Dual infection with HIV and malaria fuels the spread of both diseases in sub-Saharan Africa

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Science (Impact Factor: 31.48). 02/2007; 314(5805):1603-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1132338
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Mounting evidence has revealed pathological interactions between HIV and malaria in dually infected patients, but the public health implications of the interplay have remained unclear. A transient almost one-log elevation in HIV viral load occurs during febrile malaria episodes; in addition, susceptibility to malaria is enhanced in HIV-infected patients. A mathematical model applied to a setting in Kenya with an adult population of roughly 200,000 estimated that, since 1980, the disease interaction may have been responsible for 8,500 excess HIV infections and 980,000 excess malaria episodes. Co-infection might also have facilitated the geographic expansion of malaria in areas where HIV prevalence is high. Hence, transient and repeated increases in HIV viral load resulting from recurrent co-infection with malaria may be an important factor in promoting the spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.


Available from: Laith J Abu-Raddad, Jul 23, 2014
  • Source
    [Show description] [Hide description]
    DESCRIPTION: Traditional biomedical approaches treat diseases in isolation, but the importance of synergistic disease interactions is now recognized. As a first step we present and analyze a simple coinfection model for two diseases affecting simultaneously a population. The host population is affected by the \emph{primary disease}, a long-term infection whose dynamics is described by a SIS model with demography, which facilitates individuals acquiring a second disease, \emph{secondary (or \emph{opportunistic}) disease}. The secondary disease is instead a short-term infection affecting only the primary-infected individuals. Its dynamics is also represented by a SIS model with no demography. To distinguish between short and long-term infection the complete model is written as a two time scales system. The primary disease acts at the slow time scale while the secondary disease does at the fast one, allowing a dimension reduction of the system and making its analysis tractable. We show that an opportunistic disease outbreak might change drastically the outcome of the primary epidemic process, although it does among the outcomes allowed by the primary disease. We have found situations in which either acting on the opportunistic disease transmission or recovery rates or controlling the susceptible and infected population size allow to eradicate/promote disease endemicity.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Parasite interactions have been widely evidenced experimentally but field studies remain rare. Such studies are essential to detect interactions of interest and access (co)infection probabilities but face methodological obstacles. Confounding factors can create statistical associations, i.e. false parasite interactions. Among them, host age is a crucial covariate. It influences host exposition and susceptibility to many infections, and has a mechanical effect, older individuals being more at risk because of a longer exposure time. However, age is difficult to estimate in natural populations. Hence, one should be able to deal at least with its cumulative effect. Using a SI type dynamic model, we showed that the cumulative effect of age can generate false interactions theoretically (deterministic modeling) and with a real dataset of feline viruses (stochastic modeling). The risk to wrongly conclude to an association was maximal when parasites induced long-lasting antibodies and had similar forces of infection. We then proposed a method to correct for this effect (and for other potentially confounding shared risk factors) and made it available in a new R package, Interatrix. We also applied the correction to the feline viruses. It offers a way to account for an often neglected confounding factor and should help identifying parasite interactions in the field, a necessary step towards a better understanding of their mechanisms and consequences. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Epidemics 02/2015; 28. DOI:10.1016/j.epidem.2015.02.004 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Malaria and HIV/AIDS are the two most common infections in sub-Sahara Africa. There are hypotheses and study reports on the possible association between these two infections, hence the prevalence and outcome of their co-infection in an endemic population will be important in defining healthcare strategies. A cross sectional study was carried out at the Holy Family Hospital in Techiman, Ghana, between November 2011 and January 2012, to determine the prevalence of malaria among HIV sero-positive patients and its impact on hemoglobin levels. A total of 400 HIV sero-positive participants (292 females and 108 males) aged between 1 and 73 years were randomly sampled for the study. A questionnaire was administered and 2 ml of venous blood samples were drawn for malaria parasites detection, CD4 count and haemoglobin level estimations. Malaria parasites were detected in 47 (11.75%) of the participants. There was no statistically significant difference between the malaria prevalence rate of females (12.1%) and males (10.2%) P = 0.6047. An overall anaemia prevalence of 67% was observed. Among participants with malaria the anaemia prevalence was 93.6%. The CD4 cell count of all the participants ranged between 3 and 1604 cells/μl with a mean of 386.2 (±274.3) cells/μl. Participants with malaria had CD4 cell count ranged 3 and 512 Cells/μl with the mean being 186.33 (±133.49) Cells/μl. Out of 377 participants (all above 15 years) interviewed on knowledge of malaria transmission and prevention, 87.0% had knowledge on transmission but only 8.5% use in bed nets. It was revealed that almost all the patients with malaria infection were anemic.
    Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials 03/2015; 14(10). DOI:10.1186/s12941-015-0064-6 · 1.51 Impact Factor