A Study On The Profile Of Patients With Lymphatic

Address for correspondence* DR NEERJA PURI House no 626, phase ii,urban estate, dugri road, ludhiana. Punjab. [ India] Email id: neerjaashu @ rediffmail.com The results were tabulated and the data was analysed statistically using chi square test. It was found that maximum [40%] percentage of patient was between 31 – 40 years of age, followed by 30% patients between 21-30 years, 20% patients between 41-50 years and 10% patients between 10-20 years. Regarding the occupation of our subjects, 60% patients were labourers and 40% patients were farmers. 80% patients were from low income group, 20% patients were from middle income group and none of the patients were from high income group. Lymphoedema was the commonest clinical sign seen in 100% patients [Fig 1] , elephantiasis was seen in 50% patients [Fig 2], hydrocele in 20% patients and pulmonary eosinophilia was seen in 10% patients. Lymphatic filariasis [LF], the second most common vector-borne parasitic disease after malaria, is found in 81 tropical and subtropical countries. World Health Organisation [WHO] estimates that 120 million people are infected with this parasite and 1.3 billion [i.e. >20% of the global population] are living at risk of infection. It is estimated that 40 million people are suffering from the long term complications of the disease. Rural and urban areas in India suffer with lack of adequate antifilarial measures and it is estimated only 11% of the endemic population is protected by the National Filaria Control Programme [NFCP], Government of India. In the present study occupation and income were found to be significant with the microfilaria prevalence. The occupation of the inhabitants was mainly agriculture, labourers followed by people pursuing their family vocations. It was found that the disease prevalence was significant among those living in close proximity to irrigated agricultures and labourers [engaged in agricultural practices]. Agriculture can facilitate the proliferation of mosquitoes including those transmitting filaria.[7] However, in the study area most of the population are low [<1,000] and middle income group [1,000–3,000] house holds and are more risk prone to filariasis. High and middle income participants are generally benefited from clean homes and facilities to maintain personal hygiene and they could afford the cost of the treatment for filariasis. Low income participants lived in less-hygienic conditions and thus were more prone to the infection. Earlier studies reported that low income people are more at risk to lymphatic filariasis and the disease burden is relatively higher in Asian Journal of Medical and Clinical Sciences Original Article