Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2020 Aug 3;14(8):e0008445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445

Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis

Emily F Santos 1,#, Ângelo A O Silva 1,#, Leonardo M Leony 1, Natália E M Freitas 1, Ramona T Daltro 1, Carlos G Regis-Silva 1, Rodrigo P Del-Rei 2, Wayner V Souza 3, Alejandro L Ostermayer 4, Veruska M Costa 5, Rafaella A Silva 5, Alberto N Ramos Jr 6, Andrea S Sousa 7,8,9, Yara M Gomes 3,9, Fred L N Santos 1,9,*
Editor: Igor C Almeida10
PMCID: PMC7425982  PMID: 32745113

Abstract

Background

In Brazil, acute Chagas disease (ACD) surveillance involves mandatory notification, which allows for population-based epidemiological studies. We conducted a nationwide population-based ecological analysis of the spatiotemporal patterns of ACD notifications in Brazil using secondary surveillance data obtained from the Notifiable Diseases Information System (SINAN) maintained by Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Methodology/Principal findings

In this nationwide population-based ecological all cases of ACD reported in Brazil between 2001 and 2018 were included. Epidemiological characteristics and time trends were analyzed through joinpoint regression models and spatial distribution using microregions as the unit of analysis. A total of 5,184 cases of ACD were recorded during the period under study. The annual incidence rate in Brazil was 0.16 per 100,000 inhabitants/year. Three statistically significant changes in time trends were identified: a rapid increase prior to 2005 (Period 1), a stable drop from 2005 to 2009 (Period 2), followed by another increasing trend after 2009 (Period 3). Higher frequencies were noted in males and females in the North (all three periods) and in females in Northeast (Periods 1 and 2) macroregions, as well as in individuals aged between 20–64 years in the Northeast, and children, adolescents and the elderly in the North macroregion. Vectorial transmission was the main route reported during Period 1, while oral transmission was found to increase significantly in the North during the other periods. Spatiotemporal distribution was heterogeneous in Brazil over time. Despite regional differences, over time cases of ACD decreased significantly nationwide. An increasing trend was noted in the North (especially after 2007), and significant decreases occurred after 2008 among all microregions other than those in the North, especially those in the Northeast and Central-West macroregions.

Conclusions/Significance

In light of the newly identified epidemiological profile of CD transmission in Brazil, we emphasize the need for strategically integrated entomological and health surveillance actions.

Author summary

Chagas disease (CD) infection is a debilitating and neglected disease that occurs in 21 Latin America countries. CD has two distinct phases: acute and chronic. The generally asymptomatic acute phase begins shortly after infection and can last up to four months. When symptoms do appear, they are typically mild and unspecific. Following this phase, infected individuals evolve to a long-lasting chronic phase, which can be either symptomatic or asymptomatic. In Brazil, only acute cases are mandatorily notifiable in the Brazilian Notifiable Diseases Information System (Brazilian Ministry of Health). Most chronic cases are unknown and untreated. Considering that epidemiological data related to ACD is publicly available, we have analyzed the spatiotemporal distribution of notified cases of ACD and evaluated relevant epidemiological indicators throughout Brazil from 2001 to 2018. The data present here may contribute to surveillance actions designed at preventing new CD cases. We observed 5,184 cases of ACD during the period under study. The annual incidence rate in Brazil was 0.16 per 100,000 inhabitants/year. Three distinct epidemiological periods were identified: a rapid increase prior to 2005 (Period 1), a stable drop from 2005 to 2009 (Period 2), followed by another increasing trend after 2009 (Period 3). Vectorial transmission was the main route reported during Period 1, while oral transmission was found to increase significantly in the North during the other periods. Despite regional differences, over time cases of ACD decreased significantly nationwide. An increasing trend was noted in the North (especially after 2007). In light of the newly identified epidemiological profile of CD transmission in Brazil, we emphasize the need for strategically integrated entomological and health surveillance actions.

Introduction

Chagas disease (CD) is an anthropozoonosis caused by the hemoflagellated kinetoplastid Trypanosoma cruzi. The disease is endemic in 21 Latin American countries, affecting approximately 6–8 million people and generating an average of 14,000 deaths annually [1,2]. The epidemiological pattern of CD has undergone substantial changes in recent decades as T. cruzi-infected migrants from endemic areas have moved into non-endemic regions in the North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania [35].

CD has two distinct phases. The generally asymptomatic acute phase begins shortly after infection and can last up to 4 months. When symptoms do appear, they are typically mild and unspecific [6]. Although sometimes higher in children, the risk of death during acute phase can reach 5% and is generally related to complications associated with both meningoencephalitis and/or myocarditis [7,8]. Following this phase, infected individuals evolve to a long-lasting chronic phase, which can be either symptomatic or asymptomatic [9].

In Brazil, CD persists as a relevant public health problem [10]. This disease was the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) among all Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD), followed by schistosomiasis and dengue [11]. Due to a past history of vectorial transmission that was later virtually interrupted [12], more individuals in Brazil are in the chronic phase of CD. Despite the prevalence of the chronic form, only acute cases are mandatorily notifiable in the Brazilian Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sistema de Informação de Agravos de Notificação SINAN, Brazilian Ministry of Health). Between 2003 and 2018, 4,556 cases of ACD were reported, with changes in the affected macroregions occurring after 2007, as higher concentrations of cases and incidence were reported in the North [13]. A nationwide study based on an analysis of the Mortality Information System between 1999 and 2007 revealed that CD was noted on 53,930 (0.6%) death certificates, and that ACD was listed as the cause of death in 2.8% [14].

Considering that epidemiological data related to CD is publicly available, analysis can aid in the prioritization of regional epidemiological disease surveillance efforts. With the aim of contributing to surveillance actions designed at preventing new CD cases, our results detail the spatiotemporal distribution of notified cases of ACD and evaluate relevant epidemiological indicators throughout Brazil from 2001 to 2018.

Materials and methods

Study area

The present study was conducted in Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, with the world’s fifth largest geographic area and population: over 207 million residents at a density of 41 inhabitants/km2 (2017). Brazil’s territory also extends into much of the continent’s interior and borders other countries reporting a high prevalence of CD. Politically and administratively, Brazil is divided into 26 states and one Federal District. The Federation is further grouped into five macroregions (North, Northeast, Southeast, South and Central-West) and 558 microregions containing 5,567 municipalities with differing geographic, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Brazil is geographically divided into five macroregions, and administratively into 26 states and one Federal District (DF).

Fig 1

Central-West (DF: Distrito Federal, GO: Goiás, MT: Mato Grosso and MS: Mato Grosso do Sul); North (AC: Acre, AM: Amazonas, AP: Amapá, RO: Rondônia and RR: Roraima); Northeast (AL: Alagoas, BA: Bahia, CE: Ceará, MA: Maranhão, PB: Paraíba, PE: Pernambuco, PI: Piauí, RN: Rio Grande do Norte and SE: Sergipe); South (PR: Paraná, RS: Rio Grande do Sul and SC: Santa Catarina); Southeast (ES: Espírito Santo, MG: Minas Gerais, RJ:Rio de Janeiro and SP: São Paulo). Public domain digital maps were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) cartographic database in shapefile format (.shp), which was subsequently reformatted and analyzed using QGIS version 3.10 (Geographic Information System, Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org).

Study population and design

This nationwide population-based ecological study was based on secondary surveillance data, and employed a spatiotemporal analysis of ACD notifications aggregated according to microregion. Chagas disease surveillance encompasses the compulsory notification to SINAN of all confirmed cases of ACD; all cases reported between 2001 and 2018 in the 558 Brazilian microregions were included. The SINAN database is publicly accessible and data is available online by the Data Information Department of the Unified Health System (DATASUS) (http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS). SINAN aggregates information on indicators related to priority diseases in Brazil, as is used to support control actions. To investigate temporal trends in CD, we obtained records for all ACD notifications from the SINAN database organized according to each Brazilian microregion. Other variables, such as age, gender, ethnicity and probable route of infection were also analyzed using this data. To estimate infection rates, population data were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), based on the national census for the period between 2000 and 2010 (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-demografico/series-temporais/series-temporais/), while official annual population estimates were used for the remaining years (available at https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/estimapop/tabelas).

Data analysis

Spatial analyses were performed to identify the spatial distribution of the variables related to CD notifications. All ACD notifications reported on a municipality level, specifically linked to the municipality of residence of each CD case, were grouped into microregions, which were then used as a unit of analysis to compare among different regions in order to reveal priority areas for interventions. Three-year moving averages were calculated between 2001 and 2018 [15]. Annual age- and sex-adjusted incidence rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated per 100,000 inhabitants using population census data from 2010 and annual population estimates. Temporal trends in adjusted annual incidence rates were calculated employing joinpoint regression models [16], stratified according to microregion. For this analysis, each joinpoint indicated a statistically significant change in the slope tested using Monte Carlo permutation testing. Annual percentage changes (APC) and 95% CIs were calculated for each segment. Trends were considered statistically significant when APC presented a p-value < 0.05. Maps were created using the Brazilian annual incidence at the beginning of the studied period as a denominator to illustrate the relative risk of ACD among the country’s microregions. Mapping was done with QGIS software version 3.10 (Geographic Information System, Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project; freely available at: http://qgis.osgeo.org). Digital maps were obtained from the IBGE database in shape file (.shp) format, compatible with the QGIS program. A checklist (S1 Checklist) is provided according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [17].

Ethics

SINAN and IBGE databases, which are available in the public domain, do not allow for the identification of individuals. In 2016, a new resolution published by the Brazilian National Health Council abrogated the need to seek approval from any Institutional Review Board for studies using publicly available secondary data that does not provide individually identifiable information (http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/reso510.pdf).

Results

Spatial distribution of acute CD

Between 2001 and 2018, 5,184 cases of ACD were reported to SINAN. At least one case of ACD was reported in 307 of 558 (55.0%) microregions, corresponding to 3,238 municipalities and a total population size of 158,363,480 inhabitants (76.3% of the Brazilian population). The annual rate of reported cases in Brazil between 2001 and 2018 was 0.16 per 100,000 inhabitants/year, ranging from 0.07 to 0.32 notified cases per 100,000 inhabitants. Joinpoint regression analysis from 2001 to 2018 revealed three statistically significant changes in tendency: a rapid increase in cases from 2001 to 2005, a considerable drop from 2005 to 2009, followed by another increase during the period from 2009 to 2018 (Fig 2). Based on these findings, the evaluated acute CD notifications were divided into three distinct periods: Period 1 (corresponding to APC 1), Period 2 (APC 2) and Period 3 (APC 3).

Fig 2. Global rates (expressed at 3-year moving averages) of ACD notifications in Brazil per 100,000 inhabitants (2002 to 2017) according to SINAN.

Fig 2

Three periods were identified by Joinpoint regression using APC (Annual Percentage Change) calculations: Period 1 (2001–2005), Period 2 (2005–2009) and Period 3 (2009–2018).

Sociodemographic variables, self-reported skin color and probable route of T. cruzi infection of all ACD notifications are summarized in Table 1. Of the 5,184 cases of ACD, 2,607 (50.29%) were male and 2,575 (49.67%) female. Most cases (70.68%) were middle-aged adults from 20 to 64 years. However, infected cases were also found in all ages. In the total sample, self-reported skin color was presented in the following proportions of cases: brown/mixed-race (60.59%), white (20.71%), black (7.25%), indigenous (0.98) and yellow (0.79%). According to the probable route of infection, overall, vectorial (35.39%) and oral (38.27%) were the most important. It is noteworthy that the North region is responsible for 55.62% of cases in Brazil.

Table 1. Data stratified by sociodemographic variables, self-reported skin color and probable route of Trypanosoma cruzi infection during the period under study (2001–2018) of acute Chagas disease notifications*.

Category Division Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender classification Male 2,607 50.29
Female 2,575 49.67
No data 2 0.04
Age classification ≤ 4 213 4.11
5–9 256 4.94
10–19 572 11.03
20–64 3,664 70.68
≥ 65 475 9.16
No data 4 0.08
Self-reported skin color White 1,073 20.71
Black 376 7.25
Yellow 41 0.79
Brown 3,141 60.59
Indigenous 51 0.98
No data 502 9.68
Probable route of infection Vectorial 1,834 35.39
Mother-to-child 19 0.37
Accidental 4 0.08
Oral 1,984 38.27
Transfusional 16 0.31
No data 1,327 25.60
Year of notification 2001 59 1.14
2002 246 4.75
2003 579 11.17
2004 419 8.08
2005 629 12.13
2006 544 10.48
2007 156 3.01
2008 104 2.01
2009 220 4.24
2010 130 2.51
2011 190 3.67
2012 189 3.65
2013 163 3.14
2014 196 3.78
2015 268 5.17
2016 372 7.18
2017 340 6.56
2018 380 7.33
Brazilian regions Central-West 112 2.16
North 2,883 55.62
Northeast 1,673 32.27
South 291 5.61
Southeast 225 4.34

*Data updated on May 22, 2020.

Fig 3 illustrates changes in the profiles of the sociodemographic variables studied during the three periods identified (data available in S1 Table). In the North macroregion, ACD was similarly reported in males and females. Conversely, in the Northeast, infection was more frequently found in women during Periods 1 and 2. With respect to age, most reported cases were concentrated in individuals aged between 20 and 64 years. However, during Periods 2 and 3, in contrast to the rest of the country, reports of ACD in the North macroregion were more frequent in children (≤9 years), adolescents (10–19 years) and elderly individuals (≥65 years). The miscegenation of the Brazilian population is reflected by the fact that most reported cases were attributed to individuals who self-identified ethnicity as ‘brown’, except during Periods 1 and 2 in the South, where CD was more prevalent in those who self-identified skin color as white. The variations observed in the probable mode of infection evidence a change in the epidemiological profile of CD transmission: Vectorial transmission was the main route reported during Period 1, while oral transmission increased significantly in the North as a result of many case notifications originating from the states of Pará (Furos de Breves—80 cases; Belém—232 cases; Cametá - 88 cases) and Amapá (Macapá - 93 cases) in Period 2, as well as in Pará (Portel—63 cases; Furo de Breves—359 cases; Belém—848 cases; Cametá - 500 cases) in Period 3. Unfortunately, mainly in the Northeast and North macroregions, data on the probable route of transmission and self-reported skin color were frequently missing from notification records in the SINAN database.

Fig 3. Analysis of changes in profiles of sociodemographic variables, self-reported skin color and probable route of Trypanosoma cruzi infection by region, stratified according three periods (P1, P2 and P3) of acute Chagas disease notifications as determined by annual percentage changes.

Fig 3

Public domain digital maps were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) cartographic database in shapefile format (.shp), which was subsequently reformatted and analyzed using QGIS version 3.10 (Geographic Information System, Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org).

The spatiotemporal distribution of reported rates of ACD infection is shown at 16 distinct time points in Fig 4 (data available in S2 Table). Overall, significant changes in the incidence of CD throughout Brazil are evidenced over time. The number of positive cases was found to increase in the state of Pará (North macroregion), especially after 2007. Indeed, in 2016, high numbers of cases were reported in the microregions of Furos de Breves (170.78 cases per 100,000 inhabitants), Cametá (80.86 cases per 100,000 inhabitants), Portel (63.14 cases per 100,000 inhabitants) and Belém (28.16 cases per 100,000 inhabitants). Similarly, increasing numbers of cases were also notified in the state of Acre (North region) after 2014, as evidenced in the Tarauacá microregion in 2016 (44.75 cases per 100,000 inhabitants). Conversely, beginning in 2008, significant decreases were seen in the number of cases among all microregions other than those in the North, especially in the Northeast and Central-West macroregions. Interestingly, after 2007, a dramatic drop in the number of acute case notifications occurred, and, in some areas previously considered highly endemic for CD, no cases were reported. In Bahia, this was particularly true in some microregions that presented high rates of cases per 100,000 inhabitants before 2007, such as those in the western part of the state: Barreiras (102.64 in 2004), Santa Maria da Vitória (48.08 in 2005) and Cotegipe (42.8 in 2005). Similarly, Itaberaba (Bahia), a microregion located in Chapada Diamantina, a semi-arid area in the state’s central region, presented 45.64 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004. Other microregions with a similar climate located in the Brazilian Northeast, e.g. Pau dos Ferros and Médio Oeste (Rio Grande do Norte) reported 73.51 and 112.36 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005, respectively; Alto Médio Canindé (Piauí) notified 42.60 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005, and Salgueiro (Pernambuco), 65.32 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.

Fig 4. Spatiotemporal distribution of relative risk of ACD by microregion, based on number of case notifications (SINAN-Brazilian Ministry of Health, Brazil, 2002–2017).

Fig 4

Public domain digital maps were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) cartographic database in shapefile format (.shp), which was subsequently reformatted and analyzed using QGIS version 3.10 (Geographic Information System, Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org).

Discussion

The present findings indicate that acute Chagas disease continues to present a threat to public health in Brazil, as evidenced by the occurrence of acute cases in more than 50% of Brazilian microregions. The persistence of acute cases was particularly notable in the North macroregion of Brazil in recent years, especially those increasingly associated with oral transmission. Throughout the period studied, three distinct epidemiological moments were identified, revealing both increasing and decreasing trends in numbers of reported cases. Between 1990 and 2006, the Southern Cone Initiatives in Latin America led to significant changes in the epidemiological landscape of CD [10]. In Brazil, for example, advances in the control of the main domiciliary vector (Triatoma infestans) were paramount to the epidemiological shift witnessed in recent decades [18]. As a direct consequence, the reduction in vector incidence contributed to a significant decline in acute CD case notifications, as seen in Periods 2 and 3. However, despite the efforts of successful prevention campaigns conducted in the country since 2000, it is possible that the decreasing incidence observed could also be related to the underreporting of cases. The decrease in notifications observed in Period 3 was concomitant with the progressive adaptation of triatomine insects to the vacant domestic and peridomestic niches that emerged as a result of T. infestans elimination programs, particularly in areas where sylvatic and peridomestic species occur concomitantly. The rise of new triatomine species, such as Panstrongylus megistus, Triatoma brasiliensis, Triatoma pseudomaculata and Triatoma sordida, among others, highlights the complex situation faced by Brazil, which thusly necessitates permanent surveillance [12].

The intrinsic epidemiological characteristics of NTDs can be probed through the analysis of distribution throughout specific areas. Despite the statistical similarities observed between genders [19], our findings revealed that both women and men were infected in the North of Brazil, whereas more women were infected in the Northeast. A previous study identified a predominance of acute CD in men (72.09%) and attributed this to increased contact with natural vector habitat, consequently traceable to occupational exposure [20]. Similarly, in the state of Maranhão, Cutrim et al. [21] found that males were more infected and suggested a sylvatic transmission cycle, as men are more likely to enter forested areas to hunt or cultivate crops, thusly increasing exposure to the vector. Furthermore, the precarious living conditions witnessed in the Brazilian Northeast also influence disease dissemination. In rural areas, for example, houses made from clay, wood and straw can shelter triatomines in the cracks and fissures of wall, thereby exposing inhabitants to CD vectors. Accordingly, studies have revealed that household conditions also present a risk of infection, which may explain the higher incidence seen in women in northeastern Brazilian due to increased exposure in peridomestic settings [22].

The present study found a high number of cases among individuals of productive age (15–59 years), suggesting increased frequency of exposure in this population due to occupational activities that increase the risk of transmission [23]. In the Brazilian Northeast macroregion, this age group was associated with a high number of cases arising from vectorial transmission, possibly due to frequent triatomine exposure of this rural population during work-related activities [2426]. This finding is relevant as morbidity and mortality in acute CD is directly associated with reduced quality of life in infected individuals. Considering its impact on workforce productivity associated with premature disability and death, CD alone is estimated to subtract 426,000 years [27] from DALYs in the Americas, which highlights why it is considered one of the most important neglected parasitic diseases throughout the Americas. Furthermore, epidemiological and transmission models of CD predict an annual global impact of $24.73 billion dollars in health-care costs and 29,385,250 DALYs [28].

In recent decades, oral transmission has gained epidemiological relevance and is now considered one of the most important routes of infection in Brazil [29,30]. Records show that increasing number of cases have been associated with this route throughout the country since 2005, although oral transmission have been reported in the Amazon region since the 1960s. Historically, larger number of cases associated with oral transmission have been reported in the northern region of Brazil [31,32]. In fact, most acute CD outbreaks in the Amazon region have been attributable to oral transmission [30,3336], while vectorial transmission, the second leading route of infection, is predominantly linked to occupational exposure. It is noteworthy that the state of Pará is responsible for 81% of cases arising from oral transmission in the North region, with higher proportions of cases occurring between August and February, after açaí (Euterpe oleracea) and bacaba (Oenocarpus bacaba) harvest season [31]. The consumption of contaminated food by metacyclic forms of T. cruzi has encouraged the adoption of sanitary practices, such as pasteurizing açaí juice (82.5°C for 1 min) and blanching fruits (70± 1°C for 10 s) from endemic areas, which was shown to efficiently eliminate T. cruzi in food matrices [37]. Furthermore, controlling the transport of untreated juice and other products to surrounding regions in Brazil, as well as export to other countries, may contribute to reductions in this form of newly considered foodborne disease (17).

In spite of the vector control and management measures implemented by the CD Control Program (PCDCh) established in Brazil in 1975, the Southern Cone Initiative, launched in 1991 and granted certification in 2006, is recognized as being responsible for the interruption of CD through the near-elimination of its most important domestic vector, T. infestans [12,38]. Despite this, some studies have shown the persistence of the vectorial route of transmission, most likely due to the existence of wild vectors in extradomicilar settings. This highlights the fact that vectorial transmission continues to present risk, possibly due to the existence of autochthonous vectors with high colonization potential, as well as residual isolated foci of T. infestans [38,39]. From 2012 to 2016, the Ministry of Health reported T. infestans colonization in four municipalities in the state of Bahia and 12 in Rio Grande do Sul [40]. To this end, several studies have described the persistence of triatomine species in cities throughout Bahia [41,42]. In sum, the persistence of vectorial transmission reinforces the need for enhanced entomological surveillance involving routine domicile visitations by public health authorities, as well as targeted educational campaigns in affected communities, chemical-based control measures, and improvements in housing conditions in areas where T. cruzi is endemic to effective reduce Chagas disease infection risk.

The high incidence of vectors reported in the Northeast, Southeast and South macroregions may be related to the presence of Panstrongylus megistus, since this vector is currently considered one of the most important in Brazil, with widespread distribution from the South to Northeast. Great microgeographic diversity has been observed in the states of Minas Gerais and Bahia, and P. megistus is often found in the southern, southeastern and northeastern riverside areas of the country. In addition, this data may also reflect possible underreporting, especially with respect to vectorial transmission, as many cases are not correctly identified with this route [30].

This study is mainly limited by the quality of the data analyzed, as well as the underreporting of acute CD cases and isolated outbreaks. Indeed, some of the differences observed among microregions may be the result of underreporting and/or logistical issues in local health systems, including a lack of access to specialized services in many municipalities, which provokes patients to seek care in surrounding urban centers [14]. This phenomenon likely prevents regional health professionals from properly diagnosing Chagas disease and can lead to the implementation of ineffective epidemiological surveillance. Moreover, acute cases oftentimes go undiagnosed due to a lack of classical symptoms, or when mild and unspecific [6], which can contribute to underreporting. Data regarding the probable mode of T. cruzi-infection and some sociodemographic conditions, such as self-reported skin color, age and gender, were missing from a substantial number of records. Our data further suffers limitations due to a change in the record format used by the SINAN database after 2006. Prior to this year, oral transmission was not an option in the field corresponding to probable mode of transmission, which was included beginning in 2007. Outbreaks have occurred in the country during the period of study, which were responsible for isolated ACD cases in Brazil [7,33,36,4346]. The main impact of outbreaks, especially in cases of oral transmission in the North Brazilian macroregion, refers to distortion of geographical analysis Despite these drawbacks, we nonetheless consider the results presented herein to be of high validity and highly representative, since all cases of acute CD reported during the period from 2001 to 2018 were included in Brazil, a country of substantial size.

In conclusion, this study shows that most cases of acute CD in Brazil occurred mainly due to oral and vector transmission. Moreover, a more recent epidemiological profile of transmission demonstrates that, despite improvement as a result of the control of T. infestans, new measures should be incorporated into entomological surveillance programs to address the presence of different autochthonous vector species. In addition, hygienic-sanitary measures should also be adopted in an effort to further reduce oral transmission. We also emphasize the importance of notifying suspected cases in primary care and health service settings, as well as the performance of early diagnosis and common intermittent gaps in treatment availability as relevant factors in disease control. Similarly, notifying chronic cases in Brazil as well as identifying positive chronic cases from blood banks should be strongly considered [4749]. The prevention, control and identification of the main risk factors associated with acute Chagas disease can lead to efficacious actions focused on differing epidemiological contexts in each affected region.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE Checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Acute Chagas disease notifications according to sociodemographic variables, self-reported skin color and probable route of Trypanosoma cruzi infection by Brazilian region, stratified according three periods (P1, P2 and P3).

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Relative risk of acute Chagas disease by microregion.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Andris K. Walter for the English language revision and manuscript copyediting assistance.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Data Information Department of the Unified Health System (DATASUS) (http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS) and from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), based on the national census for the period between 2000 and 2010 (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-demografico/series-temporais/series-temporais/).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement-Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 and Research Support Foundation of the State of Bahia (FAPESB). Wayner Vieira de Souza is research fellows of CNPq (process no. 306222/2013-2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015; 90(6): 33–43. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 386(9995): 743–800. Epub 2015 Jun 7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schmunis GA, Yadon ZE. Chagas disease: a Latin American health problem becoming a world health problem. Acta Trop. 2010; 115(1–2): 14–21. Epub 2009 Nov 20. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.11.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Manne-Goehler J, Reich MR, Wirtz VJ. Access to care for Chagas disease in the United States: a health systems analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015; 93(1): 108–113. Epub 2015 May 18. 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0826 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Conners EE, Vinetz JM, Weeks JR, Brouwer KC. A global systematic review of Chagas disease prevalence among migrants. Acta Trop. 2016; 156: 68–78. Epub 2016 Jan 8. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.01.002 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shikanai-Yasuda MA, Carvalho NB. Oral transmission of Chagas disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 54(6): 845–852. Epub 2012 Jan 11. 10.1093/cid/cir956 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pinto AY, Valente SA, Valente Vda C. Emerging acute Chagas disease in Amazonian Brazil: case reports with serious cardiac involvement. Braz J Infect Dis. 2004; 8(6): 454–460. Epub 2005 May 9. 10.1590/s1413-86702004000600010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rassi A Jr, Rassi SG, Rassi A. Sudden death in Chagas’ disease. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001; 76(1): 75–96. 10.1590/s0066-782x2001000100008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rassi A Jr, Rassi A, Marcondes de Rezende J. American trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease). Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2012; 26(2): 275–291. 10.1016/j.idc.2012.03.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dias JC, Ramos AN Jr, Gontijo ED, Luquetti A, Shikanai-Yasuda MA, Coura JR, et al. 2 nd Brazilian Consensus on Chagas disease, 2015. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2016; 49(Suppl 1): 3–60. 10.1590/0037-8682-0505-2016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Martins-Melo FR, Carneiro M, Ramos AN Jr, Heukelbach J, Ribeiro AL, Werneck GL. The burden of Neglected Tropical Diseases in Brazil, 1990–2016: A subnational analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018; 12(6): e0006559 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006559 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dias JC. Southern Cone Initiative for the elimination of domestic populations of Triatoma infestans and the interruption of transfusional Chagas disease. Historical aspects, present situation, and perspectives. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2007; 102(Suppl 1): 11–18. 10.1590/s0074-02762007005000092 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brazil. Vigilância em Saúde no Brasil 2003–2019. Bol. Epidemiológico. 2019:1–156. Available from: https://portalarquivos2.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2019/setembro/25/boletim-especial-21ago19-web.pdf. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martins-Melo FR, Alencar CH, Ramos AN Jr, Heukelbach J. Epidemiology of mortality related to Chagas’ disease in Brazil, 1999–2007. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012; 6(2): e1508 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001508 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Souza-Santos R, Peiter PC, Resendes AP, Pina Mde F. Análise Descritiva em Sistemas de Informações Geográficas (SIG) Sist. Informações Geográficas e Análise Espac. na Saúde Pública. 1st ed Brasília-DF: Ministério da Saúde; 2007. p. 39–61. Available from: https://ares.unasus.gov.br/acervo/html/ARES/1198/1/livro_2.pdf. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. Portuguese. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med. 2000; 19(3): 335–351. 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000215)19:3&lt;335::aid-sim336&gt;3.0.co;2-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007; 335(7624): 806–808. 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dias JC. Elimination of Chagas disease transmission: perspectives. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(Suppl 1): 41–45. 10.1590/s0074-02762009000900007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Borges-Pereira J, de Castro JA, da Silva AG, Zauza PL, Bulhões TP, Gonçalves ME, et al. Soroprevalência da infecção chagásica no Estado do Piauí, 2002. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2006; 39(6): 530–539. 10.1590/s0037-86822006000600004 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Teixeira RB, Oliveira SM. Perfil de pacientes portadores de doença de Chagas em Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil. Rev Soc Bras Clin Med. 2015;13(4): 262–265. Available from: https://files.bvs.br/upload/S/1679-1010/2015/v13n4/a5183.pdf. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. Portuguese. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cutrim FS, Almeida IA, Gonçalves Eda G, Silva AR. Doença de Chagas no Estado do Maranhão, Brasil: registro de casos agudos no período de 1994 a 2008. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2010; 43(6): 705–708. 10.1590/s0037-86822010000600021 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Godoy I, Meira DA. Soroprevalência da infecção chagásica em moradores de municípios da região de Botucatu, Estado de São Paulo. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2007; 40(5): 516–520. 10.1590/s0037-86822007000500005 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Coura JR, Junqueira AC. Risks of endemicity, morbidity and perspectives regarding the control of Chagas disease in the Amazon Region. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012; 107(2): 145–154. 10.1590/s0074-02762012000200001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Coura JR. Chagas disease: control, elimination and eradication. Is it possible? Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. 2013; 108(6): 962–967. 10.1590/0074-0276130565 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Brandão E, Romero S, da Silva MAL, Santos FLN. Neglected tropical diseases in Brazilian children and adolescents: data analysis from 2009 to 2013. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017; 6(1): 154 10.1186/s40249-017-0369-0 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Santos FL, Lorena VM, Souza WV, Gomes Yde M. Spatiotemporal analysis of reported cases of acute Chagas disease in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil, from 2002 to 2013. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015; 48(2): 181–187. 10.1590/0037-8682-0312-2014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.World Health Organization. Working to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical diseases—First WHO report on neglected tropical diseases World Heal Organ. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010. Available from: https://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/resources/9789241564090/en/. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee BY, Bacon KM, Bottazzi ME, Hotez PJ. Global economic burden of Chagas disease: A computational simulation model. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013; 13(4): 342–348. Epub 2013 Feb 8. 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70002-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bello Corassa R, Aceijas C, Alves PAB, Garelick H. Evolution of Chagas’ disease in Brazil. Epidemiological perspective and challenges for the future: a critical review. Perspect Public Health. 2017; 137(5): 289–295. Epub 2016 Oct 10. 10.1177/1757913916671160 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Coura JR. The main sceneries of Chagas disease transmission. The vectors, blood and oral transmissions—a comprehensive review. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015; 110(3): 277–282. Epub 2014 Dec 2. 10.1590/0074-0276140362 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nóbrega AA, Garcia MH, Tatto E, Obara MT, Costa E, Sobel J, et al. Oral transmission of Chagas disease by consumption of Açaí palm fruit, Brazil. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009; 15(4): 653–655. 10.3201/eid1504.081450 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pereira KS, Schmidt FL, Guaraldo AM, Franco RM, Dias VL, Passos LAC. Chagas’ disease as a foodborne illness. J Food Prot. 2009; 72(2): 441–446. 10.4315/0362-028x-72.2.441 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Valente SA, da Costa Valente V, das Neves Pinto AY, de Jesus Barbosa César M, dos Santos MP, Miranda CO, et al. Analysis of an acute Chagas disease outbreak in the Brazilian Amazon: human cases, triatomines, reservoir mammals and parasites. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009; 103(3): 291–297. Epub 2008 Dec 31. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.10.047 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.da Silva Valente SA, de Costa Valente V, Neto HF. Considerations on the epidemiology and transmission of Chagas disease in the Brazilian Amazon. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1999; 94(Suppl 1): 395–398. 10.1590/s0074-02761999000700077 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pinto AY, Valente SA, Valente Vda C, Ferreira Junior AG, Coura JR. Fase aguda da doença de Chagas na Amazônia brasileira. Estudo de 233 casos do Pará, Amapá e Maranhão observados entre 1988 e 2005. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2008; 41(6): 602–614. 10.1590/s0037-86822008000600011 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Souza-Lima Rde C, Barbosa Md, Coura JR, Arcanjo AR, Nascimento Ada S, Ferreira JM, et al. Outbreak of acute Chagas disease associated with oral transmission in the Rio Negro region, Brazilian Amazon. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2013; 46(4): 510–514. 10.1590/0037-8682-1367-2013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.de Oliveira AC, Soccol VT, Rogez H. Prevention methods of foodborne Chagas disease: Disinfection, heat treatment and quality control by RT-PCR. Int. J Food Microbiol. 2019; 301: 34–40. Epub 2019 Apr 26. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.04.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Silveira AC, Dias JC. O controle da transmissão vetorial. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2011; 44(Suppl 2): 52–63. 10.1590/s0037-86822011000800009 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vinhaes MC, de Oliveira SV, Reis PO, de Lacerda Sousa AC, Silva RA, Obara MT, et al. Assessing the vulnerability of Brazilian municipalities to the vectorial transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi using multi-criteria decision analysis. Acta Trop. 2014; 137: 105–110. Epub 2014 May 22. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.05.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Doença de Chagas Aguda e distribuição espacial dos triatomíneos de importância epidemiológica, Brasil 2012 a 2016. Bol. Epidemiológico. 2019; 50: 1–10. Available from: https://portalarquivos2.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2019/janeiro/23/2018-025.pdf. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. Portuguese. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Aras R, Gomes I, Veiga M, Melo A. Transmissão vetorial da doença de Chagas em Mulungu do Morro, Nordeste do Brasil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 36(3): 359–363. Epub 2003 Jul 31. 10.1590/s0037-86822003000300008 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ribeiro G Jr, Gurgel-Gonçalves R, Reis RB, Santos CG, Amorim A, Andrade SG, et al. Frequent house invasion of Trypanosoma cruzi-infected triatomines in a suburban area of Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015; 9(4): e0003678 eCollection 2015 Apr. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003678 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bastos CJ, Aras R, Mota G, Reis F, Dias JP, de Jesus RS, et al. Clinical outcomes of thirteen patients with acute Chagas disease acquired through oral transmission from two urban outbreaks in northeastern Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(6): e711 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000711 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Vargas A, Malta JMAS, Costa VMD, Cláudio LDG, Alves RV, Cordeiro GDS, et al. Investigação de surto de doença de Chagas aguda na região extra-amazônica, Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil, 2016. Cad Saude Publica. 2018; 34(1): e00006517 10.1590/0102-311X00006517 . Portuguese. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Steindel M, Kramer Pacheco L, Scholl D, Soares M, de Moraes MH, Eger I, et al. Characterization of Trypanosoma cruzi isolated from humans, vectors, and animal reservoirs following an outbreak of acute human Chagas disease in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008; 60(1): 25–32. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.07.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dias JP, Bastos C, Araújo E, Mascarenhas AV, Netto E, Grassi F, et al. Acute Chagas disease outbreak associated with oral transmission. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2008; 41(3): 296–300. 10.1590/s0037-86822008000300014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.CONITEC, Ministério da Saúde. Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas Doença de Chagas. Brasília-DF; 2018. Available from: http://conitec.gov.br/images/Protocolos/Relatorio_PCDT_Doenca_de_Chagas.pdf. [cited 2019 Dez 1]. Portuguese.
  • 48.Slavov SN, Otaguiri KK, Pinto MT, Valente VB, Ubiali EMA, Covas DT, et al. Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies in blood donors from the Sao Paulo State, Brazil, between 2012 and 2014. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2017; 11(3): 277–281. 10.3855/jidc.8169 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Miranda DLP, Ribeiro G Jr, Lanza FC, Santos FLN, Reis RB, Fraga DBM, et al. Seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection among blood donors in the state of Bahia, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2019; 52: e20190146 10.1590/0037-8682-0146-2019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445.r001

Decision Letter 0

Igor C Almeida, Alain Debrabant

10 Mar 2020

Dear PhD Santos,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2017: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

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

Sincerely,

Igor C. Almeida

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: The objectives are clear and in accordance with the retrospective study design. I think the sample size is sufficient is suitable to the tested hypothesis and statistical analysis supports the conclusions. Regarding ethical principles, there are no concerns.

Reviewer #2: Please see general comments below.

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

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 correspond to the plan and the data are clear and complete. Figures and tables are self-explanatory and quality.

Reviewer #2: Please see general comments below.

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

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 conclusions are appropriate to the data emphasizing the study limitations due to the quality of the analyzed data and the underreporting of Trypanosoma cruzi in the acute phase. Data analysis is well discussed considering epidemiological indicators related to the acute phase of Chagas disease. It also addresses the importance of reporting suspected cases in primary care and public health services, early diagnosis as well as the gaps regarding the availability of the etiological treatment as relevant factors in controlling the transmission of the parasite.

Reviewer #2: Please see general comments below.

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

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: I suggest reviewing the entire manuscript of the text to make the changes below:

Abstract: Lines 32, 35, 38 41 and 51. Change the acronym CD to ACD so as not to confuse the reader, CD is Chagas disease and ACD is acute Chagas disease.

Author summary: Line 63 - Put number 4 in full (numbers 0-10 must be written in full).

Lines 69, 70, 73 and 79 - Change the acronym CD to ACD.

Introduction: Lines 106, 110 and 115 - Change the acronym CD to ACD.

Material and Methods: Lines 144, 146, 152, 162 and 176 - Change the acronym CD to ACD.

Results: Lines 195, 196, 203, 213, 217 and 243 - Change the acronym CD to ACD.

Fig 2 line 207 and Fig 4 line 268 - Do the same.

Review legend of Fig. 3 - No map self-reported skin color - Please review Fig 3 - in blue, white is misspelled, rewrite!

Please Review the list of references, space between words, names of authors etc.

See manuscript attached.

Reviewer #2: Please see general comments below.

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

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 adresses epidemiological data related to acute Chagas disease that are publicly available, analyzed the spatiotemporal distribution of notified cases of acute Chagas disease and evaluated relevant epidemiological indicators throughout Brazil from 2001 to 2017. Even with a huge difference between the number of confirmed cases of acute Chagas disease and the notification (suspected) cases reported, there was a clear increase in numbers of acute Chagas disease cases during the last decade. The importance of diagnosis and prompt treatment of cases and prolonged follow-up of patients should be strengthened in the increased risk of outbreaks, providing visibility and development of methodologies and well-designed clinical follow-up.

Reviewer #2: This is a sound analysis of acute cases of Chagas Disease during a period of 17 years. Brazil's macro regions were defined as units of analysis. Methods and conclusions are adequate. There are only some comments:

I am missing a general description of all notified cases and request to include a table with all cases diagnosed, according to available variables available such as sex, age, region, transmission route, year/period etc. (Figure 3 only gives a broad information by region/bar charts).

Acute Chagas Disease often occurs in outbreaks, especially in the case of oral transmission. In addition, a major outbreak may distort geographical analysis. I suggest to include information on major outbreaks that occurred during the study period, in the discussion section of the manuscript, and to discuss the implications adequately.

This manuscript is written by 15 authors, which is rather unusual for a study analyzing easily available secondary data. However, a description of author contributions is missing. Please include.

Minor comments:

Lines 85/86: Correct ... “by the Kinetoplastid hemoflagellated Trypanosoma cruzi.” Into “by the hemoflagellated kinetoplastid Trypanosoma cruzi”.

Line 301: should be “previous study” – please correct

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you 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. For instructions see https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445.r003

Decision Letter 1

Igor C Almeida, Alain Debrabant

17 Apr 2020

Dear PhD Santos,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2017: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

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

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Igor C. Almeida

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: Accept

Reviewer #2: (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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Table S2: These are the numbers as used for the Figure. Please include a standard table in the manuscript presenting data of all cases, without stratification by region and period! Include relative frequencies! Variables: age, gender, skin color, route of infection, region, year.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (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: Accept

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: In general, the manuscript is acceptable. However, inclusion of the table with description of the cases, as described above, is crucial.

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you 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. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445.r005

Decision Letter 2

Igor C Almeida, Alain Debrabant

1 Jun 2020

Dear PhD Santos,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Associate Editor's comments:

I think the authors did a very good job in addressing the major concerns of the reviewers in this new R2 version. However, I have some concerns myself that need to be clarified before acceptance of this manuscript.

Figure 3: I noticed that the revised graph shows datapoints from 2001 to 2017. However, the legend (line 207) states the data are from 2001 to 2018. The same issue applies to Figure 4, where the new maps are from 2002 to 2017, whereas 2018 is missing. On the other hand, Table 1 has data from 2001 to 2018. I understand that some of the official parameters are perhaps not available for 2018 or any other particular year(s), but the manuscript needs to keep a certain consistency throughout it. Please, clarify these discrepancies in the text, just stating when and, if possible, why certain parameter(s) or data for a particular year is/are not available.

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

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Igor C. Almeida

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Associate Editor's comments:

I think the authors did a very good job in addressing the major concerns of the reviewers in this new R2 version. However, I have some concerns myself that need to be clarified before acceptance of this manuscript.

Figure 3: I noticed that the revised graph shows datapoints from 2001 to 2017. However, the legend (line 207) states the data are from 2001 to 2018. The same issue applies to Figure 4, where the new maps are from 2002 to 2017, whereas 2018 is missing. On the other hand, Table 1 has data from 2001 to 2018. I understand that some of the official parameters are perhaps not available for 2018 or any other particular year(s), but the manuscript needs to keep a certain consistency throughout it. Please, clarify these discrepancies in the text, just stating when and, if possible, why certain parameter(s) or data for a particular year is/are not available.

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you 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. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445.r007

Decision Letter 3

Igor C Almeida, Alain Debrabant

2 Jun 2020

Dear PhD Santos,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis' 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,

Igor C. Almeida

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008445.r008

Acceptance letter

Igor C Almeida, Alain Debrabant

13 Jul 2020

Dear PhD Santos,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Acute Chagas disease in Brazil from 2001 to 2018: A nationwide spatiotemporal analysis," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Acute Chagas disease notifications according to sociodemographic variables, self-reported skin color and probable route of Trypanosoma cruzi infection by Brazilian region, stratified according three periods (P1, P2 and P3).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Relative risk of acute Chagas disease by microregion.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Data Information Department of the Unified Health System (DATASUS) (http://www2.datasus.gov.br/DATASUS) and from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), based on the national census for the period between 2000 and 2010 (https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-demografico/series-temporais/series-temporais/).


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

    RESOURCES