Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 28, Number 3—March 2022
Dispatch

Ebola Virus Glycoprotein IgG Seroprevalence in Community Previously Affected by Ebola, Sierra Leone

Daniela MannoComments to Author , Philip Ayieko, David Ishola, Muhammed O. Afolabi, Baimba Rogers, Frank Baiden, Alimamy Serry-Bangura, Osman M. Bah, Brian Köhn, Ibrahim Swaray, Kwabena Owusu-Kyei, Godfrey T. Otieno, Dickens Kowuor, Daniel Tindanbil, Elizabeth Smout, Cynthia Robinson, Babajide Keshinro, Julie Foster, Katherine Gallagher, Brett Lowe, Macaya Douoguih, Bailah Leigh, Brian Greenwood, and Deborah Watson-Jones
Author affiliations: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (D. Manno, P. Ayieko, D. Ishola, M.O. Afolabi, F. Baiden, B. Köhn, K. Owusu-Kyei, G.T. Otieno, D. Kowuor, D. Tindanbil, E. Smout, J. Foster, K. Gallagher, B. Lowe, B. Greenwood, D. Watson-Jones); Mwanza Intervention Trials Unit, National Institute for Medical Research, Mwanza, Tanzania (P. Ayieko, D. Watson-Jones); University of Sierra Leone College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, Freetown, Sierra Leone (B. Rogers, A. Serry-Bangura, O.M. Bah, I. Swaray, B. Leigh); Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, Leiden, the Netherlands (C. Robinson, B. Keshinro, M. Douoguih)

Main Article

Table 2

Potential risk factors for transmission of Ebola virus from animals during the 2014–2016 EVD outbreak and antibody seropositivity and GMC among participants in a study of EBOV GP–specific binding antibody seropositivity, Sierra Leone*

Risk factors No. (%),
n = 1,282		 No. seropositive/ no. tested (%) OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI)† GMC, EU/mL (95% CI) GMC ratio (95% CI) Adjusted GMC
ratio (95% CI)†
Number of domestic animals in the participant’s compound
0 503 (39.2) 45/498 (9.0) Referent,
p = 0.558		 59 (51–67) Referent,
p = 0.462
1–5 374 (29.2) 33/371 (8.9) 1.0 (0.6–1.6) 65 (55–75) 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
>5
 405 (31.6)
 29/403 (7.2)
 0.8 (0.5–1.3)
66 (57–76)
 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
Having the following domestic animals in the compound‡
Dog
N 1,116 (87.1) 90/1,107 (8.1) Referent,
p = 0.349		 66 (52–84) Referent,
p = 0.559
Y 165 (12.9) 17/164 (10.4) 1.3 (0.8–2.3) 62 (57–67) 1.1 (0.8–1.4)
Cat
N 951 (74.2) 80/943 (8.5) Referent,
p = 0.887		 61 (56–67) Referent,
p = 0.400
Y 330 (25.8) 27/328 (8.2) 1.0 (0.6–1.5) 66 (56–78) 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
Goat, sheep
N 870 (67.9) 76/863 (8.8) Referent,
p = 0.465		 62 (56–68) Referent,
p = 0.781
Y 411 (32.1) 31/408 (7.6) 0.9 (0.6–1.3) 62 (57–67) 1.0 (0.9–1.2)
Pig
N 1,263 (98.6) 102/1,253 (8.1) Referent,
p = 0.015		 Referent,
p = 0.014		 61 (57–67) Referent, p<0.001 Referent,
p = 0.001
Y 18 (1.4) 5/18 (27.8) 4.3 (1.5–12.4) 4.5 (1.6–13.0) 200 (93–431) 3.3 (1.5–7.1) 3.0 (1.5–5.9)
Other
N 825 (64.4) 73/817 (8.9) Referent,
p = 0.370		 61 (55–68) Referent,
p = 0.513
Y
 456 (35.6)
 34/454 (7.5)
 0.8 (0.5–1.3)
65 (57–74)
 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
Touching sick or dead domestic animals
N 1,253 (97.7) 106/1,243(8.5) Referent,
p = 0.275		 63 (58–68) Referent,
p = 0.824
Y
 29 (2.3)
 1/29 (3.5)
 0.4 (0.1–2.8)
59 (36–97)
 0.9 (0.6–1.6)
Hunting for wild animals§
N 1,261 (99.3) 105/1,251(8.4) Referent,
p = 0.779		 63 (58–68) Referent,
p = 0.859
Y
 9 (0.7)
 1/9 (11.1)
 1.4 (0.2–11.0)
57 (17–191)
 0.9 (0.3–3.1)
Touching sick or dead wild animals
N 1,277 (99.6) 106/1,267 (8.4) Referent,
p = 0.419		 62 (58–68) Referent,
p = 0.825
Y
 5 (0.4)
 1/5 (20.0)
 2.7 (0.3–24.7)
54 (8–369)
 0.9 (0.1–5.9)
Consuming bushmeat
N 1,275 (99.4) 106/1,265 (8.4) Referent,
p = 0.606		 62 (58–68) Referent,
p = 0.962
Y 7 (0.6) 1/7(14.3) 1.8 (0.2–15.3) 61 (14–274) 1.0 (0.2–4.4)

*Seropositivity defined as >607 EU/mL. EBOV GP–specific binding antibodies were indeterminate in 10 participants. p values calculated by using likelihood ratio test. EBOV, Ebola virus; EU, ELISA units; GMC, geometric mean concentration; GP, glycoprotein; OR, odds ratio. †Adjusted for age and sex. ‡Participants could indicate >1 type of domestic animal. §Types of wild animals hunted by participants who answered yes included monkeys, duiker antelopes, bats, and rodents.

Main Article

Page created: February 06, 2022
Page updated: February 22, 2022
Page reviewed: February 22, 2022
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external