Table 1.
Summary of participant cohort groups and corresponding seroprevalences and risk ratios
| Study Cohorts | Number sampled (N = 724) | Marburg virus seroprevalence (%) | Sudan virus (SUDV) seroprevalence (%) | Filovirus seroprevalence (%) | Filovirus (Marburg & SUDV) seroprevalence Risk Ratio (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-Risk group (Luweero district) | 291 (40.2%) | 0 | 3 (1.1%) | 3 (1.1%) | Referencea |
| High risk groups (Ibanda and Kamwenge districts) | 433 (59.8%) | 1 (0.2%) | 15 (3.5%) | 16 (3.7%) | 3.6 (1.1–12.2) c |
| Miners only | 161 (22.2%) | 1 (0.6%) | 8 (4.9%) | 9 (5.6%) | 5.4 (1.5–19.7) c |
| Family/household member of minerd | 138 (19.1%) | 0 | 4 (2.9%) | 4 (2.9%) | 2.8 (0.64–12.4) |
| Non-miners within 50 km of Kitaka mine b | 134 (18.5%) | 0 | 3 (2.2%) | 3 (2.2%) | 2.2 (0.44–10.6) |
aAll other groups (exposure groups) were compared to the unexposed group as control
bSeropositivity among people who live within 50 km of Kitaka cave was not significantly different from miners or their family members
cStatistically significant
dOne person seropositive for SUDV in this exposure group was also seropositive for Bundibugyo virus