level of risk/exposure and outcome.

Conclusion: The authors appreciate the reviewer's comments to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. We have adequately responded to the comments and hope the manuscript will now be considered for publication.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_Response to Reviewers comments_FNN.docx

Decision Letter 2

David Zadock Munisi

29 Jun 2023

Epidemiology of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis amongst children 3-15 years of age during the dry season in Northern Cameroon

PONE-D-22-34570R2

Dear Nongley,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

David Zadock Munisi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

David Zadock Munisi

21 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-34570R2

Epidemiology of malaria, schistosomiasis, and geohelminthiasis amongst children 3-15 years of age during the dry season in Northern Cameroon

Dear Dr. Nkemngo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. David Zadock Munisi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Numerical positivity comparison between microscopy, rapid diagnostic test, and PCR in the 3–9 years age group.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Numerical positivity comparison between microscopy, rapid diagnostic test, and PCR in the 10–15 years age group.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Summary data on risk factors of malaria and schistosomiasis among children in Northern Cameroon.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Study questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images. Gel images of Plasmodium species PCR and microscopy image of S. haematobium eggs.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 1-Rebuttal_PONE-D-22-34570_FNN.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments 11.05.23.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_Response to Reviewers comments_FNN.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The minimal dataset for this submission has been uploaded in the OSF repository: https://osf.io/cbdm6 and Identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/FH6MR.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES