Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Jan 19;18(1):e0011915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011915

Association between arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia in a rural area of the Republic of Congo: A population-based cross-sectional study (the MorLo project)

Jérémy T Campillo 1,*, Valentin Dupasquier 2, Elodie Lebredonchel 3, Ludovic G Rancé 4, Marlhand C Hemilembolo 1,5, Sébastien D S Pion 1, Michel Boussinesq 1, François Missamou 5, Antonia Perez Martin 6,7, Cédric B Chesnais 1
Editor: Subash Babu8
PMCID: PMC10830006  PMID: 38241411

Abstract

Background

Loa loa filariasis (loiasis) is still considered a relatively benign disease. However, recent epidemiologic data suggest increased mortality and morbidity in L. loa infected individuals. We aimed to examine whether the density of L. loa microfilariae (mfs) in the blood is associated with cardiovascular disease.

Methodology

Using a point-of-care device (pOpmètre), we conducted a cross-sectional study to assess arterial stiffness and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in 991 individuals living in a loiasis-endemic rural area in the Republic of the Congo. Microfilaremic individuals were matched for age, sex and village of residence with 2 amicrofilaremic subjects.

We analyzed markers of arterial stiffness (Pulse-Wave Velocity, PWV), PAD (Ankle-Brachial Index, ABI) and cardiovascular health (Pulse Pressure, PP). The analysis considered parasitological results (L. loa microfilarial density [MFD], soil-transmitted helminths infection, asymptomatic malaria and onchocerciasis), sociodemographic characteristics and known cardiovascular risk factors (body mass index, smoking status, creatininemia, blood pressure).

Principal findings

Among the individuals included in the analysis, 192/982 (19.5%) and 137/976 (14.0%) had a PWV or an ABI considered out of range, respectively. Out of range PWV was associated with younger age, high mean arterial pressure and high L. loa MFD. Compared to amicrofilaremic subjects, those with more than 10,000 mfs/mL were 2.17 times more likely to have an out of range PWV (p = 0.00). Factors significantly associated with PAD were older age, low pulse rate, low body mass index, smoking, and L. loa microfilaremia. Factors significantly associated with an elevation of PP were older age, female sex, high average blood pressure, low pulse rate and L. loa microfilaremia.

Conclusion

A potential link between high L. loa microfilaremia and cardiovascular health deterioration is suggested. Further studies are required to confirm and explore this association.

Author summary

Recent epidemiologic data suggested an increased mortality and morbidity in individuals harboring high densities of Loa loa microfilariae in the blood, underscoring the importance of studies on the possible reasons for this excess mortality. This cross-sectional study assessed arterial stiffness and cardiovascular health markers using a point-of-care device (pOpmètre) among 991 sex-, age- and residency-matched individuals living in rural forested areas of Congo. Analyses included known cardiovascular risk factors (body mass index, smoking, blood pressure, creatininemia) and parasitological covariates (onchocerciasis, asymptomatic malaria, soil-transmitted helminths and Loa loa microfilaremia). People with microfilaremia were more likely to have levels of cardiovascular markers indicating arterial stiffness and deteriorated cardiovascular health, compared with those without microfilaremia.

Introduction

Loiasis is a parasitic disease caused by Loa loa, a filarial nematode transmitted by deerflies belonging to the genus Chrysops. Tens of millions of people are exposed to the parasite in Africa and about 15 million are actually infected. In humans, adult worms live under the skin or within peri- or intermuscular fascia layers but can also migrate occasionally under the conjunctiva of the eye (hence the popular name “African eye worm”). Microfilariae (mfs), the embryonic stage of L. loa, can be produced in very large quantities by female worms and circulate in the blood of infected individuals according to a diurnal rhythm, meaning that they are present in the peripheral circulation during the day and confined to the pulmonary circulation at night. The mfs are 6–8 μm in diameter and 250–300 μm in length and it is not uncommon to see individuals with microfilarial densities (MFD) exceeding 100,000 mfs per mL of blood (mfs/mL). This point illustrates the huge quantity of foreign bodies present in the bloodstream which may interact with the vessel walls. Loiasis can be considered a chronic infection for two reasons: adult worms can live up to 20 years and the MFD of untreated individuals remain stable over time [1,2].

In addition to the frequent manifestations such as pruritus, “eye worm” and episodes of transient angioedema called “Calabar swellings”, many case reports suggest that loiasis induces complications affecting different organs such as the heart, the central nervous system, the spleen, and the kidneys [3]. In addition, two retrospective population-based cohort studies demonstrated that people with high L. loa MFD have a significantly reduced life expectancy and that the risk of premature death is proportional to an individual’s MFD [4,5]. Reasons for this excess mortality are still unknown and are probably multifactorial but cardiovascular diseases (CVD) could be one of the causes.

Arterial stiffness reflects the vessel wall damage over a long time. It has been documented that aortic stiffness has a good predictive value for CVD [6], as well as for mortality risk, independently of CVD risk [7]. Several markers are available to assess cardiovascular health and arterial stiffness. Pulse wave velocity (PWV, expressed in meter/second) is considered the gold standard for large artery stiffness diagnosis and enables to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, independently of traditional risk factors (diabetes, smoking, high cholesterol levels, obesity, and hypertension) [6]. The Ankle–Brachial Index (ABI) is currently the gold standard method to screen for peripheral artery disease (PAD) [8]. Finally, pulse pressure (PP, expressed in mmHg) is a marker of deterioration in cardiovascular health and is commonly used in routine practice [9].

To date, there have been no studies examining the potential influence of L. loa microfilaremia on arterial stiffness. Should such an association exist, it may result from mixed processes such as a chronic inflammation resulting from the host’s response to L. loa microfilaremia, and/or a prolonged exposure of vessel walls to mfs (potentially leading to disruption of vessel wall structure). Moreover, authors conducting research on the burden of loiasis consider it conceivable that a persistent, biologically-based inflammatory profile exists in individuals with L. loa microfilaremia, justifying the present study [10].

We report the results of the first population-based cross-sectional study investigating the relationship between L. loa MFD and cardiovascular health markers in a rural population of the Republic of Congo.

Methods

Ethics statement

This study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Congolese Foundation for Medical Research (N° 036/CIE/FCRM/2022) and the Congolese Ministry of Health and Population (N° 376/MSP/CAB/UCPP-21). All participants received clear and appropriate information and signed a written informed consent form for this specific study.

Study design

This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between L. loa MFDs and cardiovascular health in a rural area of the Republic of the Congo. This study is part of the Morbidity due to Loiasis (MorLo) project, an international collaborative study aimed at evaluating the prevalence and incidence of L. loa-related organ-specific complications in rural areas of Central Africa. The baseline assessment was conducted from May 16 to June 11, 2022, involving individuals from 21 villages near Sibiti, the capital town of the Lékoumou division. Participants will be monitored for three years with instructions to report any health events during the follow-up, and detailed health assessments will be conducted each year. This region is endemic for loiasis, without schistosomiasis, and routine deworming campaigns are conducted to manage soil-transmitted helminthiases (STH) in children.

Participants

The inclusion criteria were residence in the study area since 2019, age 18 or older and having undergone a prior examination for L. loa microfilaremia in 2019 as part of a screening survey for participants selection in a clinical trial [11]. Those with over 500 L. loa mfs/mL in 2019 were matched based on sex and age (within 5 years) with two individuals from the same village who were identified as amicrofilaremic in 2019 (Fig 1). Among individuals with microfilaremia, 42.3% reported at least one eyeworm episode and 24.9% reported at least one episode of Calabar swelling during the previous year. Among amicrofilaremic individuals, 35.2% reported an eyeworm episode and 24.8% reported Calabar swellings. All examinations took place at Sibiti hospital.

Fig 1. Flowchart of the study.

Fig 1

Arterial stiffness examination

Arterial stiffness was assessed through finger-toe pulse wave velocity (ft-PWV) measured by a device called pOpmètre (Axelife SAS, Saint-Nicolas-de-Redon, France). This device enables an easy recording of the pulse wave at the finger and the toe, using two photodiode sensors with infrared ray-scoping pulpar arteries. ft-PWV is derived from the transit time between the foot of the pulse waves of the finger and the toe and exhibits an acceptable correlation with aortic pulse time transit [12]. The device records two indices continuously for 20 seconds: the difference in pulse wave transit time between toe and finger (ft-TT; in milliseconds) and the ft-PWV (in meters per second) which is calculated as (k x subject’s height / ft-TT), where k depends on height. The pOpmètre technique has been validated as a good alternative measurement to carotid-femoral PWV, which requires trained and experimented staff and is invasive because it requires access to the femoral artery [13,14]. In addition, the device can perform arm and ankle systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements, thus providing ABI (calculated by dividing the ankle SBP by the arm SBP). PP was calculated by subtracting the arm diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from the arm SBP, both measured with an electric sphygmomanometer. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was defined as (SBP– 2 x DBP) / 3. After the placement of the device sensors by a nurse, the patient rested in a supine position for 10 minutes, until a physician performed the assessment of PWV, ABI, and PP. The measurement was systematically repeated once, and a third measurement was taken in case of a discrepancy between the first two measurements.

Standardizations and definitions

As there is currently no established reference for PWV measures in a rural population of Central Africa, we created a reference PWV from our study population. Using data from non-smoking individuals with no obesity/overweight (body mass index <25 kg/m2), no hypertension, no parasitic infection (STH, loiasis and malaria), no lipid abnormalities and no diabetes, 90th percentiles of PWV were calculated by sex and age categories (<30, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69 and ≥70 years old) (S1 Table). A PWV measure was considered ‘out of range’ for an individual if their PWV measure exceeded the 90th percentile of the constructed reference variable, for their specific sex and age category (Fig 1). Hypertension was defined in two ways: first, using the classic definition: SBP ≥140 mmHg or DBP ≥90 mmHg (S1 Table: References values #1); second, using only the criterion of DBP ≥90 mmHg (S2 Table: References values #2, S5 and S6 Tables) focusing on peripheral resistance rather than cardiac flow to partially mitigate the "white coat" effect during patient examination. PAD diagnosis was retained when ABI <0.90 [15]. PP was analyzed as a continuous variable.

Laboratory procedures

Each patient had 50 μL of blood collected by finger-prick with a sterile lancet between 10 am and 4 pm to prepare a thick blood smear (TBS). TBS were stained with Giemsa and examined under a microscope at 100× magnification by experimented technicians to count the L. loa mfs and Mansonella perstans mfs (M. perstans is another filarial species endemic in the area). Each TBS was read twice and the arithmetic mean of the counts was used for the statistical analyses. In case of discrepancy between the results of the two readings, the slide was read a third time and the two closest results were averaged. Creatinine levels were measured for each patient in whole blood with a point-of-care device (iSTAT-1; Abbott Point of Care, Princeton, NJ, USA). For logistic reasons, glycated hemoglobin (Hb1Ac) and fasting serum total cholesterol level, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) were only measured in a random subset of patients with a point-of-care device (Afinion 2, Abbott Rapid Diagnostics, Bièvres, France).

From venous blood collected in a heparinized tube, a thin blood film stained with RAL 555 (Kit RAL 555, RAL Diagnostics, Martillac, France), a rapid variant of the May-Grünwald Giemsa staining, was prepared to evaluate asymptomatic Plasmodium sp. infection. Using the same blood sample, the participant’s past exposure to Onchocerca volvulus was assessed using an Ov16 Rapid Diagnostic Test (Biplex L. loa/Ov16 RDT; Drugs & Diagnostics for Tropical Diseases, San Diego, California). The Ov16 RDT detects antibodies to Ov16 antigen. Two skin snips were collected from each patient with positive Ov16 RDT using a 2 mm Holth-type corneoscleral punch and incubated in saline at room temperature for 24 hours. Emerged mfs were counted under a microscope, and the individuals’ O. volvulus MFD, expressed as mfs per snip, were calculated using the arithmetic mean of the two snips. Despite schistosomiasis not being endemic in the area, any individual with haematuria underwent microscopic examination of urine (filtration method) for Schistosoma eggs and serological testing (LD BioDiagnostic, Schistosoma ICT IgG IgM).

Finally, the participants were offered the option to provide stool samples for STH screening. STH infections were identified through the microscopic examination of stool specimens. Participants were supplied with a 50-mL plastic stool container and instructed to collect a morning stool sample. The collected specimens were placed in cooling boxes and shipped to the laboratory within 6 hours. Upon arrival, the samples were either immediately processed or stored overnight at 6°C. Using the Kato-Katz method, a thick smear was prepared from each stool sample and these smears were examined under a microscope at 40× magnification.

Statistical analyses

Mean, standard deviation (SD), median, and 10th/90th percentiles of PWV were calculated by age, sex, L. loa microfilaremia status (positive or negative), and L. loa MFD (categorized using interquartile range among individuals with microfilaremia: 1–499, 500–2,499, 2,500–9,999, and ≥10,000 mfs/mL).

Sex, age, mean arterial pressure, pulse rate, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, creatininemia (expressed in μmol/L), malaria status, STH infections presence and intensities (in eggs per gram), L. loa microfilaremia status, and L. loa MFD were described and compared based on PWV status (normal vs out of range) and PAD status (presence or absence). The Chi-2 test and Kruskal-Wallis rank test were performed for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between (i) the PWV status and PAD and (ii) age (as a continuous variable), sex, smoking status, MAP (<100 or ≥100 mmHg), pulse rate (<60, 60–90, and >90 beats per minute), BMI (<18.5, 18.5–25, and >25 kg/m2), creatininemia level (<60, 60–110 and >110 μmol/L), STH infection presence, L. loa microfilaremia status, and L. loa MFD (1–499, 500–2,499, 2,500–9,999, and ≥10,000 mfs/mL). To address concerns about multicollinearity, the presence of STH infection was categorized as either present of absent, and species were assessed separately in distinct models. Possible interactions between STH species and loiasis were evaluated using a likelihood-ratio test.

Finally, a multivariate linear regression model was conducted to examine the association between PP and age (as a continuous variable), sex, smoking status, MAP (<100 or ≥100 mmHg), pulse rate (<60, 60–90, and >90 beats per minute), BMI (<18.5, 18.5–25, and >25 kg/m2), creatininemia (<60, 60–110, and >110 μmol/L) and L. loa microfilaremia status.

Power calculation

In this study, by employing a 1:2 matching design (1 microfilaremic matched with 2 amicrofilaremic individuals) and incorporating 990 participants, we anticipate a robust statistical power. Specifically, our design allows for nearly 100% power to detect a twofold higher risk (odds ratio, OR) of cardiovascular complications in microfilaremics compared to amicrofilaremics. Additionally, we expect a power of approximately 90% to identify a 1.5-fold higher risk.

Hb1Ac and lipid profiles

Hb1Ac, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL and LDL were described by PWV status (S2 Table) and PAD (S3 Table). The Chi-2 test or Fisher’s exact test were performed to assess the distribution of lipid and Hb1Ac anomalies among individuals with out of range PWV and normal PWV, as well as among individuals with or without PAD. Additionally, correlations analyses were conducted to explore the associations between L. loa microfilaremia status and densities, lipid profiles, and glycated hemoglobin (S4 Table).

Results

Of the 991 individuals included, one opted to withdraw from the study, and PWV measurements could not be performed for four other subjects (three with fingertips and/or toes deemed too hard and one with amputation). An additional six subjects did not have ankle blood pressure measurements (probably resulting from severe medial calcific sclerosis or severe PAD), rendering ABI calculation impossible. Moreover, four women were excluded from all analyses because they were pregnant at the time of the examination. Consequently, 982, 976, and 986 individuals were included in the PWV, ABI, and PP analysis, respectively (Fig 1). Mean values, medians and 10th and 90th percentile of PWV measurements by age, sex, and microfilaremia status are presented in S1 Table. HbA1c data were available for only 238 individuals, with only one individual having more than 7%. Additionally, 29, 17, 53, and 13 subjects had >5 mmol/L of total cholesterol, >1.7 mmol/L of triglycerides, <1 mmol/L of HDL and >3.5 mmol/L of LDL, respectively (S2 and S3 Tables).

Only six individuals (0.6%) had M. perstans mfs in their blood (range: 20–660 mf/mL). Twenty-two individuals (2.2%) tested positive for Ov16 RDT and none of them had O. volvulus mfs in the skin snips. Only 16 patients (1.6%) exhibited malaria elements in their blood smears (schizont or trophozoite stages of P. falciparum). Out of 771 individuals (77.8%) who volunteered for stool examinations, 391 cases tested positive for STH eggs (50.7%). Among these, there were no cases of hookworm infection, 332 cases of A. lumbricoides infection (43.1%), and 207 cases of T. trichiura infection (26.8%), with 146 cases exhibiting co-infections (18.8%). T. trichiura and A. lumbricoides infections were correlated with each other (Cramer’s V = 0.342). No schistosomiasis was found in the individuals with haematuria.

Table 1 displays the characteristics of individuals based on whether their PWV values were considered normal or above the threshold (>90th percentile of a population of the same age and sex, considered healthy). High MAP (p<0.001) and high pulse rate (p = 0.003) were associated with out of range PWV measurements. L. loa MFD (in binary, categories or continuous) was not significantly associated with out of range PWV measurements (respectively, p = 0.107; p = 0.073 and p = 0.137). When the analysis used reference population #2 (hypertension defined as DBP ≥90 mmHg), the results were similar for L. loa MFD but different for creatininemia levels with a significant elevation in the out of range PWV group (S5 Table).

Table 1. Distribution of the main characteristics according to Pulse Wave Velocity status.

Total PWV p value *
Normal Out of range **
N. subjects (n, %) 982 790 (80.5%) 192 (19.5%)
Sex-ratio (M/F) 1.67 1.70 1.59 0.709
Age in years (mean ± SD) 50.9 ± 14.8 51.0 ± 14.4 50.2 ± 16.3 0.785
Average blood pressure in mmHg (mean ± SD) 95.3 ± 16.6 93.8 ± 15.4 101.1 ± 19.6 <0.001
Pulse rate in bpm (mean ± SD) 64.1 ± 12.3 63.4 ± 12.0 66.7 ± 13.3 0.003
Body mass index (mean ± SD) 21.0 ± 3.2 21.0 ± 3.2 21.2 ± 3.2 0.424
Smoking (n, %) 181 (18.6%) 147 (18.7%) 34 (18.0%) 0.821
Creatininemia in μmol/L (mean ± SD) 71.2 ± 19.3 70.9 ± 19.2 73.1 ± 18.9 0.159
Malaria presence (n, %) 16 (1.6%) 13 (1.7%) 3 (1.6%) 0.929
Any STH presence (n, %) 388 (39.5%) 307 (38.9%) 81 (42.2%) 0.299
    Hookworm presence (n, %) 0 0 0 N/A
    Ascaris lumbricoides presence (n, %) 329 (33.5%) 260 (32.9%) 69 (35.9%) 0.354
    Ascaris lumbricoides EPG (mean ± SD) 24.6 ± 58.8 21.5 ± 51.1 37.1 ± 84.3 0.128
    Trichuris trichiura presence (n, %) 206 (21.0%) 164 (20.8%) 42 (21.9%) 0.561
    Trichuris trichiura EPG (mean ± SD) 2.2 ± 8.3 2.1 ± 8.5 2.6 ± 7.8 0.458
Loa microfilaremia status (n, %) 0.107
    Positive 340 (34.6%) 264 (33.4%) 76 (39.6%)
    Negative 642 (65.4%) 526 (66.6%) 116 (60.4%)
Loa MFD (mfs/mL) 0.073
    Mean ± SD 2,425 ± 7,426 2,185 ± 6,899 3,412 ± 9,240
    Median [IQR] 0 [0–540] 0 [0–430] 0 [0–1,465]
Loa MFD categories (n, %) 0.137
    0 mf/mL 642 (65.4%) 526 (66.6%) 116 (60.4%)
    1–499 mfs/mL 91 (9.3%) 72 (9.1%) 19 (9.9%)
    500–2,499 mfs/mL 80 (8.1%) 66 (8.4%) 14 (7.3%)
    2,500–9,999 mfs/mL 93 (9.5%) 73 (9.2%) 20 (10.4%)
    ≥10,000 mfs/mL 76 (7.7%) 53 (6.7%) 23 (12.0%)

Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; N, number; SD, Standard deviation; MFD, microfilarial density; IQR, interquartile range; N/A, not applicable.

* Chi-2 for categorical variable and Kruskal-Wallis rank test for continuous variables.

** An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #1).

Individuals with ≥10,000 L. loa mfs/mL were 2.17 more likely to have an out of range PWV (p = 0.006), compared to amicrofilaremic subjects (Table 2). Age was negatively associated with out of range PWV (adjusted Odds-Ratio [aOR] = 0.98, p = 0.008), indicating that younger people were more likely to exceed the threshold relative to their age category (thresholds at 6.1 and 6.0 for males and females under 30, respectively, and thresholds at 15.0 and 12.5 for men and women over 70, respectively. See S1 Table). STH infections were not significantly associated with out of range PWV (aOR = 1.43, p = 0.066). When the variable “Any STH presence” was replaced by “Presence of Ascaris” or “Presence of Trichuris”, all model coefficients were similar with, respectively, an aOR of 1.35 (p = 0.116) and an aOR of 1.24 (p = 0.304). When reference population #2 was used for the analysis, the results were similar, and the effect of loiasis was reinforced, with a significantly higher risk for individuals with Loa MFD >10,000 mfs/mL (aOR = 2.36, p = 0.002), compared to amicrofilaremic subjects (S6 Table).

Table 2. Results from logistic regression model explaining Pulse Wave Velocity status.

PWV > 90th percentile of the PWV in the healthy population (yes/no) *
aOR 95% CI p value aOR 95% CI p value
Age 0.98 0.97–0.99 0.008 0.98 0.97–0.99 0.008
Sex
    Female Ref. Ref.
    Male 0.82 0.55–1.24 0.355 0.81 0.54–2.22 0.317
Smoking
    No Ref.
    Yes 1.03 0.66–1.61 0.886 1.03 0.6–1.61 0.902
Average blood pressure
    <100 mmHg Ref. Ref.
    ≥100 mmHg 2.16 1.50–3.11 <0.001 2.13 1.48–3.08 <0.001
Pulse rate
    <60 bpm Ref. Ref.
    60–90 bpm 1.23 0.85–1.77 0.271 1.25 0.87–1.81 0.229
    >90 bpm 1.75 0.73–4.20 0.207 1.82 0.75–4.39 0.183
Body mass index
    <18.5 kg/m2 1.07 0.67–1.69 0.780 1.08 0.68–1.71 0.752
    18.5–25 kg/m2 Ref. Ref.
    >25 kg/m2 1.11 0.64–1.92 0.665 1.12 0.64–1.95 0.689
Creatininemia
    <60 μmol/L 0.69 0.44–1.07 0.099 0.67 0.43–1.05 0.079
    60–110 μmol/L Ref. Ref.
    >110 μmol/L 1.24 0.47–3.25 0.665 1.22 0.46–3.20 0.688
Any STH presence
    No Ref. Ref.
    Yes 1.43 0.98–2.09 0.063 1.43 0.98–2.09 0.066
    MD 1.44 0.93–2.23 0.097 1.43 0.92–2.21 0.107
Loa microfilaremia status
    Negative Ref.
    Positive 1.35 0.96–1.89 0.082
Loa MFD categories (mfs/mL)
    0 Ref.
    1–499 1.18 0.67–2.07 0.565
    500–2,499 1.03 0.55–1.93 0.913
    2,500–9,999 1.25 0.71–2.19 0.439
    ≥10,000 2.17 1.25–3.75 0.006

Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; bpm, beats per minute; aOR, adjusted odds-ratio; CI, confidence intervals; MD, missing data

* An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #1).

The distribution of lipid profiles and HbA1c did not differ between individuals with out of range PWV and normal individuals (S2 Table). No correlation was found between L. loa MFD and lipid profiles or Hb1Ac status (S4 Table).

Table 3 presents the characteristics of the individuals based on the presence or absence of PAD. Older age (p<0.001), low pulse rate (p<0.001), low BMI (p<0.001), smoking (p<0.001), Loa microfilaremia status (p = 0.015) and L. loa MFD in continuous (p = 0.042) or categories (p = 0.036) were associated with the presence of PAD.

Table 3. Distribution of the main variables of interest according to Peripheral Arterial Disease status.

Total PAD-* PAD+* p value**
N. subjects (n, %) 976 839 (86.0%) 137 (14.0%)
Sex-ratio (M/F) 1.69 1.67 1.80 0.710
Age in years (mean ± SD) 50.9 ± 14.7 50.0 ± 14.6 56.9 ± 13.8 <0.001
Average blood pressure in mmHg (mean ± SD) 95.3 ± 16.5 95.4 ± 16.5 94.7 ± 16.8 0.465
Pulse rate in bpm (mean ± SD) 64.1 ± 12.3 65.0 ± 12.3 58.6 ± 11.2 <0.001
Body mass index (mean ± SD) 21.0 ± 3.2 21.2 ± 3.2 19.7 ± 2.8 <0.001
Smoking (n, %) 181 (18.5%) 141 (16.8%) 40 (29.2%) <0.001
Creatininemia in μmol/L (mean ± SD) 71.2 ± 19.3 71.2 ± 19.4 71.7 ± 17.9 0.569
Malaria presence (n, %) 16 (1.6%) 12 (1.5%) 2 (2.9%) 0.210
Any STH presence (n, %) 386 (39.5%) 331 (39.5%) 50 (40.1%) 0.965
    Hookworm presence (n, %) 0 0 0 N/A
    Ascaris lumbricoides presence (n, %) 329 (33.6%) 281 (33.5%) 47 (34.3%) 0.962
    Ascaris lumbricoides EPG (mean ± SD) 24.7 ± 59.1 24.9 ± 60.8 22.9 ± 47.5 0.904
    Trichuris trichiura presence (n, %) 204 (20.9%) 176 (21.0%) 28 (20.4%) 0.959
    Trichuris trichiura EPG (mean ± SD) 2.2 ± 8.4 2.1 ± 8.2 2.9 ± 9.6 0.929
Loa microfilaremia status (n, %) 0.015
    Positive 338 (34.6%) 278 (33.1%) 60 (43.8%)
    Negative 638 (65.4%) 561 (66.9%) 77 (56.2%)
Loa MFD (mfs/mL) 0.042
    Mean ± SD 2,422 ± 7,438 2,368 ± 7,426 2,757 ± 7,533
    Median [IQR] 0 [0–535] 0 [0–440] 0 [0–860]
Loa MFD categories (n, %) 0.036
    0 mf/mL 6238 (65.4%) 541 (66.9%) 77 (56.2%)
    1–499 mfs/mL 91 (9.3%) 70 (8.7%) 18 (13.1%)
    500–2,499 mfs/mL 80 (8.2%) 62 (7.4%) 18 (13.1%)
    2,500–9,999 mfs/mL 92 (9.4%) 81 (9.7%) 11 (8.0%)
    ≥10,000 mfs/mL 75 (7.7%) 62 (7.4%) 13 (9.5%)

Abbreviations: PAD- and PAD+, individuals without and with peripheral arterial disease; N, number; SD, Standard deviation; bpm, beats per minute; MFD, microfilarial density; IQR, interquartile range.

* PAD is defined if Ankle–brachial pressure index (ABI) is <0.9

** Chi-2 for categorical variable and Kruskal-Wallis rank test for continuous variables.

According to logistic regression, L. loa microfilaremia status was not significantly associated with the presence of PAD (aOR = 1.46, p = 0.059). Only individuals from the 500–2,499 mfs/mL category presented an increased risk of having PAD, compared to amicrofilaremic subjects (aOR = 2.09, p = 0.019) (Table 4).

Table 4. Results from logistic regression model explaining the presence of Peripheral Arterial Disease.

PAD (yes/no)
aOR 95% CI P aOR 95% CI P
Age 1.04 1.03–1.06 < .001 1.04 1.03–1.06 <0.001
Sex
    Female Ref. Ref.
    Male 0.94 0.58–1.51 0.788 0.94 0.58–1.51 0.788
Smoking
    No Ref.
    Yes 1.98 1.24–3.17 0.004 1.99 1.24–3.18 0.004
Average blood pressure
    <100 mmHg Ref. Ref.
    ≥100 mmHg 0.86 0.56–1.34 0.516 0.84 0.54–1.31 0.452
Pulse rate
    <60 bpm Ref. Ref.
    60–90 bpm 0.38 0.25–0.57 <0.001 0.38 0.25–0.57 <0.001
    >90 bpm 0.18 0.04–0.83 0.028 0.19 0.04–0.86 0.032
Body mass index
    <18.5 kg/m2 2.03 1.28–3.21 0.002 2.65 1.30–3.27 0.002
    18.5–25 kg/m2 Ref. Ref.
    >25 kg/m2 0.89 0.41–1.92 0.773 0.87 0.40–1.89 0.730
Creatininemia
    <60 μmol/L 1.08 0.66–1.77 0.769 1.09 0.66–1.78 0.742
    60–110 μmol/L Ref. Ref.
    >110 μmol/L 0.73 0.22–2.39 0.606 0.77 0.24–2.52 0.670
Any STH presence
    No Ref. Ref.
    Yes 0.82 0.53–1.27 0.378 0.84 0.54–1.31 0.451
    MD 0.89 0.53–1.50 0.671 0.91 0.54–1.52 0.715
Loa microfilaremia status
    Negative Ref.
    Positive 1.46 0.99–2.17 0.059
Loa MFD categories (mfs/mL)
    0 Ref.
    1–499 1.72 0.93–3.18 0.083
    500–2,499 2.09 1.13–3.89 0.019
    2,500–9,999 0.87 0.43–1.79 0.715
    ≥10,000 1.35 0.68–2.66 0.393

Abbreviations: PAD, Peripheral Arterial Disease; bpm, beats per minute; aOR, adjusted odds-ratio; CI, confidence intervals; MD, missing data

The distribution of lipid profiles and HbA1c did not differ between individuals with PAD and normal individuals (S3 Table). No correlation was found between L. loa MFD and lipid profiles or Hb1Ac status (S4 Table).

PP was strongly associated with age (aß = 0.39, p<0.001) (Table 5). Individuals with L. loa microfilaremia had significantly higher PP measures than amicrofilaremic individuals (aß = 2.00, p = 0.038).

Table 5. Results from linear regression explaining Pulse Pressure (PP).

95% CI p value
Age (in years) 0.39 0.32–0.45 <0.001
Sex
 Female Ref.
 Male -3.71 -5.95– -1.47 0.001
Smoking
 No Ref.
 Yes -1.50 -3.92–0.92 0.224
Average blood pressure
 <100 mmHg Ref.
 ≥100 mmHg 12.51 10.48–14.55 <0.001
Pulse rate
 <60 bpm Ref.
 60–90 bpm -3.03 -4.98– -1.09 0.002
 >90 bpm -5.79 -11.12– -0.45 0.034
Body mass index
 <18.5 kg/m2 -0.04 -2.53–2.44 0.972
 18.5–25 kg/m2 Ref.
 >25 kg/m2 1.54 -1.63–4.71 0.341
Creatininemia
 <60 μmol/L 1.34 -0.99–3.70 0.260
 60–110 μmol/L Ref.
 >110 μmol/L 0.56 -5.06–6.19 0.844
Any STH
 Absence Ref.
 Presence 0.20 -1.83–2.24 0.844
 MD 4.52 2.14–6.90 0.001
Loa microfilaremia status
 Negative Ref.
 Positive 2.00 0.11–3.90 0.038

Abbreviations: bpm, beats per minute; aß, adjusted coefficients; CI, confidence intervals

Discussion

In a population-based cross-sectional study, we established a relationship between L. loa microfilaremia and cardiovascular health markers. This study is the first to reveal heightened arterial stiffness in individuals with loiasis. The presence of L. loa mfs in the blood is associated with excess mortality and the risk of premature death is proportionally associated with the L. loa MFD, but the causes of this excess mortality remain unidentified [4,5]. The possible development of arterial stiffness as a consequence of L. loa microfilaremia could be a contributing factor, especially considering the comprehensive examination of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, and the inclusion of other potential parasitic cofactors in our analyses. Moreover, at the time of the study, none of the patients reported taking medication for cardiovascular disease. Assessing the evolution of cardiovascular abnormalities after antihelminthic treatment could provide insights into the causality of lesions (if reversible) associated with L. loa microfilaremia, but there is currently no treatment protocol in Congo for hyper-microfilaremia, and it would be ethically challenging to administer such treatment to these patients. The association between high PWV values and L. loa microfilaremia showed an increased risk of 2.17 and 2.36 in individuals with ≥10,000 mfs/mL compared to amicrofilaremic subjects, using reference values #1 and #2, respectively. Bivariate analysis indicated a significant association between the presence of PAD and L. loa microfilaremia. Surprisingly, in the logistic regression model on PAD, the two highest MFD categories (2,500–9,999 and ≥10,000 mfs/mL) did not show a significant association with PAD. This may be attributed to either a lack of statistical power (as there were only 11 and 13 subjects with PAD in these MFD categories, respectively) or to unidentified biological effects. While it cannot be rule out completely, the hypothesis of a compensatory vascular response to high MFD level is deemed unlikely. Further research is imperative to confirm the association between L. loa MFD and PAD and to ascertain whether L. loa microfilaremia leads to vascular complications.

PP is recognized as a robust marker of cardiovascular health deterioration, and its elevation in individuals with microfilaremia (aOR = 2.00, p = 0.038) adds to the concerns about potential cardiovascular implications of loiasis. Arterial stiffness is a strong cardiovascular risk factor and a predictor of all-cause mortality [6,16]. It results from the decrease in elastic properties of large vessels wall, reflected by accelerated PWV, resulting in an earlier reflected wave, that increases systolic and pulse pressures, and thus heart workload. In addition, the defect of arterial compliance allows transmission of pulsatile pressure to peripheral vessels, damaging the vulnerable microvasculature of unprotected organs with low levels of arteriolar resistance, such as the brain or the kidneys [17].

Some study subjects underwent biological tests for Hb1AC and lipids. The results of these tests were not included in our final models because they were performed in less than 25% of the participants, for logistic reasons. However, no association were found between L. loa MFD and lipid profile or Hb1Ac status. There is, therefore, no reason for lipid abnormalities and diabetes to be more prevalent in the microfilaremia population than in the amicrofilaremic population, reassuring us of a possible absence of selection bias. Nevertheless, the prospect of genetic factors influencing both the presence of circulating microfilariae and the risk of cardiovascular disease remains a possible avenue for future exploration.

PWV measurements served as the primary marker of arterial stiffness. The influence of classical cardiovascular risk factors such as male sex and older age, on this marker complicated its analysis. It is crucial to employ well-defined reference values, and this could be considered a limit of this work. The only existing validated reference values for PWV pertain healthy Caucasian populations and do not seem to be adapted for our study population [18,19], and it has been established that African populations have higher PWV and blood pressure values than Caucasian populations [2022]. Therefore, we defined references from this study population using the 90th percentile of PWV in a sample of the population considered healthy for a given sex and age category. This reference may be specific to our population and further studies are needed to define real reference standards for PWV in rural Central Africa but also to confirm the association between L. loa microfilaremia and high PWV. This need is compounded by the fact that the standards for this population have been defined on a relatively small sample of subjects (see S1 Table).

The gold standard technique to define arterial stiffness in humans is carotid-femoral PWV, with carotid and femoral wave forms assessed by applanation tonometry [23]. In this study, we assessed the presence of arterial stiffness using the finger-toe PWV assessed using a pOpmètre. This alternative is easy-to-use and reliable, and has shown acceptable agreement with the reference technique [12].

Several structural and functional arterial wall changes have been described in vascular aging, as well as in pathological conditions such as hypertension or metabolic diseases. The most important is vascular fibrosis, induced by collagen deposition, elastin fragmentation or degradation, fiber damages due to advanced glycation products, or medial calcifications [24,25]. Thus, arterial stiffness emerged as a multifactorial and complex process, including endothelial dysfunction and interactions between vascular cell components, extracellular matrix, but also endocrine [26], and inflammatory factors. The only existing data concerning the potential impact of a filaria on endothelial functions concern Dirofilaria immitis, the causal agent of cardiopulmonary dirofilariosis (heartworm disease of the dog). It has been shown that infection with larvae of D. immitis could lead to peripheral pulmonary disease [27]. Moreover, when vascular human endothelial cells were cultured in the presence of antigenic extracts of D. immitis adult worms, it induced changes in pathways related to inflammation: increased synthesis of eicosanoids, decrease in endothelial permeability and expression of adhesion molecules involved in the transmigration of neutrophils and monocytes [28].

Numerous studies have investigated the association between helminth infections (Schistosoma species, STH species, Opisthorchis viverrini, Strongyloides stercoralis and O. volvulus), blood pressure and cardiovascular hemodynamics, but none concerned loiasis [28]. Of the 18 studies included in this systematic review, 56% reported no effect; furthermore, anthelmintic treatment across three studies did not demonstrate any subsequent change in blood pressure [29]. In this study population, less than 2% of the population exhibited malaria parasites in their blood and no association with arterial was observed.

Arterial stiffness is also documented in chronic inflammatory diseases [30,31]. A chronic inflammation, a mechanical effect of the mfs on the vasculature caused by high numbers of parasites passing through the vessels and/or loiasis-induced eosinophilia could induce such a phenomenon. Indeed, eosinophilia has been associated with atherosclerotic plaque formation and thrombosis [32]. It is known that a high proportion of individuals infected by L. loa do not present blood mfs and it has been shown that this condition (called “occult loiasis”), as well as the level of MFD in those who have blood mfs, are associated with a genetic familial predisposition which may involve immuno-inflammatory processes [1,33]. It should be noted that microfilaremic and amicrofilaremic subjects included in this study had similar frequencies of eyeworm episodes (42.3 vs. 35.2%, p = 0.164) and of Calabar swellings (24.9 vs. 24.8%, p = 0.961) during the last 12 months.

Certainly, the cross-sectional design falls and the lack of normative values for PWV analysis in our study population constrain the interpretability of our results. To address these limitations, further investigation is warranted to explore the long-term effects, including cardiovascular events and potential excess mortality, among the infected subjects included in this study, as well as to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanistic processes involved in ultrasound-based detection of mediacalcosis and/or atheroma. Overall, the potential cardiovascular complications associated with loiasis may contribute to the elevated mortality observed in infected individuals. This phenomenon could emerge as a significant risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in the Central African context. Furthermore, it may exacerbate the escalating socio-economic challenges related to cardiovascular health in rural Africa, particularly given the limited availability of cardiologists and healthcare infrastructure for this population.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Pulse Wave Velocity measurements.

Abbreviations: N, number of subjects in the category; MFD, microfilarial density. * Values calculated from individuals with no hypertension (defined as SBP <140 mmHg and DPB <90 mmHg), non-smokers, non-obese/in overweight and with no L. loa microfilaremia. ** Values calculated from individuals with no hypertension (defined as DPB <90 mmHg), non-smokers, non-obese/in overweight and with no L. loa microfilaremia.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin according to the PWV status.

Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; N., number; Hb1AC, glycated hemoglobin; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; NA, not applicable. * An individual is defined as out of range if its PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #1). ** Threshold at which the measurement is considered out of range: Hb1Ac >7%; Total cholesterol >5 mmol/L; Triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L; HDL <1.0 mmol/L; LDL >3.5 mmol/L; for lipid panel, measurement is considered out of range if one of the lipids is out of range. *** Chi-2 test for categorical variables with all effectives > 5 or fisher’s exact test.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin according to the PAD.

Abbreviations: PAD, peripherical arterial disease; N., number; Hb1AC, glycated hemoglobin; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; NA: not applicable. * Threshold at which the measurement is considered out of range: Hb1Ac >7%; Total cholesterol >5 mmol/L; Triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L; HDL <1.0 mmol/L; LDL >3.5 mmol/L; for lipid panel, measurement is considered out of range if one of the lipids is out of range. ** Chi-2 test for categorical variables with all effectives > 5 or fisher’s exact test.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Analysis of correlations between Loa loa microfilarial status and densities, lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin.

1 Fisher’s exact test. 2 Cramér’s V. 3 Cuzick’s test. * For lipid panel, an individual is considered out of range if at least one of the lipids is out of range (see S2 and S3 Tables).

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Distribution of the main characteristics according to Pulse Wave Velocity status (using References values #2).

Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; N, number; SD, Standard deviation; MFD, microfilarial density; IQR, interquartile range; N/A, not applicable. * Chi-2 for categorical variable and Kruskal-Wallis rank test for continuous variables. ** An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table 1 –References values #2).

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Results from logistic regression model explaining Pulse Wave Velocity status (using References values #2).

Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; bpm, beats per minute; aOR, adjusted odds-ratio; CI, confidence intervals. * An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #2).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the French Embassy in Republic of Congo. We thank the Lékoumou health district, the medical, paramedical and technical staff of the Sibiti hospital, the PNLO and IRD drivers, and the participants for agreeing to participate.

Data Availability

The anonymized data and related documentations that support the findings of this study are openly available in DataSuds repository (IRD, France) at https://doi.org/10.23708/TEM4LQ. Data reuse is granted under CC-BY license.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the European Research Council (ERC; https://erc.europa.eu/) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [grant agreement No 949963]. CBC is the carrier of this grant. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Garcia A, Abel L, Cot M, Ranque S, Richard P, Boussinesq M, et al. Longitudinal survey of Loa loa filariasis in southern Cameroon: Long-term stability and factors influencing individual microfilarial status. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995;52: 370–375. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1995.52.370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Noireau F, Pichon G. Population dynamics of Loa loa and Mansonella perstans infections in individuals living in an endemic area of the Congo. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;46: 672–676. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1992.46.672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Buell KG, Whittaker C, Chesnais CB, Jewell PD, Pion SDS, Walker M, et al. Atypical clinical manifestations of loiasis and their relevance for endemic populations. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6: 1–9. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chesnais CB, Takougang I, Paguélé M, Pion SD, Boussinesq M, et al. Excess mortality associated with loiasis: a retrospective population-based cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;17: 108–116. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30405-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hemilembolo MC, Niama AC, Campillo JT, Pion SD, Missamou F, Whittaker C, et al. Excess mortality associated with loiasis: confirmation by a new retrospective cohort study conducted in the Republic of Congo. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023;ofad103. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofad103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vlachopoulos C, Aznaouridis K, Stefanadis C. Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with arterial stiffness. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55: 1318–1327. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sequí-Domínguez I, Cavero-Redondo I, Álvarez-Bueno C, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, de Arenas-Arroyo SN, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Accuracy of pulse wave velocity predicting cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. MDPI; 2020. pp. 1–13. doi: 10.3390/jcm9072080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aboyans V, Criqui MH, Abraham P, Allison MA, Creager MA, Diehm C, et al. Measurement and interpretation of the ankle-brachial Index: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association. AHA Scientific Statement. 2012;126: 2980–2909. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318276fbcb [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tang KS, Medeiros ED, Shah AD. Wide pulse pressure: A clinical review. Journal of Clinical Hypertension. Blackwell Publishing Inc.; 2020. pp. 1960–1967. doi: 10.1111/jch.14051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ramharter M, Butler J, Mombo-Ngoma G, Nordmann T, Davi SD, Zoleko Manego R. The African eye worm: current understanding of the epidemiology, clinical disease, and treatment of loiasis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00438-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Campillo J, Bikita P, Hemilembolo M, Louya F, Missamou F, Pion S, et al. Safety and efficacy of levamisole in loiasis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75: 19–27. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Milan A, Zocaro G, Leone D, Tosello F, Buraioli I, Schiavone D, et al. Current assessment of pulse wave velocity: comprehensive review of validation studies. J Hypertens. 2019;37: 1547–1557. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alivon M, Phuong TVD, Vignon V, Bozec E, Khettab H, Hanon O, et al. A novel device for measuring arterial stiffness using finger-toe pulse wave velocity: Validation study of the pOpmètre. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;108: 227–234. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2014.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM, Schillaci G, Boutouyrie P, Segers P, Donald A, et al. ARTERY Society guidelines for validation of non-invasive haemodynamic measurement devices: Part 1, arterial pulse wave velocity. Artery Res. 2010;4: 34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.artres.2010.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gerhard-Herman MD, Gornik HL, Barrett C, Barshes NR, Corriere MA, Drachman DE, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: Executive Summary: A report of the American college of cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017. pp. e686–e725. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ben-Shlomo Y, Spears M, Boustred C, May M, Anderson SG, Benjamin EJ, et al. Aortic pulse wave velocity improves cardiovascular event prediction: An individual participant meta-analysis of prospective observational data from 17,635 subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63: 636–646. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.O’Rourke MF, Safar ME. Relationship between aortic stiffening and microvascular disease in brain and kidney: Cause and logic of therapy. Hypertension. 2005. pp. 200–204. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000168052.00426.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.van Hout MJ, Dekkers IA, Westenberg JJ, Schalij MJ, Widya RL, de Mutsert R, et al. Normal and reference values for cardiovascular magnetic resonance-based pulse wave velocity in the middle-aged general population. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 2021;23. doi: 10.1186/s12968-021-00739-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Arterial Stiffness’ Collaboration. Determinants of pulse wave velocity in healthy people and in presence of cardiovascular risk factors: “establishing normal and reference values.” European Heart Journal. 2010. pp. 2320–2322. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schutte AE, Huisman HW, Schutte R, van Rooyen JM, Malan L MN, Reimann M. Arterial stiffness profiles: investigating various sections of the arterial tree of African and Caucasian people. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2011;33: 511–7. doi: 10.3109/10641963.2011.561897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ferreira AV, Viana MC, Mill JG, Asmar RG, Cunha RS. Racial differences in aortic stiffness in normotensive and hypertensive adults. J Hypertens. 1999;17: 631–7. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199917050-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Magalhães P, Capingana DP, Silva ABT, Ferreira AVL, de Sá Cunha R, Rodrigues SL, et al. Age- and gender-specific reference values of pulse wave velocity for African adults: Preliminary results. Age (Omaha). 2013;35: 2345–2355. doi: 10.1007/s11357-012-9504-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Townsend RR, Wilkinson IB, Schiffrin EL, Avolio AP, Chirinos JA, Cockcroft JR, et al. Recommendations for improving and standardizing vascular research on arterial stiffness: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2015;66: 698–722. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lacolley P, Challande P, Regnault V, Lakatta EG, Wang M. Cellular and Molecular Determinants of Arterial Aging. Early Vascular Aging (EVA). Elsevier; 2015. pp. 7–16. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Smulyan H, Mookherjee S, Safar ME. The two faces of hypertension: Role of aortic stiffness. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2016. pp. 175–183. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2015.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Aroor AR, DeMarco VG, Jia G, Sun Z, Nistala R, Meininger GA, et al. The Role of Tissue Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in the Development of Endothelial Dysfunction and Arterial Stiffness. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2013;4. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2013.00161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Atwell RB. Early stages of disease of the peripheral pulmonary arteries in canine Dirofilariasis. Aust Vet J. 1980;56: 157–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1980.tb05668.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Morchón R, Rodríguez-Barbero A, Velasco S, López-Belmonte J, Simón F. Vascular endothelial cell activation by adult Dirofilaria immitis antigens. Parasitol Int. 2008;57: 441–446. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2008.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pham K, Mertelsmann A, Mages K, Kingery JR, Mazigo HD, Jaka H, et al. Effects of helminths and anthelmintic treatment on cardiometabolic diseases and risk factors: A systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2023;17: e0011022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Booth AD, Wallace S, McEniery CM, Yasmin, Brown J, Jayne DRW, et al. Inflammation and Arterial Stiffness in Systemic Vasculitis: A Model of Vascular Inflammation. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50: 581–588. doi: 10.1002/art.20002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mäki-Petäjä KM, Hall FC, Booth AD, Wallace SML, Yasmin, Bearcroft PWP, et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis Is Associated With Increased Aortic Pulse-Wave Velocity, Which Is Reduced by Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Therapy. Circulation. 2006;114: 1185–1192. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.601641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Marx C, Novotny J, Salbeck D, Zellner KR, Nicolai L, Pekayvaz K, et al. Eosinophil-platelet interactions promote atherosclerosis and stabilize thrombosis with eosinophil extracellular traps. Blood. 2019;134: 1859–1872. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Eyebe S, Sabbagh A, Pion SD, Nana-Djeunga HC, Kamgno J, Boussinesq M, et al. Familial aggregation and heritability of Loa loa microfilaremia. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018;66: 751–757. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix877 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011915.r001

Decision Letter 0

Subash Babu, Francesca Tamarozzi

9 Nov 2023

Dear Dr Campillo,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Association between arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia in a rural area of the Republic of Congo: a population-based cross-sectional study (the MorLo project)" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Subash Babu

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Francesca Tamarozzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: In their manuscript, the authors report the results of a study examining arterial stiffness, ankle brachial index and pulse pressure in a large cohort of patients living in an area endemic for loiasis in an effort to explain the previously described association of microfilaremic loiasis with increased mortality. The objectives are clearly stated and the study design is appropriate. Specific comments follow:

1) A better description of the amicrofilaremic controls is needed. Were they infected (i.e., history of eye worm or Calabar swellings), uninfected, or both?

2) The description of the “reference populations” is unclear. Per the explanation in the methods, the difference between reference populations is only the definition of hypertension. As such, the assignment to normal or abnormal PWV group should be identical since this is an independent measure (i.e., why are there differences in line items other than arterial pressure?).

3) Although the authors state that the study was approved by the Congolese Ethics Committee, there is no mention of whether the participants provided informed consent.

Reviewer #2: Please see the comments

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The analysis presented matches the analysis plan.

The relationship between Loa loa microfilaremia and PWV is not significant in Table 1 and demonstrated in Table 2 only for the highest mf load where >10,000 mf/mL is associated with a higher PWV. Although the Loa loa microfilaremia is associated with PAD, the way the Loa loa data is displayed in Table 3 is very difficult to follow and the logistic regression only showed a relationship in the low microfilaremia group. This seems at odds with the PWV data. The PP data, in contrast, would seem to support a relationship, but no data is given broken down by microfilarial load.

In table 2 and supplementary table 6, there are two sets of data for each variable for each reference dataset. What is the difference between the two sets?

Reviewer #2: Please see the comments

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Based on the findings (see comment in results section), the conclusion provided in the abstract that high Loa loa microfilarial load is related to cardiovascular deterioration seems overreaching.

There are some additional confounders that should be addressed in the discussion. 1) The authors point out that there no association between lipid levels and MFD. This does not exclude a role for the influence of genetic factors playing a shared role in the level of circulating microfilariae in an individual and their risk of cardiovascular disease. 2) Eosinophilia is common in loiasis, and eosinophil-platelet interactions and release of eosinophil extracellular traps have been reported to promote atherosclerosis (Marx et al. Blood 2019 among others). The potential role of eosinophils should be mentioned.

The public health relevance is not directly addressed and could be better highlighted in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: Please see the comments

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Although they bite horses, the common name for Chrysops is deerfly. Horsefly typically refers to the genus Tabanus.

If p=0.073 is at “the borderline of significance” (line 263), why does p= 0.066 indicate a lack of significance (line 278). Since neither p value is <0.05, it would be more correct to indicate that neither is significant.

On line 263, the authors state that the data in the supplemental table is similar to the data in Table 1; however, creatinine elevation is significantly different in the normal and abnormal PWV groups in the supplemental table.

There are many minor English errors that should be corrected.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: This is a novel study performed in a large cohort of patients in an area endemic for loiasis. Although the results are intriguing, the lack of sufficient information about the control population and lack of clarity in some of the data tables make it difficult to assess the overall significance of the results.

Reviewer #2: Association between arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia in a rural area of the

Republic of Congo: a population-based cross-sectional study

Jérémy T. Campillo et al examined is there any association between the density of L. loa microfilariae (mfs) in the blood with cardiovascular disease. They found that high L. loa MFD and cardiovascular health negative association which is deterioration.

Kindly mention about the consent details from study individuals under the ethical statement.

Study exclusion criteria’s should be included.

Sample size and the power calculation can be mentioned under statistical section.

Authors should include the methodology how they excluded the other helminth infection.

Flowchart for the study can be included

Did authors check for the post anthelminthic treatment effect on these cardiovascular markers. This data will improve the manuscript immensely

Did authors check for other confounding factors like Diabetes mellitus, lipid profile hypertension, etc…

Are these individuals are on treatment for cardiovascular disease? Do they have any impact on treatment?

Authors could show the comparison/ alteration of cardiac markers like NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT).

The above mentioned cardiac markers can be correlated with arterial stiffness and MFD

Discussion can be improved. Discussion regarding malaria and its impact is missing.

Study limitation and implication can be included at the end of the discussion.

--------------------

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: Yes: Anuradha Rajamanickam

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: Arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia Comments PLOSNTDs.docx

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011915.r003

Decision Letter 1

Subash Babu, Francesca Tamarozzi

8 Jan 2024

Dear Dr Campillo,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Association betweenarterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremiain a rural area of the Republic of Congo:a population-based cross-sectional study (the MorLo project)" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Subash Babu

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Francesca Tamarozzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The objectives are clearly stated and the study design is appropriate. Specific comments follow:

1) Although Table 1 helps in terms of clarifying the populations in the study, it is hard to follow and could be simplified. For example, out of range definitions and the definitions of the healthy cohorts (together with an explanation for why two separate definitions were used) would be better placed in the methods text describing the study populations.

2) Table 1 indicates 69 additional people were added. Were these microfilaremic, not microfilaremia or both?

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed most of the reviewers' comments; however, the two different sets of data in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 6 remain unexplained. Is the data in the left PWV >90th percentile "yes" and the data on the right "no"?

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: The auhtors have made the necessary corrections.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: In their manuscript, the authors report the results of a study examining arterial stiffness, ankle brachial index and pulse pressure in a large cohort of patients living in an area endemic for loiasis in an effort to explain the previously described association of microfilaremic loiasis with increased mortality.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

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: Yes: Anuradha Rajamanickam

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011915.r005

Decision Letter 2

Subash Babu, Francesca Tamarozzi

12 Jan 2024

Dear Dr Campillo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Association between arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia in a rural area of the Republic of Congo: a population-based cross-sectional study (the MorLo project)' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Subash Babu

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Francesca Tamarozzi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011915.r006

Acceptance letter

Subash Babu, Francesca Tamarozzi

16 Jan 2024

Dear Dr Campillo,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Association between arterial stiffness and Loa loamicrofilaremia in a rural area of the Republic of Congo: a population-based cross-sectional study (the MorLo project) ," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Pulse Wave Velocity measurements.

    Abbreviations: N, number of subjects in the category; MFD, microfilarial density. * Values calculated from individuals with no hypertension (defined as SBP <140 mmHg and DPB <90 mmHg), non-smokers, non-obese/in overweight and with no L. loa microfilaremia. ** Values calculated from individuals with no hypertension (defined as DPB <90 mmHg), non-smokers, non-obese/in overweight and with no L. loa microfilaremia.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin according to the PWV status.

    Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; N., number; Hb1AC, glycated hemoglobin; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; NA, not applicable. * An individual is defined as out of range if its PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #1). ** Threshold at which the measurement is considered out of range: Hb1Ac >7%; Total cholesterol >5 mmol/L; Triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L; HDL <1.0 mmol/L; LDL >3.5 mmol/L; for lipid panel, measurement is considered out of range if one of the lipids is out of range. *** Chi-2 test for categorical variables with all effectives > 5 or fisher’s exact test.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin according to the PAD.

    Abbreviations: PAD, peripherical arterial disease; N., number; Hb1AC, glycated hemoglobin; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range; HDL, high density lipoprotein; LDL, low density lipoprotein; NA: not applicable. * Threshold at which the measurement is considered out of range: Hb1Ac >7%; Total cholesterol >5 mmol/L; Triglycerides >1.7 mmol/L; HDL <1.0 mmol/L; LDL >3.5 mmol/L; for lipid panel, measurement is considered out of range if one of the lipids is out of range. ** Chi-2 test for categorical variables with all effectives > 5 or fisher’s exact test.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Analysis of correlations between Loa loa microfilarial status and densities, lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin.

    1 Fisher’s exact test. 2 Cramér’s V. 3 Cuzick’s test. * For lipid panel, an individual is considered out of range if at least one of the lipids is out of range (see S2 and S3 Tables).

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Distribution of the main characteristics according to Pulse Wave Velocity status (using References values #2).

    Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; N, number; SD, Standard deviation; MFD, microfilarial density; IQR, interquartile range; N/A, not applicable. * Chi-2 for categorical variable and Kruskal-Wallis rank test for continuous variables. ** An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table 1 –References values #2).

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Results from logistic regression model explaining Pulse Wave Velocity status (using References values #2).

    Abbreviations: PWV, pulse wave velocity; bpm, beats per minute; aOR, adjusted odds-ratio; CI, confidence intervals. * An individual is defined as out of range if his/her PWV is higher than the 90th percentile of the population considered healthy in the same age category (see S1 Table–References values #2).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Arterial stiffness and Loa loa microfilaremia Comments PLOSNTDs.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rev-PlosNTD - Loa - Stiffness - Responses .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rev2-PlosNTD - Loa - Stiffness - Responses .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The anonymized data and related documentations that support the findings of this study are openly available in DataSuds repository (IRD, France) at https://doi.org/10.23708/TEM4LQ. Data reuse is granted under CC-BY license.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES