Pathogens transmitted in animal feces in low- and middle-income countries.

Animals found in close proximity to humans in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) harbor many pathogens capable of infecting humans, transmissible via their feces. Contact with animal feces poses a currently unquantified-though likely substantial-risk to human health. In LMIC settings, human exposure to animal feces may explain some of the limited success of recent water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions that have focused on limiting exposure to human excreta, with less attention to containing animal feces. We conducted a review to identify pathogens that may substantially contribute to the global burden of disease in humans through their spread in animal feces in the domestic environment in LMICs. Of the 65 potentially pathogenic organisms considered, 15 were deemed relevant, based on burden of disease and potential for zoonotic transmission. Of these, five were considered of highest concern based on a substantial burden of disease for which transmission in animal feces is potentially important: Campylobacter, non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS), Lassa virus, Cryptosporidium, and Toxoplasma gondii. Most of these have a wide range of animal hosts, except Lassa virus, which is spread through the feces of rats indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Combined, these five pathogens cause close to one million deaths annually. More than half of these deaths are attributed to invasive NTS. We do not estimate an overall burden of disease from improperly managed animal feces in LMICs, because it is unknown what proportion of illnesses caused by these pathogens can be attributed to contact with animal feces. Typical water quantity, water quality, and handwashing interventions promoted in public health and development address transmission routes for both human and animal feces; however, sanitation interventions typically focus on containing human waste, often neglecting the residual burden of disease from pathogens transmitted via animal feces. This review compiles evidence on which pathogens may contribute to the burden of disease through transmission in animal feces; these data will help prioritize intervention types and regions that could most benefit from interventions aimed at reducing human contact with animal feces.

Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities.

Humans can be exposed to pathogens from poorly managed animal feces, particularly in communities where animals live in close proximity to humans. This systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature examines the human health impacts of exposure to poorly managed animal feces transmitted via water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related pathways in low- and middle-income countries, where household livestock, small-scale animal operations, and free-roaming animals are common. We identify routes of contamination by animal feces, control measures to reduce human exposure, and propose research priorities for further inquiry. Exposure to animal feces has been associated with diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, trachoma, environmental enteric dysfunction, and growth faltering. Few studies have evaluated control measures, but interventions include reducing cohabitation with animals, provision of animal feces scoops, controlling animal movement, creating safe child spaces, improving veterinary care, and hygiene promotion. Future research should evaluate: behaviors related to points of contact with animal feces; animal fecal contamination of food; cultural behaviors of animal fecal management; acute and chronic health risks associated with exposure to animal feces; and factors influencing concentrations and shedding rates of pathogens originating from animal feces.

The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sanitation aims to sequester human feces and prevent exposure to fecal pathogens. More than 2.4 billion people worldwide lack access to improved sanitation facilities and almost one billion practice open defecation. We undertook systematic reviews and meta-analyses to compile the most recent evidence on the impact of sanitation on diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, trachoma, schistosomiasis, and nutritional status assessed using anthropometry. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We updated previously published reviews by following their search strategy and eligibility criteria. We searched from the previous review's end date to December 31, 2015. We conducted meta-analyses to estimate pooled measures of effect using random-effects models and conducted subgroup analyses to assess impact of different levels of sanitation services and to explore sources of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence from intervention studies using the Liverpool Quality Appraisal Tool (LQAT) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. A total of 171 studies met the review's inclusion criteria, including 64 studies not included in the previous reviews. Overall, the evidence suggests that sanitation is protective against diarrhea, active trachoma, some STH infections, schistosomiasis, and height-for-age, with no protective effect for other anthropometric outcomes. The evidence was generally of poor quality, heterogeneity was high, and GRADE scores ranged from very low to high. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms positive impacts of sanitation on aspects of health. Evidence gaps remain and point to the need for research that rigorously describes sanitation implementation and type of sanitation interventions.

The impact of sanitation interventions on latrine coverage and latrine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 2.4 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation and 946 million still practice open defecation. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned this review to assess the impact of sanitation on coverage and use, as part of its effort to develop a set of guidelines on sanitation and health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We systematically reviewed the literature and used meta-analysis to quantitatively characterize how different sanitation interventions impact latrine coverage and use. We also assessed both qualitative and quantitative studies to understand how different structural and design characteristics of sanitation are associated with individual latrine use. A total of 64 studies met our eligibility criteria. Of 27 intervention studies that reported on household latrine coverage and provided a point estimate with confidence interval, the average increase in coverage was 14% (95% CI: 10%, 19%). The intervention types with the largest absolute increases in coverage included the Indian government's "Total Sanitation Campaign" (27%; 95% CI: 14%, 39%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions (16%; 95% CI: 8%, 24%), latrine subsidy/provision interventions that also incorporated education components (17%; 95% CI: -5%, 38%), sewerage interventions (14%; 95% CI: 1%, 28%), sanitation education interventions (14%; 95% CI: 3%, 26%), and community-led total sanitation interventions (12%; 95% CI: -2%, 27%). Of 10 intervention studies that reported on household latrine use, the average increase was 13% (95% CI: 4%, 21%). The sanitation interventions and contexts in which they were implemented varied, leading to high heterogeneity across studies. We found 24 studies that examined the association between structural and design characteristics of sanitation facilities and facility use. These studies reported that better maintenance, accessibility, privacy, facility type, cleanliness, newer latrines, and better hygiene access were all frequently associated with higher use, whereas poorer sanitation conditions were associated with lower use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that most sanitation interventions only had a modest impact on increasing latrine coverage and use. A further understanding of how different sanitation characteristics and sanitation interventions impact coverage and use is essential in order to more effectively attain sanitation access for all, eliminate open defecation, and ultimately improve health.

Assessing the impact of sanitation on indicators of fecal exposure along principal transmission pathways: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fecal-oral transmission of enteric and other pathogens due to poor sanitation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in low- or middle-income settings. Few studies have investigated the impact of sanitation on indicators of transmission, a prerequisite to achieving health gains. This review attempts to summarize the literature to date. METHODS: We searched leading databases to identify studies that address the effect of sanitation on various transmission pathways including fecal pathogens or indicator bacteria in drinking water, hand contamination, sentinel toys, food, household and latrine surfaces and soil, as well as flies and observations of human feces. This also included studies that assessed the impact of fecal contamination of water supplies based on distance from sanitation facilities. We identified 29 studies that met the review's eligibility criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Overall, the studies found little to no effect from sanitation interventions on these transmission pathways. There was no evidence of effects on water quality (source or household), hand or sentinel toy contamination, food contamination, or contamination of surfaces or soil. There is some evidence that sanitation was associated with reductions in flies and a small effect on observations of feces (Risk Difference -0.03, 95%CI -0.06 to 0.01). Studies show an inverse relationship between the distance of a water supply from a latrine and level of fecal contamination of such water supply. Future evaluations of sanitation interventions should include assessments of effects along transmission pathways in order to better understand the circumstances under which interventions may be effective at preventing disease.