Global Distribution Maps of the Leishmaniases

  1. David M Pigott  Is a corresponding author
  2. Samir Bhatt
  3. Nick Golding
  4. Kirsten A Duda
  5. Katherine E Battle
  6. Oliver J Brady
  7. Jane P Messina
  8. Yves Balard
  9. Patrick Bastien
  10. Francine Pratlong
  11. John S Brownstein
  12. Clark Freifeld
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru
  14. Peter W Gething
  15. Dylan B George
  16. Monica F Myers
  17. Richard Reithinger
  18. Simon I Hay
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. UFR Médecine, Université Montpellier 1 and UMR 'MiVEGEC', CNRS 5290/IRD 224, France
  3. CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, France
  4. Harvard Medical School, United States
  5. Boston University, United States
  6. Boston Children's Hospital, United States
  7. National Institutes of Health, United States
  8. RTI International, United States

Abstract

The leishmaniases are vector-borne diseases that have a broad global distribution throughout much of the Americas, Africa and Asia. Despite representing a significant public health burden, our understanding of the global distribution of the leishmaniases remains vague, reliant upon expert opinion and limited to poor spatial resolution. A global assessment of the consensus of evidence for leishmaniasis was performed at a sub-national level by aggregating information from a variety of sources. A database of records of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis occurrence was compiled from published literature, online reports, strain archives and GenBank accessions. These, with a suite of biologically relevant environmental covariates, were used in a boosted regression tree modelling framework to generate global environmental risk maps for the leishmaniases. These high-resolution evidence-based maps can help direct future surveillance activities, identify areas to target for disease control and inform future burden estimation efforts.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David M Pigott

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    david.pigott@zoo.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Samir Bhatt

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nick Golding

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kirsten A Duda

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Katherine E Battle

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Oliver J Brady

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jane P Messina

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yves Balard

    UFR Médecine, Université Montpellier 1 and UMR 'MiVEGEC', CNRS 5290/IRD 224, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Patrick Bastien

    CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Francine Pratlong

    CHRU de Montpellier, Centre National de Référence des Leishmanioses, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. John S Brownstein

    Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Clark Freifeld

    Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru

    Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Peter W Gething

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Dylan B George

    National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Monica F Myers

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Richard Reithinger

    RTI International, Washington DC, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Simon I Hay

    University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 9,192
    views
  • 1,238
    downloads
  • 192
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. David M Pigott
  2. Samir Bhatt
  3. Nick Golding
  4. Kirsten A Duda
  5. Katherine E Battle
  6. Oliver J Brady
  7. Jane P Messina
  8. Yves Balard
  9. Patrick Bastien
  10. Francine Pratlong
  11. John S Brownstein
  12. Clark Freifeld
  13. Sumiko R Mekaru
  14. Peter W Gething
  15. Dylan B George
  16. Monica F Myers
  17. Richard Reithinger
  18. Simon I Hay
(2014)
Global Distribution Maps of the Leishmaniases
eLife 3:e02851.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02851

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02851

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Edited by Prabhat Jha et al.
    Collection Updated

    eLife has published papers on many tropical diseases, including malaria, Ebola, leishmaniases, Dengue and African sleeping sickness.

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Bo Zheng, Bronner P Gonçalves ... Caoyi Xue
    Research Article

    Background:

    In many settings, a large fraction of the population has both been vaccinated against and infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Hence, quantifying the protection provided by post-infection vaccination has become critical for policy. We aimed to estimate the protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of an additional vaccine dose after an initial Omicron variant infection.

    Methods:

    We report a retrospective, population-based cohort study performed in Shanghai, China, using electronic databases with information on SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination history. We compared reinfection incidence by post-infection vaccination status in individuals initially infected during the April–May 2022 Omicron variant surge in Shanghai and who had been vaccinated before that period. Cox models were fit to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

    Results:

    275,896 individuals were diagnosed with real-time polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in April–May 2022; 199,312/275,896 were included in analyses on the effect of a post-infection vaccine dose. Post-infection vaccination provided protection against reinfection (aHR 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.85). For patients who had received one, two, or three vaccine doses before their first infection, hazard ratios for the post-infection vaccination effect were 0.84 (0.76–0.93), 0.87 (0.83–0.90), and 0.96 (0.74–1.23), respectively. Post-infection vaccination within 30 and 90 days before the second Omicron wave provided different degrees of protection (in aHR): 0.51 (0.44–0.58) and 0.67 (0.61–0.74), respectively. Moreover, for all vaccine types, but to different extents, a post-infection dose given to individuals who were fully vaccinated before first infection was protective.

    Conclusions:

    In previously vaccinated and infected individuals, an additional vaccine dose provided protection against Omicron variant reinfection. These observations will inform future policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccination in China and other countries.

    Funding:

    This study was funded the Key Discipline Program of Pudong New Area Health System (PWZxk2022-25), the Development and Application of Intelligent Epidemic Surveillance and AI Analysis System (21002411400), the Shanghai Public Health System Construction (GWVI-11.2-XD08), the Shanghai Health Commission Key Disciplines (GWVI-11.1-02), the Shanghai Health Commission Clinical Research Program (20214Y0020), the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (22ZR1414600), and the Shanghai Young Health Talents Program (2022YQ076).