Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Sep 8;15(9):e0009737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009737

Epidemiology of snake envenomation from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil

Karoline Ceron 1,*, Cássia Vieira 1, Priscila Santos Carvalho 1,2, Juan Fernando Cuestas Carrillo 1, Jaqueline Alonso 1, Diego José Santana 1
Editor: Arunasalam Pathmeswaran3
PMCID: PMC8452014  PMID: 34495969

Abstract

Snake envenomation is considered a public health problem in tropical countries, where they occur in a high incidence. The present study reports the snake envenomation that occurred in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil) between 2007 and 2017. Epidemiological data were obtained from the online platform of the Notification Disease Information System and were analyzed according to biome. A total of 5568 cases of snake envenomations were recorded during the study period, where the highest frequency was registered between October and April. The majority of envenomations occurred in working-age males (20 to 39 years), caused mainly by Bothrops snakes, and the duration of care after the envenomation in most cases took three hours. The municipalities that showed the highest snake envenomations case per 100,000 inhabitants presents low population density, and have their economy based on agricultural activity, which is a risk factor to snake envenomations. To the Mato Grosso do Sul state, the total number of snake envenomations had a positive relationship with the size of the municipality. Since this, larger areas usually have a mosaic of environments, which may harbor higher richness and abundance of snakes, and can cause more snake encounters with the population, resulting in more snake envenomations.

Author summary

Brazil is the country in South America with the most reported snake envenomations, however, the incidence of snake envenomations is not equal throughout the country. In most cases, the occurrence of snake envenomations is related to environmental factors (e.g., climate) and the increase of human activity in fieldwork. Besides those factors, problems in urban infrastructure, municipality size, or population size are also variables that can influence the number of snake envenomations in a region. The authors found that in the Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil, the number of snake envenomations is low when compared with Mato Grosso and Goiás states, and the national average. Despite this, snake envenomations in Mato Grosso do Sul confirmed trends observed in other Brazilian regions, happening mainly in October and April. Most of the envenomations occurred in males by Bothrops snakes and with an attendance time of 3 hours. Also, the authors found that there is a relationship between municipality areas with the number of snake envenomations. Seen this, municipalities with larger areas usually have a mosaic of environments, which may harbor higher richness and abundance of snakes, and can cause more snake encounters with the population, resulting in more snake envenomations.

Introduction

In tropical countries, snake envenomations represent a major problem for public health care due to their morbidity and mortality [1]. In July 2017, the World Health Organization started to recognize snake envenomations as a neglected tropical disease, occurring mainly in rural workers from developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions [2]. Annually, 4.5 to 5.4 million snake envenomations occur worldwide, of this, 1.8 to 2.7 million develop clinical illness, and 81 thousand to 138 thousand die as a consequence of those envenomations. Estimates support that 400 thousand people suffer consequences such as restricted mobility, amputation, blindness, and post-traumatic stress [2].

Brazil is the South American country with the most reported snake envenomations, with close to 28.000 cases per year; the North and Central West areas are at the top of the list [3,4]. Most of the snake envenomations from Brazil are caused by four genus: Bothrops (jararaca), Crotalus (cascavel), Lachesis (surucucu), and Micrurus (corais-verdadeiras) [4,5]. Snake envenomations occur with higher frequency at the end and beginning of the year, the major activity time for snakes, and the victims are mainly male rural workers 15 to 49 years old, who get bit mainly on their lower limbs [6,7]. Lethality, in general, is relatively low (0.4%) and depends on different factors such as the time between the envenomation and medical attendance, the identification of the venom type, and later antivenom therapy [4,8].

Several factors are known to interfere in the severity of the snake envenomations. Some are related to the snake, the patients, and the medical assistance, such as which species caused the envenomation or the time between the bite and the administration of the antivenom serum [1]. However, in most cases, the occurrence of snake envenomations are related to environmental factors (e.g., climate, humidity, temperature, and rainfall) and the increase of human activity in fieldwork, mainly during the months of highest rainfall [1]. Besides those factors, problems in urban infrastructure, municipality size, or population size from a rural area, are also variables that can influence the number of snake envenomations in a region [9].

Snake envenomations studies with the proper animal identification are essential. They provide better information to improve medical attendance and treatments, mainly for reducing decision time and antivenom serum application that have direct impacts in reducing local damage, systemic damage, and possible aftermath effects for the victims [10]. Thus, we aim to present the epidemiologic profile of the snake envenomations registered in Mato Grosso do Sul (Central-West Brazil) from 2007 to 2017, and relate the incidences of snake envenomations to local and regional variables.

Methods

Study area

We collected data for Mato Grosso do Sul (MS) in the Central-West region of Brazil, an area with 357,125 km2. In 2010, the population was 2,449,024, with 85% of people from urban areas and 15% from rural areas [11]. Mato Grosso do Sul is located in three different biomes, Cerrado, Pantanal, and Atlantic Forest, harboring 10 species of venomous snakes and 103 species of non-venomous snakes [12,13]. The Cerrado is located in the central-east part of the state, includes most of the state territory, and is one of the most threatened biomes in the world [12]. The Pantanal covers over 25% of the state territory and is located in the western part of the state. Seasonal flooding is one of the main features of this biome [14]. The Atlantic Forest is located in the southern portion of the state and covers 14% of the territory [15]. Atlantic Forest is not only one of the most biodiverse biomes in the world but also provides essential ecosystem services for over 145 million Brazilians living in it [16].

Data collection

We collected snake envenomations data between 2007 and 2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state using the Sistema de Informação de Agravos e de Notificações (SINAN) from Ministério da Saúde do Brasil available at http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sinannet/cnv/animaissc.def. SINAN is a platform for the collection and processing of data on notification diseases at the national level, which are notified by health professionals. It contributes to the identification of the epidemiological reality of a given geographical area and allows an analysis of the morbidity profile. Envenomations by animals are considered by the medical staff on a scale from mild to severe. The snake genus that caused the accident and the type of venomous is identified at the initial assessment by the health professionals, according to victims’ symptoms.

We collected data such as sex, age group, event date, event location, death occurrence, time between the snake envenomation and medical attendance, numbers of snake envenomations per snake genus, and level of envenomation by state mesoregion. Age groups were: under 1 year old, from 1 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 39, 40 to 59, 60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 79, and over 80 years old. Envenomation levels were defined as mild, moderate, and severe depending on the symptoms [17]. We collected all data related to each municipality of Mato Grosso do Sul state (population density, biome, and municipality areas) from DATASUS system based on the Brazilian Census 2010 (http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/).

Data analyses

We used a variance analysis (ANOVA) to test differences among years. Before ANOVA, we tested normality and homoscedasticity using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and variance homogeneity with Levene test [18]. After ANOVA we performed Tukey post hoc tests to identify differences among years [18]. We assumed the significance level as p ≤ 0.05.

We used a Chi-Square test to verify differences between males and females. For that, we considered the total number of envenomations as the response variable and sex as the explanatory variable. To verify differences in the occurrence of snake envenomations among months, age groups, and snake species, we used a Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test followed by a Nemenyi post-hoc test [19]. In the first test, we assessed total snake envenomations among months from 2007 to 2017. In the second test, we compared snake envenomations per age group using the following sample sizes: Under 1-year-old, from 1 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, 20 to 39, 40 to 59, 60 to 64, 65 to 69, 70 to 79 and over 80 years old. In the third test, we evaluated snake envenomations per snake genus: Bothrops, Crotalus, Micrurus, Lachesis, and non-venomous snakes.

We verified the influence of sociodemographic variables (population density, biome, and municipality areas) over the occurrence of snake envenomations with a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) with negative Binomial distribution by using MASS [20] package within R program [21]. To this analysis, we removed two leverages from the dataset (Campo Grande and Corumbá municipalities).

Results

We recovered information from a total of 5565 cases of snake envenomations between 2007 and 2017 at Mato Grosso do Sul state (Fig 1). Year 2017 had the most incidents (n = 572) and 2007 had the least incidents (n = 324). The number of snakes envenomations per year differed significantly (F = 2.103, df = 10, p = 0.02), as did snake envenomations per month (x2 = 80.3, df = 11, p < 0.0001). During 2007, April, June, July, August, and September exhibited the fewest cases (p <0.05) (Fig 2). We find a significant difference between sexes (x2 = 1495.1, p ≤0.01), with 75.90% (n = 4226) of the cases occurring in males whereas only 24.08% (n = 1341) occurred in females (Table 1).

Fig 1. The number of snake envenomations per year between 2007 to 2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

Fig 1

Fig 2. The number of snake envenomations per month between 2007 to 2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

Fig 2

Table 1. Number of snake envenomations by sex in Mato Grosso Do Sul state, Brazil, between 2007 to 2017.

Sex 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total %
Blank/Ignored - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 0.02
Male 251 421 435 383 399 422 320 384 398 400 413 4226 75.9
Female 73 146 136 91 122 139 110 109 130 126 159 1341 24.08
Total 324 567 571 474 521 561 431 493 528 526 572 5568 100

We found significant differences among age groups (x2 = 110.31, df = 10, p < 0.0001), with more snakes envenomations occurring in age groups 20 to 39 (35.94%) and 40 to 59 (27.50%). Most of the analyzed cases (73.10%) were attended to within 3 hours of an envenomation and 39.48% within 1 hour (Table 2). We found differences among snake genus (x2 = 50.687, df = 4, p < 0.0001) with 77.07% (n = 4.291) of the cases related to Bothrops, followed by Crotalus durissus 9.05% (n = 504), Micrurus 0.66%, (n = 37), and non-venomous snakes 3.02% (n = 168); six cases were assigned to Lachesis (0,11%).

Table 2. The number of snake envenomations per time-lapse between envenomation and attendance in Mato Grosso Do Sul state, Brazil, between 2007 to 2017.

Time-Lapse (hours) Year Total %
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Blank/Ignored 19 38 39 21 30 34 33 23 30 31 22 320 5.75%
0 to 1 114 208 223 185 193 230 180 209 214 214 228 2198 39.48%
1 to 3 113 205 190 161 186 184 139 166 165 157 206 1872 33.62%
3 to 6 41 55 59 57 63 61 51 54 57 62 63 623 11.19%
6 to 12 11 24 34 22 17 22 14 11 27 27 20 229 4.11%
12 to 24 22 24 17 16 20 11 4 16 25 23 14 192 3.45%
≥ 24 4 13 9 12 12 19 10 14 10 12 19 134 2.41%
Total 324 567 571 474 521 561 431 493 528 526 572 5568 100.00%

For the Mato Grosso do Sul state and during the studied period, over 15 people died due to envenomations involving snakes corresponding to 0.27% of the total snakes envenomations registered; seven deaths were related to Bothrops, three to Crotalus and one to Micrurus (Fig 3). The rest of the deaths (n = 4) did not have an associated genus. In contrast, most of the people (84.88%, n = 4227) who suffered snake envenomations recovered successfully, one person died by other causes not related to the snake envenomation (0.01%) and, 826 people (14.83%) did not inform about case evolution. Among the registered cases, 51.02% (n = 2841) were categorised as mild, 33.41% (n = 1860) as moderate, and 8.31% (n = 463) as severe (Table 3).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Common venomous snakes from Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil), where: a) Bothrops alternatus (cruzeira), b) Bothrops mattogrossensis (boca-de-sapo), c) Bothrops moojeni (jararaca), d) Bothrops pauloensis (jararaca-pintada), e) Crotalus durissus (cascavel) and, f) Micrurus tricolor (coral). All photos are from Diego J. Santana, author of the manuscript.

Table 3. Categorization and number of snake envenomations per snake genus in Mato Grosso Do Sul state, Brazil, between 2007 to 2017.

Categorization Ignored Bothrops Crotalus Micrurus Lachesis Non-venomous Total %
Ignored 73 277 34 4 - 16 404 7.26%
Mild 331 2108 232 22 4 144 2841 51.02%
Moderate 119 1558 172 4 1 7 1860 33.41%
Severe 40 348 66 7 1 1 463 8.32%
Total 562 4291 504 37 6 168 5568 100.00%

Based on spatial distribution, most of the envenomations occurred in Cerrado (62.92%), followed by Atlantic Forest (28.81%), and Pantanal with 8.27% (Fig 4). The municipality of Figueirão (n = 103.81), followed by Paranhos (n = 89.29) and Tacuru (n = 82.58) showed the highest incidence of snake envenomations per 100,000 population (Fig 4). However, GLM showed that the number of snake envenomations per municipality in Mato Grosso do Sul state is only related to the municipality area (Z = 4.26, p ≤ 0.01, Fig 5). The variables of biome and population density did not influence the snake envenomations in Mato Grosso do Sul state (p > 0.05).

Fig 4. The mean number of snake envenomation per 100,000 population for municipalities between 2008–2009 and 2011–2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

Fig 4

Municipalities codes are listed in S1 Table. IBGE—All maps are in the public domain. (https://www.ibge.gov.br/).

Fig 5. Relationship between the number of snake envenomation between 2007 and 2017 and the municipality area (Z = 4.26, p ≤ 0.01) of cities from Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

Fig 5

Discussion

Snake envenomations epidemiology in Mato Grosso do Sul confirmed trends observed in other Brazilian regions e.g., [4,7,22], happening mainly in October and April. Most of the envenomations occurred in males (> 16 years old) by Bothrops snakes and with an attendance time of 3 hours. The number of snake envenomations was also influenced by the municipality size. From 2007 to 2017, health authorities from Mato Grosso do Sul state registered 5,568 cases, which is a relatively low occurrence of cases when compared with Mato Grosso state (13,424), Goiás (11,637), and the national average [23]. Additionally, these data may not reflect the real number of snake envenomations as some envenomations were not reported because they happened in remote rural areas where victims do not have the access to health care [24], as related in other studies carried out in Brazil e.g., [7,10,22]. Besides that, many patients prefer to use alternative medicine rather than a modern treatment provided by a health centre. Unfortunately, this incidence is poorly addressed in Latin America, but it probably plays a significant role in underestimating the incidence and possibly severity of envenomations [25].

There were more snake envenomations notifications in 2017 (n = 572) with the lowest number of records observed in 2007 (n = 324). This low number of reports may be related to the beginning of obtaining data through the online platform, which may cause some data loss and not reflect the actual number of snake envenomations that occurred in that year. The highest number of notifications observed in 2017 could be related to the major use of the notification platform by the municipalities in the face of modernization of prefectures, allowing internet access to the majority of municipalities resulting in a higher number of envenomations reports. Despite this, it can be related to the growth in the agricultural sector in that year [26], because the agricultural activity itself is a risk factor for the occurrence of snake envenomations worldwide [27]. In 2017, agriculture grew 9.2% in comparison with 2016, with production breaking records in several crops, especially soy (23.9%) and corn (62.9%) [28].

The months between October and April showed the highest number of snake envenomations, which corroborates other studies carried out in Brazil [7,29,30]. This period coincides with the hottest and rainiest season of the year when snakes are most active and prey availability is greater [31]. In addition, the greatest agricultural activity occurs during this time of the year, which increases the number of encounters between rural workers and these animals [4]. The months of June, July, and August had the lowest number of cases, probably due to the lower temperatures during the winter months. Colder and drier periods cause a drop in the metabolism of snakes, which also coincide with the lower availability of prey. Consequently, encounters with these animals are less frequent during these months [31,32].

There was a significant difference between the number of envenomations and the victim’s sex. The greater number of snake envenomations in men could be related to the fact that work in the field is performed mainly by men and that agriculture is the main source of income in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul [10,26]. There was a difference in the number of envenomations by age group, with the highest frequency occurring in the age groups of 20 to 39 years old and 40 to 59 years old, both of which involve economically active people. These observations reinforce the idea of envenomations as a work accident because their increase coincides with working-class society. Most of the cases analysed (73.10%) were attended to within 3 hours after the accident and 39.48% were attended within 1 hour after the event. This is probably due to the number of places where snake envenomations can be attended to in Mato Grosso do Sul. From the 76 municipalities in Mato Grosso do Sul state, only 10 do not have centers to attend snakes envenomations. This scenario helps with the prompt attendance of snake envenomations and with the reduction of deaths, once the patient arrives at the medical center; the early stage of treatment is crucial for total recovery. The delay in starting serotherapy can cause local and systemic complications and increase the lethality of envenomations [8]. In addition, with the greater accessibility of the population to media, information regarding public health circulates more quickly and effectively [33], speeding up and improving the treatment of snake envenomations.

There was a difference in the number of cases recorded among snake genus. The genus Bothrops was responsible for most of the snake envenomations (77.07%), corroborating the trend observed in other studies in the Brazilian Midwest region [34,35] and other Brazilian states [7,36,37]. Despite this, the majority of cases related to the genus Bothrops were classified as mild, according to the symptoms. In Brazil, Bothrops cause most snake envenomations, probably due to their abundance, wide geographic distribution, and ability to adapt to different environments [4,38,39]. For the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Bothrops moojeni Hoge, 1966 and Bothrops mattogrossensis Amaral, 1925 are the species with the greatest distribution [40,41]. Bothrops moojeni (jararaca, caiçaca, baetão) has nocturnal activity and terrestrial habits, generally found in riparian forests of open areas or at forest borders in central and southeastern Brazil [42]. In bothropic envenomation, the venom has proteolytic, coagulant, and haemorrhagic action [43], and the clinical symptoms are mainly local lesions including edema, ecchymosis, pain, hemorrhage, and myonecrosis, associated with systemic changes, such as cardiovascular disorders, hemodynamic injuries, and renal damage [44]. In crotalic envenomation, caused by Crotalus durissus (Linnaeus, 1758), the venom has neurotoxic, myotoxic, and coagulant action [43], and the principal systemic evidence are mydriasis, paresthesia, eyelid ptosis, diplopia, generalized myalgia, vomiting, changes in blood pressure, red and brown urine, and acute respiratory failure in severe cases [4,45]. Crotalus durissus is a terrestrial snake with crepuscular and nocturnal activity [46]. It inhabits the Cerrado from central Brazil, arid and semiarid regions from the Northeast, and open areas from the south, southeast, and northern Brazil [9]. It can occur in peripheral urban areas but due to its behavior and distribution in these areas, this species causes few cases [34]. Most elapidic envenomation are caused by snakes in the genus Micrurus. In Brazil, most of the elapidic envenomation are produced by Micrurus corallinus (Merrem, 1820) and Micrurus frontalis (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854) [47]. Only M. frontalis has registered in Mato Grosso do Sul [48]. These bites have neurotoxic and myotoxic actions, but injuries are rare because envenomations occur mostly when the victim handles a snake, sometimes children or people under the influence of alcohol [45,49]. This venom induces a slight local reaction, pain and slight edema, paresthesia, and erythema, but the symptoms are mainly neurotoxic, such as eyelid ptosis, ophthalmoplegy (paralysis of the eye muscles), paralysis of the jaws, muscles of the larynx and pharynx, salivation, dizziness, weakness, dysphagia, dyspnoea, and paralysis of the neck and limbs [45,47]. In severe cases, respiratory failure may occur and end in death [47]. Species in this genus are typically medium-sized snakes, fossorial, not very aggressive, have small venom inoculating teeth, and a limited mouth opening angle [47], all of which may explain the rarity of snake envenomation in this genus.

During the period studied, 0.11% of the envenomations were attributed to Lachesis muta (Linnaeus, 1766), known in Brazil as surucucu-pico-de-jaca. This species occurs in the Central West region, only in Mato Grosso and Goiás states, but not in Mato Grosso do Sul [48]. Its venom is proteolytic, coagulant, hemorrhagic, neurotoxic, and the envenomation are similar to bothropic envenomation [50], which may have led to confusion during clinical diagnosis. In addition, more than one species has the same common name leading to confusion and misidentification or mistakes in SINAN information [51].

In Mato Grosso do Sul during the study period, 15 people died due to snake envenomations, representing 0.27% of the total cases registered for the state. Lethality is lower than in states like Mato Grosso (0.52%) and Goiás (0.44%), but higher than in states like Santa Catarina (0.24%) and Paraná (0.25%) [23]. Delay or absence of serotherapy favors local and systemic complications that directly reflect an increase in the lethality rate of snake envenomations [8]. Early attendance, field worker awareness about serotherapy and serum presence in health units, as well as serum specificity, proper venom administration, and dose, are crucial factors for reducing the lethality of snake envenomations [37,52]. Under the same logic, environmental education can help to reduce envenomations lethality by providing knowledge about snakes, changes in values and improving abilities, basic conditions to stimulate better integration, and harmony between people and the environment [53]. Myths and legends around snakes interfere with scientific facts, as well as the way films and media deliver misinformation and characterize snakes as cruel animals [54]. Previous studies revealed that the best method to avoid snake envenomations is to deliver prevention measures through the distribution of posters, folders, and lectures [17,38]. In this way, environmental education as an awareness strategy is fundamental for the conservation of snakes by influencing the way people interact with these animals [55], reducing the conflicts between humans and snakes, and reducing the lethality of snake envenomations.

The municipalities that showed the highest snake envenomations case per 100,000 inhabitants presents a few populations (from ca. 3000 inhabits to Figueirão to 13000 to Paranhos), which results in low population density, and also have their economy based on agricultural activity [11]. This pattern confirms the trend observed by Chippaux [25] to Bolivia, Argentina, and Colombia, where places with low density, but predominantly agricultural, shown a higher incidence of snake envenomations. The proximity of human populations to the natural environment explains a greater frequency of encounters with snakes. Consequently, snake envenomation occurs usually in rural areas during agricultural activities, especially in developing countries, like Brazil, where farming is an important and weakly mechanized economic activity [25].

We did not find a relationship between biome and snake envenomations, which might be related to the generalist habits of some species (e.g., Bothrops spp.) that have a wide geographic distribution and high adaptability to different environments [4]. The absence of relation between population density and snake envenomations can be related to the growth of cities, because the human population will be large while human presence may limit the development of snake populations or, even so, snakes will not be able to encounter favorable conditions for their development [56]. On contrary, we found a relationship between municipality area with the number of snake envenomations. In America, snake envenomations are related to snake abundance and the richness of venomous snakes is higher in the tropics [25,57]. Together, municipalities with larger areas usually have a mosaic of environments, which may harbor higher richness and abundance of snakes, and can cause more snake encounters with the population, resulting in more snake envenomations.

Together, our data highlight the general scenario of snake envenomations in West Brazil and their risk factor involved (working-age males, in bigger municipalities with an economy based on agricultural activity with low population density). In addition, we highlight the urge for more detailed studies involving snake envenomations in West Brazil, clarifying the epidemiologic pattern in focal populations and the clinic evolution of cases.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The total and the mean number of snake envenomation per 100,000 population for municipalities between 2008–2009 and 2011–2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Doctor Fritz S. Hertel for English review and comments on the manuscript

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

KC thanks Fundect (Fundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento de Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Mato Grosso do Sul) for scholarship # 71/700.146/2017. KC, PSC and JFCC thanks Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Funding code 001. DJS thanks CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for productivity funding (309420/2020-2). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This study was financed by the Coordenação de. Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) -. Finance Code 001.

References

  • 1.Pinho FMO, Pereira ID. Ofidismo.Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2001; 47: 24–29. doi: 10.1590/s0104-42302001000100026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.MSB—Ministério da Saúde do Brasil. 2018. Portal Da Saúde. Available at: http://portalms.saude.gov.br/noticias/svs/43413-brasil-copatrocinou-resolucao-para-o-problema-dos-acidentes-ofidicos-nomundo (Acessed 07 February 2018).
  • 3.Araujo FAA, Santalucia M, Cabral RF. Epidemiologia dos acidentes por animais peçonhentos. In: Cardoso JLC, França SFO, Wen FH, Málaque SCM, Haddad V Jr. (eds) Animais peçonhentos no Brasil: biologia, clínica e terapêutica dos acidentes. São Paulo: Sarvier, 2003; p 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bernarde PS. Serpentes peçonhentas e acidentes ofídicos no Brasil. Curitiba: Anolisbooks; 2004, 224p. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2004.04036.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nascimento SPD. Aspectos epidemiológicos dos acidentes ofídicos ocorridos no Estado de Roraima, Brasil, entre 1992 e 1998. Cad Saude Publica. 2000; 16: 271–276. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2000000100031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bochner R, Struchiner CJ. Epidemiologia dos acidentes ofídicos nos últimos 100 anos no Brasil: uma revisão. Cad Saude Publica. 2003; 19: 07–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ceron K, Bernarde PS, Sestito GA, Zocche JJ. Acidentes ofídicos no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil.Oecologia Australis. 2019; 23:56–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Borges CC, Sadahiro M, Santos MCD. Aspectos epidemiológicos e clínicos dos acidentes ofídicos ocorridos nos municípios do estado do Amazonas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1999; 32:637–646. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Melgarejo AR. Serpentes Peçonhentas no Brasil. In: Cardoso JLC, França FOS, Wen F. H, Málaque CMS, Haddad JR. V. (eds) Animais Peçonhentos no Brasil: Biologia, Clínica e Terapêutica dos Acidentes. São Paulo: Sarvier. 2003; p 339–361 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lima ACSF, Campos CEC, Ribeiro JR. Perfil epidemiológico de acidentes ofídicos do estado do Amapá. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2009; 42: 329–335. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822009000300017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2010. Censo demográfico. Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/perfil.php?sigla = sc (Acessed 05 April 2019).
  • 12.IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2004. Mapas de Biomas e Vegetação. Available at: https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/21052004biomashtml.shtm (Acessed 01 June 2019).
  • 13.Ferreira VL, Terra JS, Piatti L, Delatorre M, Strüssmann C, Béda AF, Kawashita-Ribeiro RA, et al. Répteis do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia, Sér. Zool. 2017; 107(suppl.): e2017153. 10.1590/1678-4766e2017153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Santos JS, Pereira G, Shimabukuro YE, Rudorff BFT. Identificação de áreas alagadas no Bioma Pantanal—Brasil, utilizando dados multitemporais. TERRA/MODIS. Geografia. 2009; 34:745–755. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cardoso JR. A Mata Atlântica e sua conservação. Revista Encontros Teológicos. 2016; 31:451–458. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.MMA—Ministério Do Meio Ambiente do Brasil. 2019. O Bioma Cerrado. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/biomas/cerrado (Acessed 5 June 2019).
  • 17.Gu C. Smoothing spline ANOVA models. New York: Springer Science and Business Media. 2013, 290p. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pohlert T. The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R package, 2014; 27(2019), 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition. New York: Springer.2002; 138p. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.R Core Team. 2019. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/.
  • 21.Rojas CA, Almeida Santos SM, Gonçalves MR. Epidemiologia dos acidentes ofídicos na região noroeste do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Saúde Prod. Anim. 2007; 8: 193–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Albuquerque HND, Costa TBGD, Cavalcanti MLF. Estudo dos acidentes ofídicos provocados por serpentes do gênero Bothrops notificados no estado da Paraíba, Rev. biol. ciênc. terra. 2004; 5: 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.MSB—Ministério da Saúde do Brasil. 2019. Programa do Sistema de Informação de Agravos e de Notificações SINAN. Available at: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sinannet/cnv/anima issc.def (Acessed 07 February 2019).
  • 24.GEMS—Governo do Estado Mato Grosso do Sul. 2017. Portal MS. Available at: http://www.ms.gov.br/a-economia-de-ms/ (Acessed 07 February 2019).
  • 25.Chippaux JP. Incidence and mortality due to snakebite in the Americas. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2017; 11(6): e0005662. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Theakston RDG, Warrell DA, Griffiths E. Report of a WHO workshop on the standardization and control of antivenoms. Toxicon. 2003; 41: 541–557. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(02)00393-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.IBGE- Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2017. Produção Agricola Municipal. Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pam/tabelas (Acessed at 02 March 2019).
  • 28.Oliveira FN, Brito MT, Morais ICOD, Fook SML, Albuquerque HND. Accidents caused by Bothrops and Bothropoides in the State of Paraiba: epidemiological and clinical aspects. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2010; 43: 662–667. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822010000600012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bernarde PS, Gomes JDO. Serpentes peçonhentas e ofidismo em Cruzeiro do Sul, Alto Juruá, estado do Acre, Brasil. Acta Amazon. 2012; 42: 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marques OAV, Sazima I. História Natural das Serpentes, In: Cardoso JLC, França FOS, Wen FH, Málaque CMS, Haddad V Jr. (eds) Animais Peçonhentos no Brasil: Biologia, Clínica e Terapêutica dos Acidentes. São Paulo: Sarvier. 2003; pp. 62–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.De Avelar VSP, Silvério Pires MR. As Serpentes da Região de Ouro Branco, extremo sul da Cadeia do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais. Revista Ceres. 2009; 56: 166–171. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Frossard VC, Dias MCM. O impacto da internet na interação entre pacientes: novos cenários em saúde. Interface (Botucatu). 2016; 20: 3499–361. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Carvalho MAD, Nogueira F. Serpentes da área urbana de Cuiabá, Mato Grosso: aspectos ecológicos e acidentes ofídicos associados. Cad Saude Publica. 1998; 14:753–763. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x1998000400017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pinho FMO, Oliveira ES, Faleiros F. Acidente ofídico no estado de Goiás. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2004; 50: 93–96. doi: 10.1590/s0104-42302004000100043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mise YF, Lira-Da-Silva RM, Carvalho FM. Envenenamento por serpentes do gênero Bothrops no Estado da Bahia: aspectos epidemiológicos e clínicos. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2007; 40: 569–573. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822007000500015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Moreno E, Queiroz-Andrade M, Lira-Da-Silva RM, Tavares-Neto J. Características clínicoepidemiológicas dos acidentes ofídicos em Rio Branco, Acre.Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005; 38: 15–21. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86822005000100004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Barravieira B. Venenos: aspectos clínicos e terapêuticos dos acidentes por animais peçonhentos. Rio de Janeiro: EPUD. 1999; 411p; [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lemos JDC, Almeida TDD, Fook SML, Paiva ADA, Simões MODS. Epidemiologia dos acidentes ofídicos notificados pelo Centro de Assistência e Informação Toxicológica de Campina Grande (Ceatox-CG), Paraíba. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2009; 12: 50–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Da Silva VX, Rodrigues MT. Taxonomic revision of the Bothrops neuwiedi complex (Serpentes, Viperidae) with description of a new species. Phyllomedusa. 2008; 7:45–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ferreira VL, Terra JDS, Piatti L, Delatorre M, Strüssmann C, Béda AF, et al. Reptiles of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Iheringia Ser Zool. 2017; 107: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Betzel RL, Bernardo LR, Silva-Soares T. Bothrops moojeni (Caicaca; Brazilian Lancehead) Diet. Herpetol Rev. 2018; 49:1249–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Azevedo-Marques MMD, Cupo P, Hering SE. Acidentes por animais peçonhentos: serpentes peçonhentas. Medicina, Ribeirão Preto. 2003;36: 480–489. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.França FOS, Málaque CMS. Acidente botrópico. In: Cardoso JLC, França SFO, Wen FH, Málaque SCM Haddad V Jr. (eds) Animais peçonhentos no Brasil: biologia, clínica e terapêutica dos acidentes. São Paulo: Sarvier. 2003; p. 729–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Furtado MDFD. Aspectos sistemáticos e biológicos que atuam na diversidade da composição de venenos em serpentes peçonhentas brasileiras. Herpetologia no Brasil II. 2007; 2:1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sazima I, Haddad CFB. Répteis da Serra do Japi: notas sobre história natural. In: Morellato LPC (Ed.). História natural da Serra do Japi: ecologia e preservação de uma área florestal no Sudeste do Brasil. Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.1992; p. 212–236 [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bucaretchi F, De Capitani EM, Vieira RJ, Rodrigues CK, Zannin M, Da Silva NJ Jr, et al. Coral snake bites (Micrurus spp.) in Brazil: a review of literature reports. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016; 54: 222–234. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1135337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Costa HC, Bérnils RS. Répteis do Brasil e suas Unidades Federativas: Lista de espécies. Herpetologia Brasileira. 2018; 7: 29. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Risk JY, Cardoso JLC, Sueiro LR, Santos SMA. Acidentes com cobras-corais e o Instituto Butantan, In: Silva NJ Jr. As cobras-corais do Brasil: Biologia, Taxonomia, Venenos e Envenenamentos. Goiás: PUC. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Málaque CMS, França FOS. Acidente laquético. In: Cardoso JLC, França FOS, Wen FH, Málaque CMS, Haddad V Jr. (eds). Animais peçonhentos no Brasil: biologia, clínica e terapêutica dos acidentes. São Paulo: Sarvier. 2003; p. 87–90 [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Silva AMD, Monteiro WM, Bernarde PS. Popular names for bushmaster (Lachesis muta) and lancehead (Bothrops atrox) snakes in the Alto Juruá region: repercussions for clinical-pidemiological diagnosis and surveillance. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2019; 52: 1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Feitosa RFG, Melo IMLA, Monteiro HSA. Epidemiologia dos acidentes por serpentes peçonhentas no estado do Ceará—Brasil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1997; 30: 295–301. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86821997000400004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pádua S, Tabanez M. Educação ambiental: caminhos trilhados no Brasil. São Paulo: Ipê, Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas.1997; 283p. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cosendey BN, Salomão SR. Visões sobre as serpentes: répteis ou monstros. Ensino e Aprendizagem de Conceitos Científicos. 2013: 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.De Pontes BES, De Almeida Simões CRM, Vieira GHC, Abílio FJP. Serpentes no contexto da educação básica: sensibilização ambiental em uma escola pública da Paraíba. Experiência em ensino de ciências. 2017; 12: 799–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bochner R, Struchiner CJ. Aspectos ambientais e sócio-econômicos relacionados à incidência de acidentes ofídicos no estado do Rio de Janeiro de 1990 a 1996: uma análise exploratória. Cad Saude Publica. 2004; 20: 976–985. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2004000400012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chippaux JP. Epidemiology of envenomations by terrestrial venomous animals in Brazil based on case reporting: from obvious facts to contingencies. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2015; 21:13. doi: 10.1186/s40409-015-0011-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Reed R. N. 2003. Interspecific patterns of species richness, geographic range size, and body size among New World venomous snakes. Ecography 26: 107–117. [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009737.r001

Decision Letter 0

Janaka de Silva, Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

12 May 2021

Dear De Ceron,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Epidemiology of Snakebites from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil" 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,

Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Janaka de Silva

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: - Objectives: clearly stated

- Design: clearly exlpained = Retrospective record based study

- Some limitations to address goals: using this design it is difficult to infer any incidence rates (per 100,000 / yr ) as the N of SBE cases who did not consult a health facility are not recorded. This type of study often under-estimates the true incidence.

Population: Denominator is not stated - who is the population addressed (total district/region population or beyond)?

- Number of snakebites per snake genus: how was this be assessed in this retrospecive study (at initial assessment, or post-hoc by retrospecive study authors)?- please explain a little more.

- "Elapid accidents were treated as severe..." -> do you mean considered as neurotoxic ? indeed elapids bites can also be dry non-envenomed bites - not all are severe as the quantity of venom injected can be small. A bit unclear.

- "Lethetic"? I do not undertand this word. Do you mean by Lachesis?

- Methods lines 114 to 122 : you present Results in the Methods chapter. I think this is more appropriate in the Results chapter.

Reviewer #2: Objective clear. Retrospective analysis should be mentioned on line 89.

Study area: how many known venomous and non-venomous snake species exist?

Data collection: We need a better description of the national database where the data was collected. Who is collecting it? How is it entered? Who is identifying the snakes? What is the process at which a clinician would enter the data?

We need to distinguish between "snakebite" and "snake envenomation" throughout the manuscript. I have hard time accepting that "poisoning levels" were determined by species and there is no significant clinical data available in this database aside from mortality?

One major question I have is "snakebite" mean "snake envenomation" for data entry.

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

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: - Results : yes , analysis matches well the analysis plan.

- We usually present the total N of snakebite victims, rather than "snakebites events/accidents". This is because of the possible duplicates. Did any patient consult twice the same year or separate years (ID number identical)?

- Lines 132-133 , 152-155, etc...: I am not a statistician, but I think that you do not need to present so many details (F value, x2 value and df value): in most studies P-value is sufficient for these simple statistics (You already explained their choice in methods).

- Line 114 (results in methods) compared with Figure 1 : you say "January (n = 6090, February (n =535)"...

I am surprised by this number for January - is it 6090 or 609 ??

- 155: "Differences in snake genera" : It is not clear how this genus was determined : visually by the victim? killed and brought to the clinic/hospital ? extrapolated by the initial clinician ? or by the authors retrospectively?

- 163: Deaths : it would be useful to know a bit more about these 15 deaths (0.27%). The CFR seems low. Did they occur in children, women? Early deaths (first 24hours) or later ? Syndrome associated with mortality? (rather than species which can be often mistaken).

Recovery : Most people (84.88%) recovered successfully... What about the 15% who did not recover successfully? - amputations? sequelae? long-term disability? Lost to follow-up % ?

- 169 : grave : I think you mean severe (severe in table 3).

- How was the categorisation between mild, mod, severe - which criteria ? (Brazilian guidelines? WHO? Other?)

- 174-178: There is no comparison between number of cases and population (incidence per 100k pop/y) of each geographical area. This would be very important (essential ) to use this type of study, for any epidemiological comparison with studies from other parts of the world.

- Fig3 is interesting showing N of cases per area and showing a superior number in the Pantanal biome areas; BUT for epidemiologists this figure should be based on numbers per 100,000 inhabitants - this would allow comparisons and would possibly show different colour gradients based depending on pop density.

-> You could use your total population (2,449,024 in 2010) or rural population (15% only?) as a denominator. Does the percnt of rural pop (< or <15%) vary among the districts in your map. This is important as it can bias your interpretation. Therefore the total population may be more reliable.

- Fig 4 (b): I am not sure I understand what you mean by "rural population" on the x-axis ? Is this the total population minus the urban population ? I think it would be clearer on the map (Like map Fig 3).

Reviewer #2: Table 3: how did we determine severity of the envenomation? What does ignored mean? Does that mean snake was not identified?

Is there any clinical data available to report? Appears limited

Do we have information on the circumstances of the "snakebites" like occupation and other factors placing increased for a snake encounter?

"non-poisonous" snakes bites were 3.02% and I would consider that low for such a large area. Is this because the initial thought was it was a venomous snake and it was later deemed non-venomous encounter? To only have 168 non-venomous snake encounters over such a large period indicates that the individual entering the data must have thought it was venomous but it was later determined not to be a venomous encounter. We need clarification.

Among the 15 who died, do we have any more information on the cases? Delay in antivenom or health care?

I would remove the work "accidents" from the manuscript and use envenomation.

I would consider a figure of the common genera that are found in this region associated with snake envenomation.

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

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: - Yes but not entirely : you do not really report incidence rates, nor comparative incidence rates. N-cases cannot really be compared if there is no denominator (total population).

- Lines 205-207- "these data may not reflect the real number of snakebites as some

accidents were not reported because they happened in remote rural areas where victims do not

have the access to health care." -> I agree with your statement BUT: would it be possible to estimate (from other studies) the proportion of victims (incl women) who only consult basic health posts or traditional healers in remote areas? In other countries and all continents , this is our major issue leading to under-estimation (Costa Rica, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Cameroon, etc.). It would be interesting to conduct a random multicluster cross-sectional study in the same area to assess this difference in incidence.

- Your hypothesis on agricultural growth seems interesting but it is not supported by data from the Results chapter (not really a conclusion).

- I have doubts about this conclusion: "There was no significant difference between the number of accidents and the victim’s

sex even though 75.90% occurred in men and only 24.08% in women." - If you take the total N F and M in the total population (50 & 50) this would give you a very significant difference in a simple 2x2 table (X-square , p-value<0.00001).

- Same question on age groups: 20-29 and 30-39. P-value comparing age groups? e.g. severe vs mild-mod? In many studies children are significantly more severe, and mortality is higher in children (also in women in some areas in Asia).

Reviewer #2: No limitations are present and there are several. Including data collection and data entry system, which is largely the biggest limitation. We need more discussion on the process of data entry. Is every suspected snake envenomation required to be entered into the system? Who determined the snake envenomation and severity of illness?

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

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: -Annually, 1,8 to 2,7 million snakebites 37 occur worldwide and 81 thousand to 138 thousand deaths

--> Actually WHO says : 4.5 to 5.4 million bites / 1.8 to 2.7 million snakebite ENVENOMING cases (SBE)... 81-138 thousand deaths.. https://www.who.int/health-topics/snakebite#tab=tab_1 : "WHO...available data show 4.5–5.4 million people get bitten by snakes annually. Of this, 1.8–2.7 million develop clinical illness and 81 000 to 138 000 die from complications."

- Line 46 : hind limbs (usually for animals) -> lower limbs (for humans)

- Line 61: epidemiologic profile of the snakebites : Do you mean present clinical profiles ... and relate them to epidemiological factors-variables?

- Lines 72 to 85: not sure these details on biodiversity threats are relevant for the analysis.

- Abstract, last line: "The number of snakebite accidents had a positive relationship with the size of the

municipality and the population size living in rural areas." it is not clear if this is an association with population size" or with the rural vs urban environment?

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: Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing this very important piece of evidence about Snakebite Envenoming in Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil.

However, it leaves the reader and probably some snakebite specialists with a little sense that it is unfinished, and not completely focused

A/ on epidemiology (incidence rates, comparisons, stratifications, environmental risk factors)

B/ or demographic/clinical risk factors outcomes (severity criteria, snake genus,... ).

Your paper would benefit by adding :

1) a table with demographics (age, sex, profession, area, hospital...) of victims

2) a table with main outcomes : severity, deaths, compared to non-severe -> Odds ratios of dying? of being severe ? (by Month/Season? by Year ? by hospital (qlty of care)?

3) a map with estimated incidence rates per 100k pop/yr using the official census total population (it's ok if you explain the possible bias due to not having community data).

Looking forward to seeing the next version !

Many thanks for this opportunity and best wishes.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript needs some attention but study has validity. I would not use the terms "snakebite" "accident" or "snake accident" in this manuscript. This terminology is inaccurate and not attractive for those in the field. Correct terminology is snake envenomation and this needs to be replaced throughout the manuscript. Many people are bitten by snakes and we need to accurate on the terminology used. I also suggest that using the term "poisoning" is also not accurate when discussing envenomation. Line 96: "poisoning levels" what does that mean? I would also refer to "non-poisonous" snake as "non-venomous" as this is accurate and replace throughout manuscript. Remember, venom is a poison, but a poison is typically referred to when a toxin is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Venom is injected directly into the body via "bite or sting" from an organism.

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

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: Gabriel Alcoba

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009737.r003

Decision Letter 1

Janaka de Silva, Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

6 Jul 2021

Dear Dr Ceron,

Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript "Epidemiology of snake envenomation from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil" 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,

Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Janaka de Silva

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: Thanks for submiting this revised version answering very well to all my questions-suggestions, especially on the epidemiological parts (per 100k, map, etc).

Reviewer #2: Revision has markedly been improved and methods are clearer to the reviewer.

Study design has validity. SINAN system explained in more detail.

Need to include in the methods section the explanation on severity scale as it pertains to the FUNASA, 2001. For those outside of Brazil, this method of grading clinical snake envenomation may be different. A statement, like provided in the response letter should be added to lines 127-130 and also referenced.

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

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: Looking at your responses to points 3 and 4, I think it is still unlear how you classified elapid bites (eg by Micrurus/coral) when you look at table 3, in which you classify most bites by Micrurus as mild (22) and moderate (4) and only 7 as severe.

This does not fit your answer about coral snakebites considered as "severe" (Point 4 below): elapid accidents were treated as severe... it contradicts the classification of Micrurus bites into mild-moderate-severe. I think it's better that you stick to the initial clinical classification as you have no means to verify retrospectively. So I would remove your extrapolation (also the corrected one) saying that "Elapidic accidents with clinical manifestations were

treated as severe" (lines 96-99).

I do not understand how reliable this table is as it does not seem to be associated with final outcomes (death, surgery, amputations, disability, hospitalisation time).

**This does not correspond to your answers :

3. Number of snakebites per snake genus: how was this be assessed in this retrospecive study

(at initial assessment, or post-hoc by retrospecive study authors)?- please explain a little more.

Response: Envenomations by animals are considered by the medical team as moderate or

severe, and they are the ones who identify which species caused the accident and the type of

venomous, according to victims’ symptoms. We added a sentence in methods explaining

data obtention by SINAN (lines 85-94). Thus, the genus is assessed at initial assessment by

health professionals.

4. "Elapid accidents were treated as severe..." -> do you mean considered as neurotoxic ?

indeed elapids bites can also be dry non-envenomed bites - not all are severe as the quantity of

venom injected can be small. A bit unclear.

Response: According to FUNASA, 2001 in the guide “Manual for the diagnosis and

treatment of accidents involving poisonous animals” all cases of coral accidents with clinical

manifestations should be considered as potentially serious. We modified this sentence to be

cleaner, now it reads (lines 96-99): “Elapidic accidents with clinical manifestations were

treated as severe, lethetic accidents were treated as moderate to severe depending on the

symptoms, and botropic and crotalics varied among mild, moderate, and severe [19].”

**

Another point is your answer about having a map with N cases per 100k? I do not find it : the map still shows absolute number of cases, but it does not show Cases/100k pop./year -> It would be great to modify the red map and the colour scale of reds to reflect the real relative incidence rates/100k pop.

**

In the limitations you should talk about the usual under-estimation due to cases and deaths ocurring outside any medical facility. You would need a random cluster household survey - the next step ?

Reviewer #2: Analysis is sufficient for data extracted from the SINAN database.

In the response letter the authors have acknowledged limitations and this needs to be added to the discussion section.

The analysis is descriptive and based-off data entered by health professionals into the SINAN database. Clinical data is not provided and details of the envenomation are lacking. A paragraph of limitations should be added and would add more rigor to their study. It also is a chance to introduce a statement for the need for more detailed study on snake envenomation in this region of Brazil.

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

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: Limitations are not clearly included in the discussion. Public health relevance has been stated.

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

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)

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

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: Besides these 2 final comments, this is a very interesting and useful paper which calls for population-based epidemiological studies, such as multi-cluster cross-sectional surveys...

Thanks!

Reviewer #2: Overall the manuscript has been significantly improved.

Two main comments on the revised manuscript:

- the term accidents is scattered throughout the manuscript. In my opinion, "accidents" should be replaced with envenomation. It appears that some studies coming out of Brazil are using the term "accident" for envenomation. The more common terminology should be used and envenomation is more exact.

- limitations are not clearly discussed in the discussion section. Others from Brazil have been published using data in the SINAN database and this should also be stated.

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

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

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009737.r005

Decision Letter 2

Janaka de Silva, Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

17 Aug 2021

Dear Dr Ceron,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Epidemiology of snake envenomation from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil' 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,

Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Janaka de Silva

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009737.r006

Acceptance letter

Janaka de Silva, Arunasalam Pathmeswaran

3 Sep 2021

Dear Dr. Ceron,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Epidemiology of snake envenomation from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. The total and the mean number of snake envenomation per 100,000 population for municipalities between 2008–2009 and 2011–2017 in Mato Grosso do Sul state (Brazil).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to reviwers comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


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

    RESOURCES