Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2026 Oct 21;20(10):e0014013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014013

Schistosoma haematobium infection among school age children in two peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia: A cross-sectional study

Mable M Mutengo 1,*, James Mwansa 2, Kelly Chisanga 1, Emmanuel Zulu 1, Namwiinga Rozaria Mulunda 1, James Muchinga 1, Esther Rodríguez 3, Sergio Sánchez 3, Lourdes Castro 3, María J Perteguer 3,4, David Carmena 3,4, Javier Sotillo 3,*
Editor: David J Diemert5
PMCID: PMC13705608  PMID: 42905868

Abstract

Background

Schistosomiasis is one of the most prevalent neglected tropical diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, causing substantial morbidity and millions of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Although the WHO aims to eliminate schistosomiasis as a public health problem in several countries by 2030, current epidemiological data on schistosomiasis in Zambia are insufficient to adequately characterize transmission patterns, identify priority intervention areas, and inform the planning and evaluation of control programmes.

Methods

We assessed the prevalence of urogenital schistosomiasis among school-age children in two peri-urban districts of Lusaka (Chongwe and Kafue). A total of 208 participants were enrolled, and infection status was determined using urine filtration microscopy, ELISA, and quantitative PCR (qPCR).

Results

Urogenital schistosomiasis prevalence was significantly higher in Chongwe than in Kafue, as determined by both microscopy and qPCR. By microscopy, 34 of 48 positive cases (70.8%) were from Chongwe and 14 (29.2%) from Kafue (χ² = 4.82; P < 0.05). Similarly, qPCR revealed a prevalence of 73.9% in Chongwe and 27.84% in Kafue (χ² = 14.31; P < 0.01). No significant association was observed between sex and infection status. However, infection was significantly associated with age across the study population.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that urogenital schistosomiasis remains highly prevalent in the peri-urban districts of Chongwe and Kafue in Lusaka Province, Zambia, highlighting ongoing transmission and the need for strengthened surveillance and control efforts. These results provide updated information on the epidemiological situation of urogenital schistosomiasis in Zambia and will support planning and implementation within the WHO NTD agenda.

Author summary

Urogenital schistosomiasis remains a major public health problem in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, yet current epidemiological data from Zambia are limited, particularly in peri-urban communities surrounding Lusaka. In this study, we assessed the prevalence of urogenital schistosomiasis among school-age children in two peri-urban districts, Chongwe and Kafue, using complementary parasitological, serological, and molecular diagnostic methods. We found significantly higher infection levels in Chongwe than in Kafue, with quantitative PCR (qPCR) detecting substantially more infections than conventional urine microscopy. Infection was also significantly associated with age but not sex. These findings indicate that urogenital schistosomiasis remains actively transmitted and that reliance on microscopy alone may underestimate the true burden of infection. Our study provides current epidemiological evidence that can inform surveillance, guide targeted control interventions, and support ongoing efforts to eliminate schistosomiasis as a public health problem in Zambia.

Introduction

Schistosomiasis is a chronic, often debilitating disease, caused by various trematodes of the genus Schistosoma [1]. It is estimated that, worldwide, more than 250 million people are infected with Schistosoma spp., 90% of whom live in Africa [2]. Furthermore, these parasites cause tens to hundreds of thousands of direct deaths annually [3], while near 800 million people live in high-risk areas and over 250 million people required preventive chemotherapy in 2021 [2,4]. The Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 estimates that schistosomiasis accounts for 1.9 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide [5], although a previous meta-analysis study suggested a severalfold higher burden [6]. Of the six species that can infect humans, Schistosoma haematobium causes over half of all infections, leading to urogenital schistosomiasis and various health issues, including urinary and genital disorders [1,2]. Notably, urogenital schistosomiasis has been linked to squamous cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. Indeed, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies S. haematobium as a Group 1 carcinogen [7,8].

Infection with S. haematobium occurs when the cercariae released from the snail intermediate host penetrate the skin of the human host, losing their tail and transforming into schistosomula [1]. After entering the venous blood vessels, the schistosomula are transported to the lungs, then to the heart, reaching the arterial circulation and finally migrating to the venous plexuses around the urinary bladder. Once there, females will produce and shed thousands of eggs daily, which pass through the bladder wall, and are excreted in the urine. However, a proportion of the eggs become trapped within the bladder, ureters, and genital tract where they induce granulomatous inflammation and other host immune responses that are responsible for much of the disease pathology. Eggs that reach freshwater hatch into miracidia, which subsequently infect snails of the genus Bulinus, the intermediate hosts of S. haematobium.

Although both intestinal and urinary schistosomiasis are endemic in all 10 provinces of Zambia, the most prevalent species is S. haematobium [9]. Higher prevalences are usually found in rural districts near rivers and lakes [10], although schistosomiasis is also prevalent in many peri-urban areas due to poor water supply infrastructure [11]. For instance, the overall prevalence of schistosomiasis in children between ages of 5 and 17 years in a peri-urban area outside Lusaka, reported in the early 2010s, was 20.7% [11], whereas studies conducted in the 2000s in other areas from the Siavonga and Lusaka districts reported prevalence rates ranging from 8% to 12% [12]. However, most epidemiological studies have employed microscopy as the reference diagnostic method, which has reduced sensitivity, particularly for detecting low-intensity infections, and may therefore underestimate the true burden of disease [9,12]. A recently published meta-analysis showed that prevalence of schistosomiasis by S. haematobium declined between 1990–2010, most likely due to diagnostic and treatment efforts from the Zambian Bilharzia Control Programme (ZBCP), but has significantly increased in the last decade, which was attributed to a lack of monitoring and implementation of surveillance programs [9,13]. Despite several epidemiological surveys conducted during the early 2000s, current epidemiological data on schistosomiasis in Zambia remain limited, restricting evidence-based disease mapping, identification of priority intervention areas, and evaluation of schistosomiasis control programmes. This has led to inefficient coverage of Mass Drug Administration (MDA) interventions and increase of other diseases such as HIV, which has been associated to schistosome infection in urban and peri-urban areas of Lusaka [14].

In the present study, we conducted an epidemiological survey in two different peri-urban areas of Lusaka Province: Chongwe and Kafue, selected on the basis of historical mapping studies that identified them as high-transmission areas (>50% and near 90% prevalence in Chongwe and Kafue, respectively) [15]. Given the limited sensitivity of urine microscopy, particularly in low-intensity infections, quantitative PCR (qPCR) was incorporated to improve the detection of S. haematobium. A serological assay was also employed to assess previous exposure to Schistosoma spp. and provide complementary information on population-level exposure. For this purpose, an in-house ELISA using a recombinant S. haematobium antigen (Sh-TSP-2)was employed rather than the more traditional soluble egg antigen (SEA), since SEA is a crude, poorly standardised antigen preparation that is well documented to cross-react with other helminth infections and is costly and difficult to produce consistently across laboratories, whereas defined recombinant antigens allow for a reproducible reagent with improved specificity [16]. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of urogenital schistosomiasis and characterize infection patterns among school-age children in two peri-urban districts of Lusaka Province, addressing an important gap in the current epidemiological evidence on schistosomiasis in Zambia.

Methods

Ethics statement

The research was approved by the Levy Mwanawasa Medical University Research Ethics Committee (LMMU-REC 000054/23) and the authority to conduct research was obtained from the National Health Research Authority (NHRA0001/23/04/2023). Prior to commencement of the study, permission was also sought from the Lusaka Province Health office and the Ministry of Education. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participating children, and assent was obtained from the children themselves when appropriate. Participation was entirely voluntary, and care was taken to ensure that children and their guardians understood that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequence. The confidentiality and privacy of all participants were rigorously protected. All infected participants were treated with praziquantel (40mg/kg body weight) according to national treatment guidelines.

Study area and population

The study was conducted in two peri-urban regions of Lusaka Province namely Chongwe and Kafue Districts (Fig 1). Chongwe District is located 40 kilometres east of Lusaka city, the capital city of Zambia. The district has a population of 313,389 inhabitants with most of its residents engaged in farming and livestock rearing. Chongwe District is traversed by the Chongwe River, which is a key water source for both domestic use and agriculture for most households. However, the river and its tributaries also pose a risk for waterborne diseases such as schistosomiasis.

Fig 1. Map of the Chongwe and Kafue Districts in Lusaka Province showing the location of the sampled primary schools.

Fig 1

The base layer of the map was obtained from https://gadm.org/maps.html. The GADM data is freely available for academic and non-commercial use and is compatible with the CC BY 4.0 license.

Kafue District is situated in the Southern part of Lusaka Province at the tip of Lusaka District and is located 45 kilometres away from the capital city, Lusaka. It has a population of 220,000 inhabitants. The district shares borders with Chongwe District to the northeast and Lusaka (urban) to the North, while its southwestern part borders Mazabuka and Chirundu districts. Kafue district has two major rivers, the Kafue and the Zambezi River running through the district with a sizable number of perennial rivers. This abundance of water creates several pockets of recreational water bodies where children go to swim and can become infected with bilharzia. Most of the district population is settled along the Zambezi and Kafue River where agriculture and fishing are important livelihood activities.

The minimum sample size was determined using the single population proportion formula. An expected prevalence of 10% was assumed based on a previous study of S. haematobium among children in Lusaka and Siavonga Districts, Zambia [12]. A 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 5% were used, yielding an initial sample size of 139 participants. Because participants were recruited from two study sites, a design effect of 1.5 was applied to account for potential clustering within sites, resulting in a target sample size of 208 participants. Participants were school-age children who were selected using a systematic random sampling method. They were recruited from two schools in Chongwe namely Evergreen and Shiyala basic schools and Kafue District namely Chanyanya and Mungu Basic Schools (Fig 1). The GPS coordinates of the four participating schools were as follows: Evergreen Primary School (15.2672°S, 28.64602°E) and Shiyala Primary School (15.2921°S, 28.66161°E) in Chongwe District; Chanyanya Primary School (15.6535°S, 28.03168°E) and Mungu Primary School (15.6971°S, 28.11493°E) in Kafue District. On the day of sampling, all eligible school-age children present at each participating school were assembled. The sampling interval (k) was calculated as the ratio of the number of eligible children present (N) to the required sample size (n). Following a random starting point, every kth eligible child was selected until the required sample size was attained [17].

Parasitological and biochemical analysis

A single urine sample was collected from each of the recruited participants and analysed for visible haematuria, microscopic leukocytes, biochemistry protein parameters and presence of S. haematobium eggs. Visible haematuria was assessed macroscopically, while microhaematuria, urinary leukocyte esterase, and urinary protein were assessed using Multistix 10 SG reagent strips (Bayer, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Results were recorded semi-quantitatively as negative, trace, 1+, 2+, or 3+. For microscopy detection of S. haematobium, the urine filtration method was used. Briefly, each urine sample was vigorously mixed and 10 ml was drawn into a syringe and passed through a nucleopore membrane filter, with a pore size of 20 μm [18]. The filter was then placed onto a microscope slide and examined under 10x and 40×objective lenses for the presence of S. haematobium eggs. The eggs were counted manually, and infection load was recorded as the number of eggs per 10 ml of urine.

ELISA.

The recombinant protein Sh-TSP-2 was expressed and purified as described previously [16]. In brief, E. coli BL21(DE3) harbouring the protein-encoding plasmid was cultured overnight at 37°C with agitation at 200 rpm in 10 ml of Luria broth supplemented with 50 μg/ml kanamycin (LBkan). Subsequently, the overnight culture was inoculated (1/100) into 500 ml of fresh LBkan and grown at 37°C with shaking until reaching an OD600 of 0.5–1.0. Protein expression was induced by adding 1 mM isopropyl beta-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) and allowing the culture to incubate for an additional 24 h. After induction, cells were harvested by centrifugation at 8,000 g for 20 minutes at 4°C, then resuspended in 50 ml of lysis buffer (50 mM sodium phosphate pH 8, 40 mM imidazole, 300 mM NaCl), and subjected to three cycles of freeze/thawing followed by sonication at 4°C. The bacterial lysate was then centrifuged at 20,000 g for 20 min at 4°C, and the resulting supernatant was collected and stored at –80°C.

Recombinant proteins were purified using an ÄKTA Pure UPC FPLC system (GE Healthcare, IL, USA) equipped with Ni2+ immobilized metal ion affinity chromatography (IMAC) at 4°C. For this, the recombinant protein solutions were diluted 1:4 in lysis buffer, filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane, and loaded onto a 1 ml His-Trap IMAC column (GE Healthcare) pre-equilibrated with lysis buffer at a flow rate of 1 ml/min. Bound proteins were washed with 10 column volumes of lysis buffer, followed by elution with a linear gradient of imidazole (100–500 mM) in lysis buffer. Fractions containing the highest purity of the target protein were pooled and subjected to buffer exchange into PBS using an Amicon Ultra-15 centrifugal filter with a 3 kDa molecular weight cut-off. The identity of the purified proteins was confirmed through SDS-PAGE and Western blot analysis utilizing anti-His monoclonal antibodies (Invitrogen, CA, USA).

Nunc MicroWell 96-Well Medisorp Microplates (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA, USA) were coated overnight at 4°C with a solution containing 2 μg/ml of Sh-TSP-2 in 0.1 M Na2CO3/NaHCO3 buffer at pH 9.6. The following day, the plates were washed with PBS-Tween-20 at 0.05% (PBST) and blocked for 2 h at room temperature with 100 μl of PBST/5% skimmed milk powder. Following blocking, 50 μl of urine (diluted 1:10 in PBST) were added to the respective wells and allowed to incubate overnight at 4°C. The following day, the plates were washed with PBST and subsequently incubated for 1 h at room temperature with 100 μl of goat anti-human IgG-HRP (Sigma, MA, USA) diluted to 1:5,000 in PBST. After another round of washing with PBST, the plates were developed using 3,3′,5,5′-Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), and the reaction was halted with 0.5 M sulfuric acid. The absorbance was measured at a wavelength of 492 nm using a Multiskan FC (Thermo Fisher Scientific) microplate reader.

DNA extraction and real-time PCR

DNA was extracted using the Quick-DNA Urine Kit (Zymo Research, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, 280 μl of Urine Conditioning Buffer was added to 4 ml of urine, followed by the addition of 10 μl of Clearing Beads. The samples were, then, mixed and centrifuged at 3,000 g for 15 min. Subsequently, the Tough-to-Lyse Samples protocol was followed. The urine supernatant was decanted, leaving behind 200 μl of pellet. The pellet was transferred to a ZR BashingBead Lysis Tube (0.1 & 0.5 mm), and 600 μl of BashingBead Buffer was added. The mixture was vortexed in a Vortex-Genie 2 mixer for 5 min at maximum speed. Tubes were then centrifuged at 10,000 g for 1 min, and 400 μl of the sample was applied to a Zymo-Spin III-F Filter and centrifuged again at 10,000 g for 1 min. Following this, 1,200 μl of Genomic Lysis Buffer was added to the flow-through, and the mixture was centrifuged through a Zymo-Spin IC-S Column. The column was washed successively with 200 μl of Urine DNA Prep Buffer, and 700 μL and 200 μl of Urine DNA Wash Buffer. The columns were then transferred to clean 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tubes, and DNA was eluted by adding 50 µl of deionized molecular biology-grade water directly to the column matrix, followed by centrifugation at 14,000 g for 1 min. DNA concentration and purity were estimated using a Nanodrop One spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) as a routine quality‑control measure following DNA extraction.

Reactions targeting the Dra1 tandem repeat [19] were performed in duplicate as follows: 20 µl reactions contained 5 μl of DNA, 10 μl of Quantimix easy kit (Biotools, Madrid, Spain), 1 ul of PrimeTime standard qPCR Assay that included 500 nM of primers Fwd (5´–GATCTCACCTATCAGACGAA–3´) and Rv (5´–TCACAACGATACGACCAAC–3´) each and 300 nM of probe (FAM- TGTTGGTGGAAGTGCCTGTTTCGCAA-IowaBlack Fluorescent Quencher). To monitor for PCR inhibition and reduce the risk of false-negative results, an internal amplification control (IAC) targeting the human 18S rRNA gene was multiplexed into each reaction. 18S H. sapiens assay included 500 nM of primers Fwd (5´–GACGGTATCTGATCGTCTTC–3´) and Rv (5´–GAGCCGCCTGGATACCGC-3´) each and 300 nM of probe (HEX-TCGCTCTGGTCCGTCTTG -IowaBlack Fluorescent Quencher). This 18S internal amplification control (IAC) is used routinely in our laboratory at the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) for both urine and blood/serum samples as part of our standard diagnostic and research workflow; its performance is therefore well established through routine laboratory use rather than through study-specific titration or optimisation experiments. Samples were considered positive for S. haematobium when the Dra1 target amplified with a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤ 40; as a quality-control measure, samples yielding Ct values above 35 were subjected to more detailed scrutiny and were repeated to confirm the amplification signal before being reported as positive; successful amplification of the 18S IAC in each reaction confirmed the absence of significant PCR inhibition. Extraction blanks and qPCR blanks were used as control for cut-off calculation. A Thermocycler (Rotor Gene Q, Qiagen, Germany) setting consisted of an initial step of 2 min at 95°C followed by 45 cycles of 15 s at 95°C and 60 s at 60°C.

Statistical analysis

The prevalence of infection and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an in-house Python script, incorporating the Z-value for a 95% confidence level (https://github.com/JavierSotillo/Scripts/blob/main/Prevalence_CI_Calculator.py). All other statistical tests were performed using GraphPad Prism v 10.2. Associations between infection status and categorical variables (district, sex, and age group) were assessed using the Chi-square test. To calculate the correlation between age and the number of Schistosoma eggs in infected children, a Spearman correlation test was performed. To compare the mean age of male and female participants, as well as the median number of eggs in each location, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was employed. P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant.

Ct values were not systematically recorded as a continuous variable for all samples; qPCR results were therefore treated as a binary outcome (positive/negative) based on the pre-specified Ct ≤ 40 cut-off described above, and intensity-based comparisons between qPCR and egg counts were not performed. Because no single test can serve as a true gold standard for S. haematobium infection given the imperfect sensitivity of microscopy and the imperfect specificity of ELISA and qPCR, diagnostic performance was additionally assessed against a composite reference standard (CRS) as described previously [20,21]. Participants were classified as infected by the CRS if they had a positive microscopy result, or, among microscopy-negative participants, if at least two of the remaining three index tests (microhaematuria, ELISA, qPCR) were concordantly positive. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each of the four index tests against the CRS, with 95% CI calculated using the normal (Wald) approximation.

Results

Demographic and biochemical characteristics of the study participants

A total of 208 participants from Chongwe and Kafue districts were enrolled into the study (111 from Chongwe and 97 from Kafue) (S1 Table). From these, a total of 99 were females and 109 were males, and their mean age was 10.29 ± 2.95 and 10.83 ± 2.79, respectively (Table 1). No significant difference between the males and females in terms of age was found (P = 0.184). From the 111 participants enrolled in the Chongwe district, a total of 55 were females and 56 were males, and their mean age was 11.58 ± 2.99 and 11.96 ± 2.77, respectively (Table 1). Furthermore, from the 97 participants enrolled in the Kafue district, a total of 44 were females and 53 were males, and their mean age was 8.68 ± 1.96 and 9.62 ± 2.27, respectively (Table 1). Mean age differences were statistically significant in the case of Kafue district (P < 0.05).

Table 1. Number of male and female and mean age of children enrolled in the study. Asterisks (*) denote significancy (P < 0.05).

District Females

(% of the total)
Males

(% of the total)
Female Mean Age

(mean ± SD)
Male Mean Age

(mean ± SD)
Chongwe 55 (49.55%) 56 (50.45%) 11.58 ± 2.99 11.96 ± 2.77
Kafue 44 (45.36%) 53 (54.64%) 8.68 ± 1.96 * 9.62 ± 2.27 *
TOTAL 99 (47.60%) 109 (52.40%) 10.29 ± 2.95 10.83 ± 2.79

Urinary biochemical findings

Visible haematuria was observed in only 22 (10.6%) from the total participants, whereas 53 participants (25.5%) were positive for microhaematuria by Multistix 10 SG. From these, 3 of them showed traces, and 16, 13 and 21 were categorized as 1 + , 2+ and 3 + based on the band intensities (S1 Table).

Leukocyte positivity was included as a non‑specific indicator of urinary tract inflammation to contextualize haematuria findings and was not interpreted as a marker of S. haematobium infection per se. Leukocytes were detected in the urine of 40 participants (19.23%), with intensities varying from trace (7 participants), 1+ (26 participants), 2+ (6 participants) and 3+ (1 participant). Only 29 of these leukocyte positive participants also showed microhaematuria (S1 Table).

District-level variation in S. haematobium infection across diagnostic methods

The prevalence of S. haematobium infection differed between districts across all diagnostic methods used (Table 2). By microscopy, infection was detected in 48 of 208 children, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 23.1% (95% CI: 17.3–28.8). A higher proportion of infections was observed in Chongwe district (34/48, 70.8%) compared to Kafue district (14/48, 29.2%), with a statistically significant association between infection status and district location (χ2 = 4.82; P < 0.05). qPCR identified 109 positive cases, corresponding to a prevalence of 52.4% (95% CI: 45.6–59.2). Prevalence was significantly higher in Chongwe district (73.9%, 95% CI: 65.7–82.1) than in Kafue district (27.84%, 95% CI: 18.92–36.75) (χ2 = 14.31; P < 0.01).

Table 2. Prevalence of Schistosoma haematobium infection in Chongwe and Kafue districts determined by microscopy. qPCR. and serology (ELISA). with associations to geographic location. Asterisks (*) denote significancy (P < 0.05).

District No. examined (%) Microscopy qPCR ELISA
No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI) No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI) No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI)
Chongwe 111 (53.36) 34 30.63 (22.06-39.21) 82 73.87 (65.70-82.05) 51 45.95 (36.67-55.22)
Kafue 97 (46.34) 14 14.43 (7.44-21.43) 27 27.84 (18.92-36.75) 49 50.52 (40.57-60.47)
Difference (χ 2 . P-value) – – χ2 =4.82 P < 0.05 * – χ2 =14.31 P < 0.01 * – χ2 =0.15 P =0.69
Overall 208 (100) 48 23.08 (17.35-28.80) 109 52.40 (45.62-59.19) 100 48.08 (41.29-54.87)

In contrast, ELISA detected 100 positive cases, corresponding to an overall prevalence of 48.1% (95% CI: 41.3–54.9). Prevalence did not differ significantly between Chongwe (45.9%, 95% CI: 36.7–55.2) and Kafue district (50.5%, 95% CI: 40.6–60.5) (χ2 = 0.15; P = 0.69).

Among microscopy-positive participants, the median egg count was 54.5 eggs per 10 ml of urine (95% CI: 45.0–79.0), with no significant difference between districts. No significant correlation was observed between age and egg count (Spearman’s ρ = -0.016, P = 0.904).

District-level differences in the influence of sex and age on Schistosoma infection

When analysing microscopy results by sex, out of the 48 schistosomiasis positive children, 31 (14.9%; 95% CI = 10.1–19.7) were males and 17 (8.2%; 95% CI = 4.5–11.9) were females. As expected, higher prevalences were observed among males (29.8%; 95% CI = 23.6–36.0) than females (22.6%; 95% CI = 16.9–28.3) by qPCR and ELISA (26.0%; 95% CI = 20.0–31.9 and 22.1%; 95% CI = 16.5–27.7). However, no significant association between Schistosoma positivity and sex was observed (Table 3).

Table 3. Prevalence of Schistosoma haematobium infection in Chongwe and Kafue districts determined by microscopy, qPCR, and serology (ELISA). with associations to sex.

Sex No.

examined (%)
Microscopy qPCR ELISA
No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI) No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI) No. positive % Prevalence (95% CI)
Overall 208 (100) 48 23.08 (17.35-28.80) 109 52.40 (45.62-59.19) 100 48.08 (41.29-54.87)
 Female 99 (47.60) 17 8.17 (4.45-11.90) 47 22.60 (16.91-28.28) 46 22.12 (16.48-27.66)
 Male 109 (52.40) 31 14.90 (10.06-19.74) 62 29.81 (23.59-36.02) 54 25.96 (20-31.92)
 Difference (χ2. P-value) – – χ2 = 2.33. P = 0.12 – χ2 = 0.57. P = 0.44 – χ2 =0.06. P =0.79
Chongwe 111 (100) 34 30.63 (22.06-39.21) 82 73.87 (65.70-82.05) 51 45.95 (36.67-55.22)
 Female 55 (49.54) 14 12.61 (6.44-18.79) 38 34.23 (25.41-43.06) 25 22.52 (14.75-30.29)
 Male 56 (50.45) 20 18.02 (10.87-25.17) 44 39.64 (30.54-48.74) 26 23.42 (15.54-31.30)
 Difference (χ2. P-value) – – χ2 = 0.73. P = 0.39 – χ2 = 0.19. P = 0.66 – χ2 =0.003. P =0.95
Kafue 97 (100) 14 14.43 (7.44-21.43) 27 27.84 (18.92-36.75) 49 50.52 (40.57-60.47)
 Female 44 (45.36) 3 3.09 (-0.35-6.54) 9 9.28 (3.50-15.05) 21 21.65 (13.45-29.85)
 Male 53 (54.64) 11 11.34 (5.03-17.65) 18 18.56 (10.82-26.29) 28 28.87 (19.85-37.88)
 Difference (χ2. P-value) – – χ2 = 2.82. P = 0.09 – χ2 = 1.2. P = 0.26 – χ2 =0.08. P = 0.77

Similar results were observed when analysing microscopy results by sex and location. Among the 111 participants in Chongwe, 34 were positive for S. haematobium eggs (20 males and 14 females) (Table 3). Interestingly, among the 97 participants from Kafue, 14 were positive by microscopy (11 males and only 3 females). However, no statistically significant difference in the proportion of S. haematobium egg-positive cases between males and females was observed in either Chongwe or Kafue (Table 3). Based on the microscopy results, the overall median egg count among all positive children was 54.5 (95% CI: 45.0–79.0) corresponding to a median of 56 (95% CI: 36–107) for males and of 49 (95% CI: 43.0 to 103.0) for females. No significant difference between the median number of eggs between males and females was observed (P = 0.7448).

Similarly, among the 82 qPCR-positive children from Chongwe (n = 111), 44 were males and 38 females, while in Kafue, 18 males (66.7%) and 9 (33.3%) females were positive out of 97 participants (Table 3). In the case of ELISA, similar prevalences were observed for males and females in both districts (22.5–23.4% and 21.7–28.9%, respectively). No significant association between Schistosoma infection and sex was observed within individual districts when prevalence was analysed by qPCR or ELISA.

A statistically significant association between age and S. haematobium infection (upon qPCR results) was identified across both study locations (P < 0.0001). The mean age of infected children was 11.52 ± 2.97 years, compared to 9.81 ± 2.48 years among uninfected children. This trend was also evident in Kafue (p < 0.05), where the mean age of infected children was 10.32 ± 2.86 years, versus 8.95 ± 1.89 years for those uninfected. However, no significant age-related difference was observed in Chongwe.

Diagnostic performance against a composite reference standard

To further evaluate the performance of each diagnostic test, participants were classified as infected using a composite reference standard (CRS) combining microscopy, microhaematuria, ELISA and qPCR. Using this approach, 80 of 208 participants (38.5%) were classified as infected. Against this CRS, qPCR showed the highest sensitivity (98.8%, 95% CI: 96.3–100.0) but comparatively lower specificity (76.6%, 95% CI: 69.2–83.9), while microscopy showed the highest specificity and PPV (both 100%) but the lowest sensitivity among the four tests (60.0%, 95% CI: 49.3–70.7). ELISA showed intermediate sensitivity (73.8%, 95% CI: 64.1–83.4) and specificity (68.0%, 95% CI: 59.9–76.1), while microhaematuria showed high specificity (98.4%, 95% CI: 96.3–100.0) but moderate sensitivity (63.7%, 95% CI: 53.2–74.3) (Table 4).

Table 4. Diagnostic performance of microscopy, qPCR, ELISA and Multistix 10 SG (microhaematuria) for the detection of Schistosoma haematobium infection, using a composite reference standard.

Method % Sensitivity (95% CI) % Specificity (95% CI) % PPV (95% CI) % NPV (95% CI)
Microscopy 60.0 (49.3–70.7) 100.0 (–) 100.0 (–) 80.0 (73.8–86.2)
qPCR 98.8 (96.3–100.0) 76.6 (69.2–83.9) 72.5 (64.1–80.9) 99.0 (97.0–100.0)
ELISA 73.8 (64.1–83.4) 68.0 (59.9–76.1) 59.0 (49.4–68.6) 80.6 (73.1–88.0)
Haemastix (microhaematuria) 63.7 (53.2–74.3) 98.4 (96.3–100.0) 96.2 (91.1–100.0) 81.3 (75.2–87.4)

Discussion

Urogenital schistosomiasis continues to pose a substantial public health challenge in Zambia, and reliable, up-to-date prevalence data are essential to guide the strategic deployment of MDA programmes and to track progress toward the WHO’s 2030 targets for NTD elimination [22]. To contribute to this effort, we assessed the prevalence of urogenital schistosomiasis in two peri-urban districts of Lusaka Province (Chongwe and Kafue) using different diagnostic approaches. Our findings show that, overall, the qPCR approach identified a higher prevalence (52.4%; 95% CI: 45.6–59.2) than conventional microscopy (23.1%; 95% CI: 17.3–28.8). This aligns with previous studies, as qPCR is widely recognized for its superior diagnostic performance over microscopy, particularly due to its ability to detect low-intensity infections and trace amounts of parasite DNA that may be missed by traditional parasitological methods [23,24]. Here, trace amounts of parasite DNA refer to cell-free or fragmented Schistosoma genomic DNA that may be present in urine independently of visible, intact eggs, for example released from adult worms residing in the perivesical venous plexus, or from eggs degrading within the bladder or ureteral wall without being fully excreted; because qPCR amplifies short target sequences rather than requiring a morphologically identifiable egg, it can detect infection even when egg output is too low or irregular to be captured by urine filtration microscopy. In contrast, ELISA yielded a slightly lower prevalence relative to qPCR (48.1%; 95% CI: 41.3–54.9), consistent with its role as a marker of past or cumulative exposure rather than a direct measure of current infection intensity. Furthermore, ELISA seroprevalence exceeded the prevalence indicated by microscopy across both districts, which is expected given that this assay detects antibodies generated in response to past or current exposure to Schistosoma spp., rather than active infection per se. Anti-schistosome antibodies can persist in serum for several months, and in some cases longer, after successful treatment, limiting the ability of ELISA alone to distinguish between past exposure and current active infection [25–27]. This distinction is particularly relevant in Kafue district, where ELISA seroprevalence was proportionally high relative to the comparatively low infection rates detected by microscopy and qPCR. According to the National NTD programme at the Zambian Ministry of Health, the last countrywide MDA campaign, which included both Chongwe and Kafue districts, was conducted in 2020. Residual antibody responses from this campaign, together with any subsequent, non-MDA anthelminthic treatment (e.g., for other helminth infections) or ongoing low-level transmission, may therefore contribute to the relatively high ELISA seroprevalence observed in both districts (including in Kafue, where current parasitological and molecular positivity was comparatively low). Accordingly, ELISA results in this study should be interpreted as an indicator of cumulative population-level exposure to Schistosoma spp. rather than a direct measure of current infection status, complementing rather than duplicating the parasitological and molecular findings. By “cumulative” exposure, we mean that a positive ELISA result reflects the total history of antigenic stimulation from Schistosoma spp. antigens, rather than the presence of a currently patent infection: because IgG antibodies against Sh-TSP-2 can persist for many months to years after the parasite itself is no longer present, ELISA cannot distinguish whether a positive signal arises from a recently acquired infection or one cleared long ago; both contribute to the same measurable antibody response.

Because reliance on a single reference test can bias estimates of diagnostic accuracy, particularly given the known limitations of microscopy for detecting low-intensity infections and of ELISA for distinguishing past from current exposure, we additionally evaluated test performance against a CRS integrating microscopy, microhaematuria, ELISA and qPCR. Consistent with its high analytical sensitivity for detecting parasite DNA, qPCR showed the highest sensitivity against the CRS (98.8%), in line with previous studies using the same Dra1-based assay, which similarly reported qPCR detecting substantially more infections than microscopy while showing comparatively lower specificity against combined reference standards [24]. This sensitivity–specificity trade-off is consistent with recent large-scale diagnostic accuracy studies concluding that no single test performs optimally across all settings, and that combining diagnostic approaches improves overall accuracy [28]. qPCR’s comparatively lower specificity (76.6%) suggests the assay may also detect residual or non-viable parasite DNA in individuals not currently harbouring an active infection, consistent with reports of prolonged real-time PCR positivity in urine for many months after successful praziquantel treatment [29]. Although samples with Ct values above 35 were subjected to repeat testing to confirm the amplification signal (see Methods), we cannot fully rule out that some qPCR-positive results in this higher Ct range reflect trace or non-specific amplification rather than robust evidence of active infection, in the absence of a standard curve for quantitative interpretation. These findings are consistent with the expected hierarchy of analytical sensitivity among the three diagnostic approaches used in this study, namely microscopy < ELISA < qPCR: microscopy requires the presence of intact, excreted eggs; ELISA detects an antibody response that develops only after sufficient antigenic stimulus; whereas qPCR can detect trace amounts of parasite DNA independently of egg excretion, giving it the highest analytical sensitivity of the three methods. Microscopy retained the highest specificity and PPV, consistent with its established role as a highly specific, if insensitive, parasitological method. Because each test contributes to the CRS itself, these estimates are subject to incorporation bias, most evidently for microscopy, whose specificity and PPV are inflated toward 100% by construction, and should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive measures of absolute diagnostic accuracy. Incorporation bias may also arise from the inclusion of ELISA among the four index tests contributing to the CRS: because ELISA cannot distinguish between past and current infection, its concordance with one other positive index test could classify some participants with only past exposure as CRS-positive, which may inflate the apparent sensitivity, and/or deflate the apparent specificity, of the remaining tests (particularly qPCR and microhaematuria) to an extent that cannot be precisely quantified with the present data. Nonetheless, these findings reinforce the complementary value of combining parasitological, molecular and serological approaches to accurately characterise S. haematobium infection status in this population.

Interestingly, a significant association was observed between age and infection status among the studied children. Overall, the mean age of infected children was 11.52 ± 2.97 years, compared to 9.81 ± 2.48 years among uninfected children. In Kafue specifically, mean ages were 10.32 ± 2.86 years and 8.95 ± 1.89 years for infected and uninfected participants, respectively. The influence of age on Schistosoma infection has been well documented [30–32]. For example, Lamberti et al. reported that Schistosoma spp. infections peaked at ages 11–12 in Uganda [32], while a meta-analysis on S. mansoni risk factors identified the 13–16 age group as highest risk, followed by 10–12 years [31]. Additionally, older participants may have developed partial acquired immunity, which influences infection dynamics and shapes the age–intensity curves observed for S. haematobium [33]. In addition to antibody persistence, the role of treatment-induced immune responses should also be considered when interpreting these findings. While Praziquantel is effective in eliminating adult worms, parasite death results in the release of schistosome antigens that can stimulate host immune responses and contribute to the development of partial protective immunity against reinfection [34]. Consequently, infection patterns observed in endemic communities likely reflect a combination of cumulative water exposure, naturally acquired immunity, and previous treatment history.

Both microscopy and qPCR analyses also revealed a statistically significant association between geographic location and the prevalence of urogenital schistosomiasis. Prevalence rates were markedly higher in Chongwe compared to Kafue (30.6% vs. 14.4% by microscopy; 73.9% vs. 27.8% by qPCR), with differences reaching statistical significance (P < 0.05). These findings suggest that the observed disparity in infection rates between the two districts is unlikely due to chance and instead reflects distinct schistosomiasis risk profiles. In Zambia, schistosomiasis is typically more prevalent in rural areas located near water bodies such as rivers and lakes [10]. However, peri-urban regions are also affected, largely due to inadequate water infrastructure [11]. For instance, in a peri-urban community near Lusaka, the infection rate among children aged 5–17 years was reported at 20.7% [11], while other locations within the Siavonga and Lusaka districts showed prevalence rates ranging from 8% to 12% [12]. In both Chongwe and Kafue, transmission among school-age children is likely driven primarily by recreational water contact, such as swimming and playing in infested water bodies, and to a lesser extent by domestic activities including bathing, washing, and collecting water. Interestingly, previous studies conducted in these same districts also reported a higher prevalence of the zoonotic protozoan Cryptosporidium parvum among schoolchildren in Chongwe than in Kafue [35], suggesting that environmental and behavioural factors may similarly influence the transmission of multiple waterborne parasitic diseases [35].

We acknowledge that the current literature on Schistosoma hybridisation requires careful, balanced interpretation. We define hybrids here as offspring resulting from interbreeding between S. haematobium and closely related species within the S. haematobium group, which can arise both through recent, ongoing hybridisation events and through ancient introgression whose genomic signatures persist in present-day populations without necessarily reflecting active, contemporary zoonotic transmission [36]. Indeed, large-scale genomic analyses of West African S. haematobium populations have found evidence of ancient introgression from S. bovis but no clear signal of ongoing hybridisation, cautioning against interpreting the presence of hybrid genetic markers alone as evidence of an active zoonotic reservoir. For Zambia specifically, S. bovis and S. curassoni are not known to occur, and the livestock-associated species of greatest relevance in this region is S. mattheei, which has been confirmed to hybridise with S. haematobium in neighbouring Malawi, with limited but growing evidence of zoonotic spill-over from cattle [37]. However, very few animals in the region have been confirmed infected with S. haematobium or S. haematobium-mattheei hybrids, and substantial uncertainty remains regarding the extent, direction, and epidemiological significance of zoonotic transmission in this part of southern Africa. These considerations underscore the importance of incorporating a One Health perspective, including molecular surveillance of livestock reservoirs and intermediate snail hosts, into future schistosomiasis control and elimination strategies in Zambia.

This study presents several limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the findings and drawing conclusions. Firstly, the survey was restricted to school-age children in only two districts of Lusaka Province, which may limit the generalizability of the prevalence to the broader Zambian context. Second, the cross-sectional study design did not permit assessment of temporal changes in infection prevalence, seasonal variation in transmission, or reinfection patterns. Finally, although microscopy, ELISA, and qPCR were used as complementary diagnostic approaches, each method has inherent strengths and limitations. Consequently, differences in diagnostic performance should be considered when comparing prevalence estimates across methods. Additionally, no standard curve was included in the qPCR assay, which limits our ability to formally assess amplification efficiency and to interpret very high Ct values quantitatively; future studies should incorporate a standard curve to allow proper quality control of the assay and clearer interpretation of high-Ct results.

In conclusion, this study provides current epidemiological evidence that urogenital schistosomiasis remains highly prevalent among school-age children in the two peri-urban districts of Lusaka Province, with substantially higher prevalence detected by qPCR than by conventional microscopy. These findings highlight the value of incorporating sensitive molecular diagnostic tools into surveillance programmes and provide contemporary epidemiological data to support targeted mass drug administration and progress towards the WHO goal of schistosomiasis elimination as a public health problem.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Spreadsheet summarizing demographic information and diagnostic indicators for study participants, including district, age, sex, urine dipstick results, Schistosoma haematobium egg counts, and test results by microscopy, qPCR, and ELISA.

(XLSX)

pntd.0014013.s001.xlsx (48.7KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are available within the main body of the manuscript and its supplementary material.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by grant PI23CIII00034 (MPY 386/23) funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III to JS. MMM was funded with a fellowship from Women for Africa Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.McManus DP, Dunne WD, Sacko M, Utzinger J, Vennervald BJ, Zhou XN. Schistosomiasis. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2018;4:1–19. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0013-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Steinmann P, Keiser J, Bos R, Tanner M, Utzinger J. Schistosomiasis and water resources development: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimates of people at risk. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(7):411–25. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70521-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Global health estimates 2020: Deaths by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000-2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO guideline on control and elimination of human schistosomiasis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vos T, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390:1211–59. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.King CH, Dickman K, Tisch DJ. Reassessment of the cost of chronic helmintic infection: a meta-analysis of disability-related outcomes in endemic schistosomiasis. Lancet. 2005;365(9470):1561–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66457-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Personal habits and indoor combustions. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2012;100:1–538. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vennervald BJ, Polman K. Helminths and malignancy: Helminths and malignancy. Parasite Immunol. 2009;31:686–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2009.01163.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kalinda C, Chimbari MJ, Mukaratirwa S. Schistosomiasis in Zambia: a systematic review of past and present experiences. Infect Dis Poverty. 2018;7(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0424-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mutengo MM, Mwansa JCL, Mduluza T, Sianongo S, Chipeta J. High Schistosoma mansoni disease burden in a rural district of western Zambia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(5):965–72. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0612 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Agnew-Blais J, Carnevale J, Gropper A, Shilika E, Bail R, Ngoma M. Schistosomiasis haematobium prevalence and risk factors in a school-age population of peri-urban Lusaka, Zambia. J Trop Pediatr. 2010;56(4):247–53. doi: 10.1093/tropej/fmp106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tembo R, Muleya W, Yabe J, Kainga H, Nalubamba KS, Zulu M, et al. Prevalence and Molecular Identification of Schistosoma haematobium among Children in Lusaka and Siavonga Districts, Zambia. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022;7(9):239. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7090239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kalinda C, Mutengo M, Chimbari M. A meta-analysis of changes in schistosomiasis prevalence in Zambia: implications on the 2020 elimination target. Parasitol Res. 2020;119(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00436-019-06534-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wall KM, Kilembe W, Vwalika B, Dinh C, Livingston P, Lee Y-M, et al. Schistosomiasis is associated with incident HIV transmission and death in Zambia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(12):e0006902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.MOH. Zambia neglected tropical diseases master plan 2022 – 2026. 2022. Available from: https://espen.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/content/document/NTD%20masterplan_Zambia_WHO_MoH_Draft_Technical_Report_SGE%20Comments%20Revised%20Version%20NO%20TRACKS.pdf
  • 16.Pearson MS, Tedla BA, Mekonnen GG, Proietti C, Becker L, Nakajima R, et al. Immunomics-guided discovery of serum and urine antibodies for diagnosing urogenital schistosomiasis: a biomarker identification study. Lancet Microbe. 2021;2(11):e617–26. doi: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00150-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Muhumuza S, Olsen A, Katahoire A, Nuwaha F. Uptake of preventive treatment for intestinal schistosomiasis among school children in Jinja district, Uganda: A cross sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e63438. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Peters PA, Mahmoud AA, Warren KS, Ouma JH, Siongok TK. Field studies of a rapid, accurate means of quantifying Schistosoma haematobium eggs in urine samples. Bull World Health Organ. 1976;54(2):159–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cnops L, Soentjens P, Clerinx J, Van Esbroeck M. A Schistosoma haematobium-specific real-time PCR for diagnosis of urogenital schistosomiasis in serum samples of international travelers and migrants. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(8):e2413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt PM. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(8):797–806. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Beltrame A, Guerriero M, Angheben A, Gobbi F, Requena-Mendez A, Zammarchi L, et al. Accuracy of parasitological and immunological tests for the screening of human schistosomiasis in immigrants and refugees from African countries: An approach with Latent Class Analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(6):e0005593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.WHO. Ending the Neglect to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals: A Road Map for Neglected Tropical Diseases 2021-2030. 1st edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Guegan H, Fillaux J, Charpentier E, Robert-Gangneux F, Chauvin P, Guemas E, et al. Real-time PCR for diagnosis of imported schistosomiasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(9):e0007711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Keller D, Rothen J, Dangy J-P, Saner C, Daubenberger C, Allan F, et al. Performance of a real-time PCR approach for diagnosing Schistosoma haematobium infections of different intensity in urine samples from Zanzibar. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00726-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Song HB, Kim J, Jin Y, Lee JS, Jeoung HG, Lee YH, et al. Comparison of ELISA and Urine Microscopy for Diagnosis of Schistosoma haematobium Infection. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(33):e238. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fasogbon IV, Ondari EN, Tusubira D, Ogbonnia EC, Ashley J, Sasikumar S, et al. A critical review of the limitations of current diagnostic techniques for schistosomiasis. All Life. 2024;17(1). doi: 10.1080/26895293.2024.2379305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kinkel H-F, Dittrich S, Bäumer B, Weitzel T. Evaluation of eight serological tests for diagnosis of imported schistosomiasis. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012;19(6):948–53. doi: 10.1128/CVI.05680-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lorenz E, Razafindrakoto R, Rausche P, Rasolojaona ZT, Razafindralava NM, Zerbo A, et al. Detecting Schistosoma infections in endemic countries: a diagnostic accuracy study in rural Madagascar. Infect Dis Poverty. 2025;14(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s40249-025-01292-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vinkeles Melchers NVS, van Dam GJ, Shaproski D, Kahama AI, Brienen EAT, Vennervald BJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of Schistosoma real-time PCR in urine samples from Kenyan children infected with Schistosoma haematobium: day-to-day variation and follow-up after praziquantel treatment. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(4):e2807. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Grimes JET, Croll D, Harrison WE, Utzinger J, Freeman MC, Templeton MR. The Relationship between Water, Sanitation and Schistosomiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8: e3296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pinot de Moira A, Fulford AJC, Kabatereine NB, Ouma JH, Booth M, Dunne DW. Analysis of complex patterns of human exposure and immunity to Schistosomiasis mansoni: the influence of age, sex, ethnicity and IgE. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(9):e820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lamberti O, Kabatereine NB, Tukahebwa EM, Chami GF. Schistosoma mansoni infection risk for school-aged children clusters within households and is modified by distance to freshwater bodies. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0258915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kura K, Hardwick RJ, Truscott JE, Anderson RM. What is the impact of acquired immunity on the transmission of schistosomiasis and the efficacy of current and planned mass drug administration programmes? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(12):e0009946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mutapi F, Rujeni N, Bourke C, Mitchell K, Appleby L, Nausch N, et al. Schistosoma haematobium treatment in 1-5 year old children: safety and efficacy of the antihelminthic drug praziquantel. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(5):e1143. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mutengo M, Kaduková M, Mulunda NR, Chabala FW, Dashti A, Hayashida K, et al. Asymptomatic carriage of intestinal protists is common in children in Lusaka Province, Zambia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18(12):e0012717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Webster B, Huyse T. Not all “hybrids” matter: towards a nuanced understanding of Schistosoma species hybridization. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2026;381(1941):20240526. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2024.0526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Juhász A, Makaula P, Cunningham LJ, Jones S, Archer J, Lally D, et al. Revealing bovine schistosomiasis in Malawi: Connecting human and hybrid schistosomes within cattle. One Health. 2024;19:100761. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014013.r001

Decision Letter 0

David J Diemert, Gabriel Rinaldi

26 Mar 2026

PNTD-D-26-00269

Prevalence and molecular identification of Schistosoma haematobium infection in twoperi-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia: a cross-sectional study

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Sotillo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases'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 within by May 25 2026 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David J. Diemert, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Gabriel Rinaldi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full.

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Mable M. Mutengo, James Mwansa, Kelly Chisanga, Emmanuel Zulu, Namwiinga Rozaria Mulunda, James Muchinga, Esther Rodríguez, Sergio Sánchez, Lourdes Castro, Maria J. Perteguer, David Carmena, and Javier Sotillo. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions

2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

3) We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©,  ®, or TM  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including:

- ® on pages: 7, 10, and 14

- TM on page: 9.

4) Thank you for including an Ethics Statement for your study. Please include:

i) A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). NOTE: If child participants, the statement must declare that formal consent was obtained from the parent/guardian.].

5) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

2) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders..

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: u201cThe authors received no specific funding for this work.u201d

Reviewers' Comments:

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 method used are appropriate and specific to the reported work.

Reviewer #2: See general notes

Reviewer #3: - The study area and population is clearly described. However, insufficient information about the sampling design is provided. A sample size calculation should be stated, with reasoning.

- Diagnostic procedures upon urine samples are generally well described, but I have the following suggestions: specify the Ct cut-off for positivity in the qPCR assay, confirm if an internal amplification control was used (if not, recognise that this may lead to false negative results).

- I have some concerns about the molecular characterisation of eggs. 64 individual eggs from 24 patients were analysed, and only 29 egg samples were subjected to ITS sequencing. Please clarify how the 24 patients and the 29 sequenced egg samples were selected. How many eggs were analysed per patient and why? How might this impact inferences? Given the restricted species scope of the T-ARMS-PCR assay, might some other species have been missed that are known to hybridise with S. haematobium in Zambia and neighbouring countries (e.g. S. mattheei). Please clarify was this assay chosen over assays that can detect more species in the S. haem group. Expansion on these topics is needed in the limitations section.

**********

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 provided match the proposed analysis plan. The figures and images are appropriate to the output.

Reviewer #2: See general notes

Reviewer #3: - Demographics paragraph and Table 1: reporting mean age with CIs is a bit unconventional for descriptive demographics. Mean + SD or median with IQR would be more typical.

- Figure resolution is poor but this may be just an issue with the PDF sent to me for review.

- Figure 2 provides useful species-level context, but ITS-based phylogeny is limited. The tree presentation could be improved to include colour-based annotations to show location and species, which would make its interpretation easier for the reader.

**********

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 conclusion are supported by the data

Reviewer #2: See general notes

Reviewer #3: - Discussion lines 401-402 comment on diagnostic sensitivity and specificity but these are not presented in the results section.

- Molecular work shows that hybrids are present, but the limitations of the T-ARMS-PCR assay and ITS-based phylogeny prevent broader population-level conclusions.

- The limitations surrounding the molecular characterisation of eggs needs more discussion (see earlier comment in methods).

- The findings are clearly framed in the context of schistosomiasis control and elimination efforts.

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: See general notes

Reviewer #3: - There are some minor typographical errors: “Kfaue” should be corrected to “Kafue”, “sensitivity” instead of “sensibility”.

- Improved presentation of Figure 2 is recommended (as above).

**********

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 study investigating on the prevalence and molecular identification of Schistosoma haematobium infection in peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia, revealed very interesting patterns. The final observation provides the recommendation to consider One Health approach especially targeting zoonotic diseases. Animals and climate change are expected to have considerable contribution in the near future to intensified transmission in areas where control efforts through MDA would have been considered to have a success.

The authors refer to a higher rate of false positives as observed in the ELISA results, though referring to as residual antibodies being persist in serum/urine for several months after praziquantel treatment. This is a known phenomenon the reason ELISAs cannot be used for evaluation of treatment success. Further this provides a complication as post treatment the killed worms and eggs tend to provide as stimulation effect leading to elevated antibodies. The authors need to explain the need for such method use as I the design of the study.

What is the contribution of treatment and that effect of immunizing post MDA? In Kafue without the evidence of MDA there could be contribution of immune response development. Treatment is known to eliminate the infection, but the killed worm are also understood to contribute to evoking a specific immune response.

The clustering of Kafue and Chongwe sequences requires further explanation in addition to the indication of limited genetic differentiation across these sites. As the transmission may involve spreading across sites in each region and the generation of hybrids. Probably give an explanation to the high gene flow within these endemic areas.

Are the hybrids infectious? This could be a concern and would benefit from additional explanation.

The explanation on the hybridization between human and animal schistosome species can give pointers of possible hosts, creating zoonotic reservoirs that sustain transmission even when human treatment coverage is high. This calls for One Health and incorporation of zoonotic NTDs investigation in the control and prevention of schistosomiasis

Specific comments

Abstract: line 23 the word Sub-Saharan Africa should be written sub-Saharan Africa.

Line 250: on an ABI

Line 287: (111 from Chongwe and 97 from Kfaue) correct the spelling of Kafue?

Line 476: Firstly, the survey was restricted to paediatric populations in only two districts of Lusaka Province. The term paediatric should be used cautiously since the age group considered in this work is not paediatric.

Reviewer #2: The paper presents urogenital infection data and molecular data from eggs from humans. Although the infection data is informative the authors focus too much on the "hybrid" sorry with no robust data. The authors need to be very careful in their data analysis and interpretation related to this subject. The infection data is very useful and informative and I suggest the authors focus more on that. Currently the paper reads like it is lots of parts of studies brought together. All my comments are detailed below rather than be split by sections.

Abstract

Revise the abstract and summary according to the comments on the paper.

Introduction

Line 107: You need to explain the need for serological detection as it does not distinguish present and past infections so its use is limited.

Methods

Line 123: You need to explain what the further action was for those infected.

Line 104: “and later are infected” – they are infected at the time of water contact so revise.

Line 143: add the details of what the systematic random sampling method is.

Line 150: you do not explain how the microscopic leucocytes, biochemistry protein parameters were measured.

Line 156: were the eggs not stained?

Lines 159-180: this is a large area of work. Was this done in Zambia and add details as to why this method was used versus an available kit.

Line 210: In the results you do not mention what the Nanodrop informed you about your samples. Also, bear in mind the Nanodrop will measure any DNA and this includes human DNA so the quantification is not specific.

Line 223: What part of the urine were these taken from and how captured (it is not easy to find individual eggs and capture them. You say above that the urine was processed by microscopy and for molecular so was there urine left? Also, explain the procedure for the extraction or how is was adapted to eggs.

Lines 221-243: The T-ARMS description is fine but include all the information on the amplicon in a figure as it is not information in the main text.

Line 247: Why these bands? It is not clear how you would identify the SNP’s from these bands? Also, your NCBI accessions are all 518 bp long so how does that work with sequencing bands of only 487 and 234?

Line 253-255: You have to be very careful when BLASTing ITS sequences for Schisto species identification as the output is very often misinterpreted. It is better just to look at the species specific SNPs’.

Line 258-269: Running a phylogenetic analysis on ITS data for Sb, Sh and Sc is not informative due to the high level of conservation. It does not tell you anything more than what looking at the specific specific SNP’s tell you.

Line 256: See comments below on the sequences. The naming of the sequences on NCBI must be changed to reflect the incorrect assignment to Sh/Sc.

Line 261: When you are using ITS data from NCBI that is labelled as Sh/Sc or Sh/Sb you have to think about what that data is from and how informative it is. For example ITS data labelled Sh/Sb maybe from what is assumed to be a Sh/Sb hybrid that has a cox1 Sb and an ITS Sh so the ITS is just Sh and no different to a pure Sh. This is a common mistake many researcher make and just automatically assign data as from a hybrid because of the blast hit but if you look the BLAST hit will be 100% for the “hybrid” and for Sh. You must look at the data, think about it, think about what it is telling you and interpret it. All BLAST searches must be analysed informatively and not just be taken as whatever is at the top of the list.

Results

Line 299: why are leukocytes informative for your study?

Line 306-308, 319-320: do not repeat methods in the results

Line 326-330: it is not clear what the ELISA data adds? Also, there is a large section on this in the methods but a very small bit in the results?

Line 332: you mention correlation to age on 3.1 so you might want to change the structure.

Lines 332-356: It is really not clear what your data is saying as you combine all diagnostics and age and sex and region. Consider restricting this and think about how the data can be informative – are you comparing diagnostics or are you comparing infection levels (age, sex, region?).

Line 363: There is no text in your introduction to mention the “hybrid” topic. So many researcher now bring this into the studies without much thought of why or what it means. If you are going to present data on this topic you need to read the background literature, think about the meaning and make informed analysis of the data. You cannot make big statements without robust data.

Lines 361-381: There are major issues with this data and the way it has been analysed and interpreted. These are listed below.

1. You do not include how many eggs from each participant were analysed.

2. There is no cox1 data associated with these samples so you cannot make any robust inferences on species or “hybrid”. Be aware there is many papers now showing the the use of these basic molecular markers e.g. ITS are not robust for “hybrid” identification in terms of what a “hybrid” actually is and the biological consequences.

3. On your gel figure it is not clear what the samples represent and what did you use as your controls?

4. You phylogenetic analysis is not informative and see the notes above on using ITS data from NCBI and BLAST. You can see that there is no structuring for Sb, Sc. You do have some structuring for Sh and in fact that shows that if anything your samples are Sh.

5. Line 374 – 375 – that is a strange statement as why would you expect them to cluster? The authors should think about what they are trying to understand by the data analysis.

6. In this section you do not mention anything about the S. curassoni / Sh that you mention elsewhere in the paper and that you have put as an ID for some of your sequences. This is very strange.

7. All you sequences on Genbank are Sh ITS data. You must change the accessions that say they are Sh/Sc as they are not correct and will mislead other researcher.

8. The authors should think more about species and geographical locations. S. curassoni is only found in the West of Africa due to the specific snail it uses for transmission. It is not understood why the authors would identify data within their study as being S. curassoni without questioning it. they should also mention that the T-ARMS PCR has obviously given an in-correct profile for Sh.

9. Notes on your sequences:

• They are all Sh ITS

• Some of your sequences contain missing bp which is why your BLAST searches may have mislead you.

• They are longer than the fragments that you cut out of the gels.

It is not clear how the molecular ID relates to the study as it is mainly about diagnosis and prevalence levels. You do not need to just bring in molecular identifications as an add on especially if there is no hypothesis or robust methods.

Discussion

Lines 384-400: This is introduction and not discussion

Lines 407-416: This is why it is not clear why the ELISA was done. Also, these are not false positives. They are positive for antibodies due to past infection and it is not a phenomenon?

Line 446-447: This is a very bold statement with not robust data and you do not detail that in the results.

Line 449: The reference 12 also has mis identification of samples reported in it. There is no S. bovis in the data. They also only looked at ITS. Have a look at the data. As academics you should always look at the detail associated with unusual findings.

Line 450-455: Do you think your data is robust enough to state this?

Revise the rest of the discussion based on comments above.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript fills a knowledge gap surrounding urogenital schistosomiasis prevalence in peri-urban Zambia and identifies S. haematobium × S. curassoni hybrids. It will help to guide public health interventions such as MDA and will draw important attention to One Health control.

Further to the above comments, I have the following comments:

- Abstract: Under the results sub-heading, prevalence in each district should be stated.

- Abstract: Under the results sub-heading, the authors report on associations between S. haematobium infection and age + sex, but then clarify in the next sentence that many eggs were hybrids. Therefore, I suggest changing the original statement to say that urogenital schistosomiasis (not S. haematobium specifically) was associated with age.

- Introduction, lines 88-91 and 103-105 state historical prevalence estimates, including from Lusaka. Please clarify when estimates were from, as this will help set the scene for the current investigation.

- Some analysis of infection intensity and comparison between sites would be useful.

- An additional results table assessing diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV of microscopy and ELISA vs qPCR) would be welcome.

**********

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: Yes:  Professor Takafira Mduluza

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014013.r003

Decision Letter 1

David J Diemert, Gabriel Rinaldi

24 Aug 2026

PNTD-D-26-00269R1Schistosoma haematobium infection among school age children in two peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia: a cross-sectional studyPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesDear Dr. Sotillo,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases'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 Oct 23 2026 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:* A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,David J. Diemert, M.D.Academic EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesGabriel RinaldiSection EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Reviewers' comments:

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: Clear and detailed methods and presentation

Reviewer #2: See general comments

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 results are presented in a proper sequence and clearly.

Reviewer #2: See general comments

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 conclusion is in line with the set objectives and the general objective and findings.

Reviewer #2: See general comments

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (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: Study area and population

Please provide the GPS locations of the study areas.

The statement requires elaboration as to the reason ELISA results are as indicator of cumulative population-level exposure to Schistosoma spp. rather than a direct measure of current infection status. How is this explained where ELISA is believed for distinguishing past from current exposure? What does cumulative mean?

A clearer explanation should be made in the discussion on the hierarch of the diagnostic methods: microscopy, ELISA, and qPCR - high analytical sensitivity for detecting parasite DNA, qPCR showed the highest sensitivity (Table 4).

Reviewer #2: The authors have greatly improved the paper, and the omission of the genetic data allows the findings to be better presented. It now reads very nicely. There are additional comments to address and data to include. The data are informative and important for Schistosomiasis control in Zambia. Comments are detailed below.

Line 146-155 – It is not very clear how the randomisation and random sampling were done. Maybe some references could support the statements. Also, line 155/6 – what do you mean by sampling interval?

Line 172 – The production of the ELISA reagents should be mentioned in the introduction, and more explanation of why this was done should be included, e.g. that previous studies have shown that it is better than other methods such as SEA. This part should also come under a general heading of ELISA. It is not clear why this method has not be accepted more widely. For example, ELISA is used as a diagnostic for traveller's infections, etc., and SEA is used.

Line 230 – the inclusion of an internal control has been added, but no optimisation is stated, and no references are given. Typically, very low levels of human DNA are detected in urine. The authors should show some amplification curves for the assay. Additionally, no standard curve is used for the qPCR, and this should be discussed in the paper. It allows quality control of the qPCR and evaluation of what the very high CT values represent, especially as CT values above 35 should be evaluated carefully.

Line 256 – should ELISA be included in the composite reference, as it cannot distinguish between active and past infection and therefore cannot be compared to the other tests?

Some intensity data should be brought into the results based on CT values and egg counts. This would be very informative in comparison to morbidity assessments, e.g. haematuria, etc. If this data is not available, then you should state this in the methods, and that the data were treated as binary, e.g. positive and negative. CT values are needed to assess the assay’s potential specificity.

Line 351 – the authors should discuss what trace amounts of DNA would mean in terms of an infection, as it would not be eggs?

The ELISA data needs some thought: although it detects past infections, it should also detect current infections, which is what qPCR also detects. You could also discuss the possible false positives for qPCR at very high CT. Most studies implement a CT cutoff of at least 35 due to false positives.

Line 430 – if you are going to mention hybrids, you should define what you mean by hybrids and also look at the balanced literature that shows most hybrids in West Africa are ancient forms and do not constitute a zoonotic risk. For Zambia, you should talk about the S. mattheei issue rather than S. bovis and S. curassoni, which are not present there. You should state that there are many unknowns about the zoonotic risk. Very few animals, if any, have been found to be infected with S. haematobium and/or hybrids.

Overall, the discussion could be reduced to make it more concise and focused on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed everything highlighted in my previous review. This is an interesting article with important implications for the surveillance and control of urogenital schistosomiasis. I have no further concerns.

**********

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: Yes:  Professor Takafira Mduluza

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.] Figure resubmission:   While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript. Reproducibility:  To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014013.r005

Decision Letter 2

David J Diemert, Gabriel Rinaldi

21 Sep 2026

Dear Dr. Sotillo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Schistosoma haematobium infection among school age children in two peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia: a cross-sectional study' 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,

David J. Diemert, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Gabriel Rinaldi

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0014013.r006

Acceptance letter

David J Diemert, Gabriel Rinaldi

Dear Dr. Sotillo,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Schistosoma haematobium infection among school age children in two peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia: a cross-sectional study," 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.

For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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. Spreadsheet summarizing demographic information and diagnostic indicators for study participants, including district, age, sex, urine dipstick results, Schistosoma haematobium egg counts, and test results by microscopy, qPCR, and ELISA.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0014013.s001.xlsx (48.7KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_PNTD-D-26-00269.pdf

    pntd.0014013.s003.pdf (284.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal_PNTD-D-26-00269.docx

    pntd.0014013.s004.docx (294.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that supports the findings of this study are available within the main body of the manuscript and its supplementary material.


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

    RESOURCES