Table 3.
Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection and potential risk factors in dogs born after the community-wide insecticide spraying campaign in Amamá and neighboring villages, Argentina, May 2000 (n = 202) and November 2002 (n = 245)
| 2000* |
2002* |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | % Infected (n) |
Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
% Infected (n) |
Unadjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
| Age (in months) | −(202) | 1.0 (1.01–1.07)§ | 1.0 (1.02–1.07)§ | −(236) | 0.98 (0.96–1.00) | 1.0 (0.97–1.01) |
| Village of residence | ||||||
| Trinidad-Pampa Pozo | 2.0 (50) | 1 | – | 1.7 (58) | 1 | – |
| Mercedes-Villa Matilde | 2.2 (45) | 1.1 (0.1–18.3) | – | 5.8 (52) | 3.5 (0.4–34.6) | – |
| Amamá | 8.4 (107) | 4.5 (0.6–36.5) | – | 3.0 (135) | 1.7 (0.2–15.9) | – |
| Unstable residence in the study villages† | ||||||
| No | 5.1 (176) | 1 | – | 1.9 (210) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 10.5 (19) | 2.2 (0.4–10.9) | – | 11.4 (35) | 6.6 (1.6–27.9)§ | 12.5 (2.4–65.9)§ |
| Dog's mother seropositivity for Trypanosoma cruzi | ||||||
| No | 2.7 (73) | 1 | – | 0.0 (80) | 1 | – |
| Yes | 21.7 (23) | 9.9 (1.8–55.0)§ | – | 26.7 (15) | 62.2 (3.1–1232.9)§ | – |
| No data | 3.8 (106) | – | – | 2.7 (150) | – | – |
| No. of Triatoma infestans caught in domestic areas during dog's lifetime‡ | ||||||
| 0 | 3.7 (135) | 1 | – | 2.5 (160) | 1 | – |
| 1–9 | 5.4 (56) | 1.5 (0.3–6.4) | – | 2.7 (74) | 1.1 (0.2–6.1) | – |
| ≥ 10 | 33.3 (9) | 13.0 (2.5–67.6)§ | 1.1 (1.1–1.2)§ | 22.2 (9) | 11.1 (1.7–71.5)§ | 1.1 (1.0–1.2)§ |
| Infected Triatoma infestans caught in dog's house in 2000 or 2002‡ | ||||||
| No | 3.8 (185) | 1 | – | 2.7 (226) | 1 | – |
| Yes | 26.7 (15) | 9.2 (2.3–36.4)§ | – | 11.8 (17) | 4.9 (0.9–26.3) | – |
*
Excludes 29 dogs born before the community-wide insecticide spraying.
†
Seven seronegative dogs without residence information were excluded.
‡
Two dogs without entomological data for their houses were excluded only for these variables.
§
Significant at the 0.05 level.