SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.39 issue1Analysis of health inequalities. A qualitative approachHealth Status within an Afro-Colombian Community Survivor of the Bojayá Massacre, Chocó author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública

Print version ISSN 0120-386XOn-line version ISSN 2256-3334

Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública vol.39 no.1 Medellín Jan./Apr. 2021  Epub Apr 08, 2021

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e339058 

Investigación

Epidemiology of leptospirosis in Colombia between 2007 and 2015

Epidemiología de la leptospirosis en Colombia entre 2007 y 2015

Epidemiologia da leptospirose na Colômbia entre 2007 e 2015

Clara Susana Arias-Monsalve 1  

Daniela Salas-Botero 2  

Maria Rita Donalisio 3  

1 Doctora en Ecología, Médica Veterinaria. Corporación Universitaria Remington. Medellín, Colombia. csariasm@unal.edu.co ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3875-1566

2 Especialista en Epidemiología, Médica Veterinaria. Instituto Nacional de Salud. Bogotá, D.C. Colombia. dsalas@ins.gov.co ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-1888?lang=en

3 Doctora en Ciencias Médicas, Médica. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Campinas, SP, Brasil. rita.donalisio@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4457-9897


Abstract

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease of global distribution caused by the bacterium Leptospira. In Colombia, it has been mandatory to report this disease since 2007.

Objective:

to perform an epidemiological analysis of human leptospirosis in Colombia at the national, departmental and municipal levels for the period between January 2007 and December 2015.

Methodology:

A retrospective ecological study of the temporal trend and spatial distribution of leptospirosis cases reported between January 2007 and December 2015 was conducted. The variables of sex, age, municipality of residence, area of residence (urban, rural), date of onset of symptoms, and lethality were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 23,994 suspected cases were reported, of which 39.51% were confirmed; 82.4% came from urban areas; 68.87% presented in men; the lethality was 2.66% in men and 2.04% in women. The departments with the highest number of cases were Valle del Cauca (n=2032), Antioquia (n=1747), Atlántico (n=1159); the incidence varied between 2 (Arauca) and 465.4 (Guaviare) per 100,000 inhabitants. At the municipal level, Cali had the highest number of cases (n=682), followed by Barranquilla (n=612) and San José del Guaviare (n=448). The highest incidence was 1597.6 in Pueblo Rico (Risaralda), followed by Sabanas de San Ángel (Magdalena) with 883.4 and San José del Guaviare (Guaviare) with 742.5; the majority of municipalities had incidences between 0 and 50 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Conclusions:

Leptospirosis is distributed throughout Colombia with 85% of the cases concentrated in 10 of its 32 departments. At the municipal level there is a large degree of variation in annual incidences. Six hotspots for cases were also identified, indicating that there are areas of high risk for the disease.

Keywords: leptospirosis; zoonoses; epidemiology; Colombia; incidence

Resumo

A leptospirose é uma doença zoonótica de distribuição global causada pela bactéria Leptospira. Na Colômbia, a notificação da doença é obrigatória desde 2007.

Objetivo:

realizar uma análise epidemiológica da leptospirose humana na Colômbia em escalas nacionais, departamentais e municipais no período entre janeiro de 2007 e dezembro de 2015.

Metodologia:

Foi conduzido estudo ecológico retrospectivo da tendência temporal e distribuição espacial de casos de leptospirose no período. Variáveis ​​demoráficas (sexo, idade, município de residência, área de residência urbana, rural), data de início dos sintomas e letalidade foram analisadas.

Resultados:

Foram relatados de 23 994 casos suspeitos, dos quais 39,51% foram confirmados; 82,4% vem de áreas urbanas; 68,87% dos casos em homens; letalidade de 2,66% nos homens e de 2,04% nas mulheres. Os departamentos com maior número de casos foram Valle del Cauca (n=2032), Antioquia (n=1747), Atlántico (n=1159); a incidência variou entre 2 (Arauca) e 465,4 (Guaviare) por 100 000 habitantes. No nível municipal, Cali tem o maior número de casos (n=682), seguido por Barranquilla (n=612) e San José del Guaviare (n=448). A maior incidência foi de 1597,6 por 100 mil em Pueblo Rico (Risaralda), seguida por Sabanas de San Ángel (Magdalena) com 883,4 e San José del Guaviare (Guaviare) com 742,5. A maioria dos municípios tinha incidências entre 0 e 50 por 100 mil habitantes.

Conclusões:

A leptospirose é distribuída em toda a Colômbia, com 85% dos casos concentrados em 10 dos 32 departamentos. Na escala municipal, há grande variação nas incidências anuais e foram identificados seis pontos quentes para os casos, indicando que existem área de alto risco para a doença.

Palavras chave: leptospirose; zoonoses; epidemiologia; Colômbia; incidência

Resumen

La leptospirosis es una enfermedad zoonótica de distribución mundial causada por la bacteria Leptospira. En Colombia, su reporte es obligatorio desde 2007.

Objetivo:

realizar un análisis epidemiológico de la leptospirosis humana en Colombia a escala nacional, departamental y municipal en el período comprendido entre enero de 2007 y diciembre de 2015.

Metodologia:

Se realizó un estudio ecológico retrospectivo de tendencia temporal y distribución espacial de los casos de leptospirosis reportados entre enero de 2007 y diciembre de 2015. Se analizaron las variables de sexo, edad, municipio de residencia, área de residencia (urbana, rural), fecha de inicio de síntomas y letalidad.

Resultados:

se reportaron un total de 23 994 casos sospechosos, de los cuales se confirmó el 39,51%; el 82,4% proviene de zonas urbanas; el 68.87% se presentaron en hombres; la letalidad fue del 2,66% en los hombres y del 2,04% en las mujeres. Los departamentos con mayor número de casos fueron Valle del Cauca (n=2032), Antioquia (n=1 747), Atlántico (n=1159); la incidencia varió entre 2 (Arauca) y 465,4 (Guaviare) por 100 000 habitantes. A nivel municipal, Cali tiene el mayor número de casos (682), seguido de Barranquilla (n=612) y San José del Guaviare (n=448); la incidencia más alta fue 1 597.6 en Pueblo Rico (Risaralda), seguida por Sabanas de San Ángel (Magdalena) con 883.4 y San José del Guaviare (Guaviare) con 742.5; la mayoría de los municipios tuvieron incidencias entre 0 y 50 por 100 000 habitantes.

Conclusiones:

la leptospirosis se distribuye en toda Colombia, con el 85% de los casos concentrados en 10 de los 32 departamentos. A escala municipal, existe una gran variación en las incidencias anuales y se identificaron seis puntos calientes para casos, lo que indica que existen área de alto riesgo para la enfermedad.

Palabras clave: leptospirosis; zoonosis; epidemiología; Colombia; incidencia

Introduction

Leptospirosis is a disease of worldwide distribution caused by the bacteria Leptospira. Leptospirosis affects domestic animals, mainly dogs, cattle, sheep and pigs. It also affects wildlife, especially carnivores, rodents and marsupials in captivity. In humans, leptospirosis is acquired from an animal host. Rodents have been shown to play a key role in the transmission cycle [1]. The tropics and subtropics have characteristics such as soil moisture, temperature, rainfall, areas of potential flooding and areas with poor hygienic sanitary conditions that meet the perfect conditions for the presence of the bacteria, its maintenance and its transmission. Leptospirosis can manifest in humans as a simple cold, however, it can also be so severe that it leads to death [1,2]. In its typical form, it shows up as a non-specific systemic disease characterized by fever, myalgia and headaches. It is often confused with other illnesses, such as influenza, dengue or malaria [3-5]. Because it does not have typical symptomatology, diagnosis by laboratory or epidemiological link is essential.

The average annual incidence for the Americas region is 12.5 per 100,000 people, ranging from 0.1 to 306.2 in the period between 1970 and 2009, with a mortality rate of over 10% [6]. In the Americas there are information gaps in relation to the disease’s epidemiology and, therefore, the disease’s real impact. In Colombia, leptospirosis has been mandatory to report to the System of Epidemiological Surveillance of the Colombian National Institute of Health (SIVIGILA by its Spanish acronym) since 2007. The first documented case of human leptospirosis occurred around 1957, while the first epidemic in Colombia occurred in the country’s Atlántico department in 1995, with a case fatality rate of 17% among the confirmed cases [7]. In Colombia, the ELISA technique is used as a screening test. All cases that are indicated to be positive via this test are then sent to the National Institute of Health (INS) reference laboratory to be confirmed by a Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT), which is the gold standard recommended by the World Health Organization [8,9].

Reports of leptospirosis in Colombia must be analyzed from an epidemiological perspective in order to have a better understanding of the disease’s presentation. It is crucial to determine the distribution, incidence and lethality of the disease. Adding to work already done focusing on human leptospirosis from an epidemiological perspective in Colombia [10], our work presents an analysis from three different spatial scales with additional associations with variables of sex, age, place of origin and geographical region.

The objective of this study was to perform an epidemiological analysis of human leptospirosis in Colombia at the national, departmental and municipal level in the period between January 2007 and December 2015.

Methodology

An ecological study of temporal trend and spatial distribution of leptospirosis cases reported to SIVIGILA between January 2007 and December 2015 was conducted. The study was conducted in Colombia, a country located in the north-west of South America that has a population of 45.5 million people [11], according to the preliminary results of the census held by the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) in 2018. Administratively, Colombia is divided into 32 departments and 1,032 municipalities. In the present study, data was grouped into 3 spatial scales: national, departmental and municipal.

The leptospirosis data for the years 2007 to 2015 [8] was obtained from the SIVIGILA databases, which contain all suspected cases as defined by the Public Health Surveillance Protocol. The epidemiological analysis of the disease included cases that were confirmed by laboratory and cases that were confirmed by epidemiological link. Confirmation by laboratory is done with the MAT technique with a result greater than 1:400 in single sample or seroconversion in paired samples with a 10 to 15 day period between them [8]. Confirmation by epidemiological nexus is done by taking cases confirmed by laboratory and linking people, a time and place to the source of the infection identified in the confirmed case [8].

Distribution of cases among sex, age groups, municipality of residence and area of residence (urban, rural) was obtained, and the disease’s lethality was calculated. The symptom onset date was used for the temporal analysis of cases and the municipality of residence was used for the spatial analysis. The monthly annual cycle of cases for Colombia was estimated. To estimate the annual cycle, the monthly average cases was obtained and plotted with its respective standard error. The total and annual incidence rates per 100,000 inhabitants were calculated at the national, departmental and municipal level. In order to estimate the total incidence rate, the total number of cases of the study period and the average population of the study period were obtained. The incidence rate was calculated by taking the number of cases and dividing it by the population, then multiplying the result by 100,000. To calculate the annual incidence rate, the number of cases for each year and the average population of the same year were compiled. The population for each year and for each municipality of the country was obtained from DANE, with projected populations based on the census carried out in 2005 [12]. The case fatality rate was calculated at the national level by dividing number of deaths by number of confirmed cases for each year. The proportions according to variables of interest were compared using the Chi square test with Yates correction and with a significance level of 5%. Case distribution maps were developed at the municipal level. To identify areas of higher case concentration (hotspots), a kernel estimator was used [13].

The free software R version 3.5.0, from the R Foundation, was used to perform epidemiological data analysis. For spatial representation, ArcGis version 10.3 from ESRI was used. Data regarding leptospirosis cases were not acquired through interaction with individuals and contained no identifiable private information, so were therefore considered exempt from review by an Ethics Board (following the WMA Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects).

Results

For Colombia, 23,994 suspected cases of leptospirosis were identified during the period between 2007 and 2015, of which 9,449 (39.4%) were confirmed by laboratory or epidemiological link. The origin of the confirmed cases was mainly from urban areas (82.4%), showing that, over the years, the distribution of this disease has been significantly disproportionate (p value = 0) (see Supplemental material 1, Figure A). Regarding the distribution by sex, there were 6,505 confirmed cases in men (68.87%) and 2,943 in women (31.13%) (p ≤ 0.001) (see Supplemental material 1, Figure B). The lethality was higher in men than in women, with 2.66 and 2.04 respectively (see Supplemental material 1, Figure B). The age group with the most cases each year was 14 to 34 years in both sexes (p ≤ 0.001). For the period from 2007 to 2015, the incidence in Colombia varied between 1.62 and 3.06 per 100,000 inhabitants (2015 and 2011 respectively). A peak incidence can be observed between 2010 and 2012 (see Supplemental material 1, Figure C). In the annual cycle of the monthly total cases, the majority are concentrated in October and November and do not indicate a marked seasonal pattern (see Supplemental material 1, Figure D).

Kernel estimation identified four areas of concentrated cases in the national territory located on the Caribbean coast, in the north-west and center of the Antioquia department, Valle del Cauca, the Colombian coffee region and Guaviare (see Figure 1, right).

The department with the highest number of confirmed cases of leptospirosis in the study period was Valle del Cauca (21.5% of the total for the country), followed by Antioquia, Atlántico, Bolívar and Risaralda. Vichada was the department with the lowest number of confirmed cases (2 cases). The total incidence rate per 100,000 inhabitants at the departmental level ranged from two, for the department of Arauca, to 465.4, for the department of Guaviare. Results of the total number of cases and total incidence for each of Colombia’s 32 departments are presented in Table 1. The annual incidences and annual number of cases at the departmental level are presented in Supplemental material 2.

Table 1: Total number of leptospirosis cases and total incidence per 100,000 people at the departmental level. 

Number of cases and incidence of leptospirosis at the departmental level
Department Total number of cases Total incidence per 100,000 people
Valle del Cauca 2032 45.87
Antioquia 1747 28.43
Atlántico 1159 49.45
Risaralda 680 73.08
Bolívar 683 34.07
Magdalena 551 45.41
Guaviare 488 465.41
Cundinamarca 314 12.47
Tolima 241 17.32
Cauca 200 15.02
Quindío 158 28.58
Cesar 134 13.69
Sucre 131 16
Córdoba 120 7.46
Huila 110 10.02
Santander 99 4.9
Chocó 98 20.37
Caldas 84 8.57
La Guajira 80 9.45
Nariño 71 4.27
San Andrés 44 59.49
Casanare 39 11.75
Norte de Santander 38 2.9
Boyacá 32 2.52
Meta 30 3.37
Putumayo 26 7.88
Caquetá 21 4.63
Amazonas 18 24.71
Vaupés 9 21.45
Guainía 7 17.97
Arauca 5 2
Vichada 2 3.06

At the municipal level, the highest number of cases occurred in the city of Cali, which had 682 confirmed cases during the study period. No cases were reported for some municipalities, while other municipalities had between one and two cases during the study period.

As for the total incidence per 100,000 inhabitants at the municipal level, the highest incidence occurred in Pueblo Rico (Risaralda), followed by Sabanas de San Ángel (Atlántico), San José del Guaviare (Guaviare) and Puerto Arica (Amazonas). Other incidences were found distributed as follows: two municipalities with incidences between 300 and 400; six municipalities between 200 and 300; 22 municipalities between 100 and 200; 47 municipalities between 50 and 100; 309 municipalities between 10 and 50; and 211 municipalities with less than 10. The annual incidence at the municipal level varied between 0 and 1599.7 per 100,000 people. The 30 municipalities with the highest number of cases of leptospirosis and with the highest incidences are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

Table 2: Total number of leptospirosis cases in selected municipalities. 

Municipalities with the highest incidences of leptospirosis
Municipality Department Total incidence per 100,000 people
Pueblo Rico Risaralda 1 597.6
Sabanas De San Ángel Cesar 883.41
San José Del Guaviare Guaviare 742.51
Puerto Arica Amazonas 432.1
El Cairo Valle Del Cauca 349.75
Bolívar Valle Del Cauca 323.92
Turbo Antioquia 272.83
Guapi Cauca 272.6
Roldanillo Valle Del Cauca 232.6
Colosó Sucre 217.15
Mistrató Risaralda 209.82
Riofrío Valle Del Cauca 203.74
Versalles Valle Del Cauca 196.7
Apartadó Antioquia 179.82
La Celia Risaralda 161.66
El Dovio Valle Del Cauca 157.24
Carepa Antioquia 156.43
Tubará Atlántico 145.64
Argelia Valle Del Cauca 137.65
Piojó Atlántico 137.55
Santa Rosa Del Sur Bolívar 137.27
Buga Valle Del Cauca 136.31
Simacota Santander 133.79
Alcalá Valle Del Cauca 131.66
Toro Valle Del Cauca 123.63
Calamar Guaviare 120.68
Cartago Valle Del Cauca 119.9
Villanueva Bolívar 117.01
Calarcá Quindío 115.74
Puerto Berrio Antioquia 114.55
Puerto Colombia Atlántico 105.62
Ansermanuevo Valle Del Cauca 105.03
El Retorno Guaviare 102.74
Acandí Chocó 100.73

Table 3: Total incidence of leptospirosis per 100,000 people in selected municipalities. 

Municipalities with the highest number of leptospirosis cases
Municipality Department Total number of cases
Cali Valle Del Cauca 682
Barranquilla Atlántico 612
San José Del Guaviare Guaviare 448
Cartagena Bolívar 429
Turbo Antioquia 392
Apartadó Antioquia 285
Medellín Antioquia 264
Santa Marta Magdalena 261
Pereira Risaralda 237
Bogotá Cundinamarca 227
Soledad Atlántico 213
Pueblo Rico Risaralda 203
Tuluá Valle Del Cauca 163
Buga Valle Del Cauca 158
Cartago Valle Del Cauca 155
Buenaventura Valle Del Cauca 153
Sabanas de San Ángel Magdalena 142
Ibagué Tolima 115
Palmira Valle Del Cauca 92
Calarcá Quindío 88
Dosquebradas Risaralda 82
Guapi Cauca 80
Valledupar Cesar 80
Carepa Antioquia 79

The distribution of total cases of leptospirosis in each of the municipalities of Colombia is shown in Figure 1, left. White indicates that the municipalities did not report cases to the system during the study period. For the municipalities that reported cases to the system in the study period, the total cases vary from 1 (shown in green) to 680 (shown in red). Some municipalities on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts and in the Colombian coffee region, and one municipality in the Amazon, presented a high number of cases.

Figure 1: Left: Map of total number of cases in municipalities of Colombia for the period 2007 to 2015. Right: Hotspots of concentration of cases identified by Kernel density analysis. 

Discussion

In Colombia, there were 9,449 confirmed cases of leptospirosis between 2007 and 2015, with annual incidence peaks in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Cases were distributed heterogeneously in all of the country’s departments. At the municipal level, there was a large variation in the annual incidence, ranging from zero to 1,599 per 100,000 inhabitants.

In the period studied, Colombia had an average annual incidence rate of 2.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, with a minimum of 1.62 in 2015 and a maximum of 2.94 and 3.06 in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The annual incidence rates found in Colombia are within what the World Health Organization’s Leptospirosis Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (LERG) estimates to be an endemic level for a humid tropical equatorial country. The years with the highest incidences coincide with the La Niña event that strongly affected the country in late 2010 and during 2011, causing increased rain and historical floods [14]. In recent years, the La Niña event has been indicated by several authors to be an important factor that influences leptospirosis in Colombia [15,16].

The reported incidences for countries in the region vary. In Brazil, the annual incidence for the period from 2010 to 2014 was 2.1 per 100,000 inhabitants; in Mexico, it fluctuated from 0.04 to 0.4 per 100,000 inhabitants between 2000 and 2010; in Peru, the incidence has increased in recent years with reports of one per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, 6.3 in 2012 and 8.6 in 2013; in Ecuador, leptospirosis is reported to be a growing problem, with an average annual incidence of 0.5 cases per 100,000 inhabitants between 1996 and 2005; in Venezuela, there is only a report for the years 2004 and 2005 that indicates an incidence of 0.4 per 100,000 inhabitants [17-21].

Although countries in the region do not have consistent yearly data for the incidence of leptospirosis, the numbers reported in Venezuela, Ecuador and Mexico are still lower than those in Colombia, and are similar to those found in Brazil.

Our results show that the majority of cases of leptospirosis in Colombia come from urban areas, representing 82% of the total. Leptospirosis is a disease that can occur both in the countryside and in urban environments, but is more prevalent in the latter [22,23]. The most frequent presentation of this disease in urban areas is due to the most common forms of human infection, including synanthropic rodents, overcrowding and precarious sanitation circumstances, which are typically found in cities [24]. At present, the majority of the population of Colombia lives in urban areas, which also contributes to the fact that the majority of cases come from these environments. Urbanization is a triggering factor for the increase in cases worldwide, affecting both developed and developing countries, with the significant difference that the latter have less resilience capacity to face healthcare problems of populations settled in places with poor infrastructure and with poor hygienic sanitary conditions [23]. In Colombia, we found that the population is mainly distributed in cities where favorable conditions exist for increased leptospirosis transmission.

Regarding distribution by sex, our results indicate that, in Colombia, the proportion of cases of leptospirosis in men is significantly higher than in women. Similar results have been reported in several European countries such as Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Slovakia, and in Brazil [25,26]. In Colombia, a study was conducted in Turbo, a municipality in the department of Antioquia, which showed that 67.6% of cases there were male [27]. Our study’s national results complement information on the increased presentation of leptospirosis in males in all age groups. Physiological factors have been ruled out as the cause of an increased number of cases among men [28]. We understand that the increased presentation of leptospirosis in males is attributed to behavioral and occupational factors.

Leptospirosis is associated with some agricultural occupations such as rice, yam, sugar cane and banana growers [3,29]. These activities have been traditionally performed by men and are also part of the rural Colombian economy. In this study we did not perform an analysis of occupational activities since the information for this variable was incomplete in the SIVIGILA databases. However, we assume that economic activity has an impact on the occurrence of leptospirosis, in particular in the Urabá region (Antioquia), where the present study found a hotspot for the disease in Colombia, since there is extensive banana and plantain farming in the region.

Some pleasure and recreational activities are gaining significance in relation to the presentation of leptospirosis worldwide [30-32]. In Colombia, bathing in rivers is part of the culture in warm areas. A study conducted in the Urabá area found that bathing in rivers is a risk factor for leptospirosis [27]. We infer that this practice may be associated with some of the hotspots of Urabá and Valle del Cauca.

The leptospirosis lethality found in this study was 2% per year at the national level. This lethality contrasts with countries like Brazil where the lethality is around 9% [17]. High fatality rates of leptospirosis suggest that the cases being confirmed are the severe cases and milder clinical forms are not being reported. Even though cases may not be reported in certain countries, the burden of the disease still affects those countries’ public health. This low lethality in Colombia is a sign that the surveillance system is efficient at notifying based on diagnosis, detecting milder cases that usually represent the majority of cases.

We found six hotspots of leptospirosis in Colombia, located on the Caribbean coast, in the north-west and the center of the department of Antioquia, Valle del Cauca, the coffee region and the department of Guaviare. Previous studies identified incidence hotspots for Colombia, two of which coincide with the hotspots found in our study: north-west Antioquia (Urabá region) and Guaviare department [10]. It is important to note that the capital of the department of Guaviare, San José del Guaviare, has had an active epidemiological surveillance program since 2004, which tracks and diagnoses febrile cases that present within the health system. Moreover, in the Urabá region located in the north-west of the department of Antioquia, there is also an active surveillance program as the result of a commitment by the local authorities and institutions located in the area [33,34]. These programs are unique in Colombia and, therefore, the number of reports for these municipalities and regions are greater than those of its neighbors. Hotspots are places where there is a greater density of cases when comparing the number of cases with the municipality’s area. Higher rates of incidence of cases do not always coincide with a higher density of cases, although it should also be considered that a higher density of cases could correspond to regions of greater clinical suspicion and better notification of the disease.

At the departmental level, 85% of Colombia's total cases for the period between 2007 and 2015 are concentrated in 10 of the country's 32 departments. The 10 departments are: Valle del Cauca, Antioquia, Atlántico, Bolívar, Risaralda, Magdalena, Guaviare, Cundinamarca, Tolima and Cauca. In turn, these departments also have the highest incidences in the country. This finding is an important tool in the efforts to optimize the resources of epidemiological surveillance programs since these could be used as sentinel or early-warning departments to establish the morbidity situation of leptospirosis in Colombia.

In terms of annual rates, there is a large variation in incidence rate, both when comparing different departments in the same year and when comparing a single department in different years, although a clear trend is not observed (see Supplemental material 2, Table 2].

In some departments there is a low number of cases, or even no cases. This low number of cases could be due to the fact that surveillance programs still do not report all cases that occur in their territory and do not necessarily reflect the risk of leptospirosis infection.

When comparing the annual departmental incidences of Colombia with those of the different states of Brazil (between 2010 and 2014) and Mexico (between 2000 and 2010) we find that, in general, Colombia's figures are higher than those presented in these two countries, even when considering the same years. This comparison at the departmental level contrasts with the results obtained at the national level, in which Colombia has similar incidences to these countries. This finding reaffirms the importance of the scale factor in analyzing a disease’s epidemiological data.

At the municipal level, we found that the 30 municipalities with the highest number of cases were located within the focal points identified as hotspots and were concentrated in Valle del Cauca and Antioquia. The incidence of the majority of the country’s municipalities was between 10 and 50 per 100,000 inhabitants. With the exception of San José del Guaviare, whose surveillance system is active, the municipalities with the highest number of cases in Colombia belong to large cities with large populations. In contrast, the highest incidences occur in small municipalities on the Caribbean coast, and in the center, west and south of the country, indicating that the risk of leptospirosis is distributed throughout the Colombian territory (see Supplemental material 3 for annual incidence and annual number of cases in selected municipalities).

Implications for epidemiological surveillance

Leptospirosis is a disease that is difficult to diagnose via both methods of diagnosis: laboratory confirmation and differential diagnoses. Laboratory confirmation requires two paired samples with an interval of 10 days. Frequently, patients do not return to their healthcare provider to get the second sample taken for confirmation. It is estimated that, for the region of Urabá, the number of patients who return for the second sample is close to 30% [33]. In addition, co-infection of dengue and leptospirosis has been documented in patients and in several regions of Colombia, and even in other countries [8,35,36]. Leptospirosis occurs in areas with a high incidence of dengue, making it difficult to detect other diseases as some clinical forms of leptospirosis can be confused with dengue. In this way, dengue acts as an umbrella disease under which many febrile cases are diagnosed and are not confirmed, thus masking other diseases such as leptospirosis. Based on a study conducted in Fortaleza, Brazil, the authors consider the possibility that, in endemic areas for dengue and leptospirosis, approximately 20% of suspected dengue cases may be leptospirosis [37]. All this leads to an underdiagnosis of leptospirosis, contributing further to ignorance of the disease’s real extent in Colombia.

Limitations of the study

In this ecological study, the incidence rates were analyzed at different geographical scales corresponding to political divisions and over time. The socioeconomic and demographic heterogeneity of the spatial clusters (departments and municipalities) can contribute to inaccuracies in the disease’s risk assessment.

The present study has used secondary data obtained from official databases that may undergo revision, which may affect consistency. Also, since the notification system is relatively new (since 2007), there are expected limitations in monitoring and difficulties such as the standardization of information flows, the omission of data in some of the variables of the notification form, and the absence of notification by some territorial entities. Although there are improvements in the system, there are still municipalities that fail to notify. These municipalities are concentrated in the departments of Vichada, Guainía, Vaupés, Arauca and Meta. There is uncertainty as to whether these municipalities did not actually register cases of leptospirosis during the study period because they belong to departments that historically have been neglected by the central government and face budgetary difficulties.

Conclusions

The notification of leptospirosis in Colombia is distributed progressively, that is to say, it has increased over the years throughout the national territory between 2007 and 2015. Some departments have higher incidences, such as Guaviare, Risaralda and San Andrés, while others have higher numbers of cases, such as Valle del Cauca, Antioquia and Atlántico. At the regional level, there are areas of concentration of cases in different regions on the Caribbean coast and in the north-west and center of Antioquia department, Valle del Cauca, the coffee region and the department of Guaviare. Despite improvements in the reporting system, there are still departments with few or no case records, especially in the Eastern Plains and the Amazon. In the country's municipalities, incidence rates of leptospirosis range from zero to 1,597.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, indicating that there are areas at high risk for the disease. The low lethality found in Colombia suggests that the surveillance system has detected mild cases of the disease.

It is suggested that more detailed research on factors associated with the occurrence of cases and the circulation of the bacteria is carried out. This epidemiological analysis of the leptospirosis situation in Colombia responds to a worldwide need for more accurate and real information on this significant zoonotic disease.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this work thank the INS, particularly the SIVIGILA, for providing the data on cases of leptospirosis. The authors also thank Shornima KC for proofreading the manuscript.

References

1. Adler B, de la Peña Moctezuma A. Leptospira and leptospirosis. Vet Microbiol 2010;140:287-296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.03.012 . [ Links ]

2. Schneider MC, Jancloes M, Buss DF, Aldighieri S, Bertherat E, Najera P, et al. Leptospirosis: a silent epidemic disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10(12): 7229-7234. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10127229. [ Links ]

3. Adler B. Leptospira and leptospirosis. vol. 387. Berlin: Springer; 2015. [ Links ]

4. da Silva AD, Evangelista M do SN. Syndromic surveillance: Etiologic study of acute febrile illness in dengue suspicious cases with negative serology. Brazil, Federal district, 2008. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 2010;52(5):237-242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-46652010000500003. [ Links ]

5. LaRocque RC, Breiman RF, Ari MD, Morey RE, Janan FA, Hayes JM, et al. Leptospirosis during dengue outbreak, Bangladesh. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11(5):766-769. doi: https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1105.041212. [ Links ]

6. World Health Organization. Leptospirosis Epidemiology Reference Group (LERG). Report of the Second Meeting of the Leptospirosis Burden Epidemiology Reference Group.. 2011 [ Links ]

7. Dechner A. Regional Review A retrospective analysis of the leptospirosis research in Colombia. J Infect Dev Ctries 2014;8(3):258-264. doi: https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.3123. [ Links ]

8. Instituto Nacional de Salud. Protocolo de Vigilancia en Salud Pública. Leptospirosis 2014. [ Links ]

9. World Health Organization. Human leptospirosis: guidance for diagnosis, surveillance and control. 2003. [ Links ]

10. Gutiérrez JD, Martínez-Vega RA, Botello H, Ruiz-Herrera FJ, Arenas-López LC, Hernandez-Tellez KD. Environmental and socioeconomic determinants of leptospirosis incidence in Colombia. Cad Saude Publica 2019;35(3):e00118417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00118417. [ Links ]

11. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DANE. Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda, 2018 Colombia 2018. [ Links ]

12. Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas DANE. Censo General 2005 2005. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/censo-general-2005-1 (accessed June 15, 2016). [ Links ]

13. Silverman BWW. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. In: Cox DR, Hinkley DV, Rubin D, Silverman BW, editors. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability., London: Chapman and Hall; 1986, p. 1-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/030098589603300105. [ Links ]

14. Hoyos N, Escobar J, Restrepo JC, Arango AM, Ortiz JC. Impact of the 2010-2011 La Niña phenomenon in Colombia, South America: The human toll of an extreme weather event. Appl Geogr 2013;39:16-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.11.018. [ Links ]

15. Gutiérrez JD, Martínez-vega RA. Spatiotemporal dynamics of human leptospirosis and its relationship with rainfall anomalies in Colombia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2018;112(3):1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/try032. [ Links ]

16. Arias-Monsalve CS, Builes-Jaramillo A. Impact of El Niño-Southern oscillation on human leptospirosis in Colombia at different spatial scales. J Infect Dev Ctries 2019;13(12):1108-1116. doi: https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.11702. [ Links ]

17. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Informe Epidemiológico Leptospirose. 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. [ Links ]

18. Sánchez-Montes S, Espinosa-Martínez DV, Ríos-Muñoz CA, Berzunza-Cruz M, Becker I. Leptospirosis in Mexico: Epidemiology and potential distribution of human cases. PLoS One 2015;10(7):1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133720. [ Links ]

19. Alarcón-Villaverde JO, Romani-Romani F, Tejada RA, Wong-Chero P, Céspedes-Zambrano M. Leptospirosis seroprevalence and associated features in rice farmers of tropical region of Peru. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica 2014;31:195-203. [ Links ]

20. Gestal MC, Holban AM, Escalante S, Cevallos M. Epidemiology of tropical neglected diseases in Ecuador in the last 20 years. PLoS One 2015;10(9):1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138311. [ Links ]

21. Costa F, Martinez-Silveira MS, Hagan JE, Hartskeerl RA, Dos Reis MG, Ko AI, et al. Surveillance for leptospirosis in the Americas, 1996-2005: a review of data from ministries of health. Rev Panam Salud Pública 2012;32:169-177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1020-49892012000900001. [ Links ]

22. Hartskeerl RA, Collares-Pereira M, Ellis WA. Emergence, control and re-emerging leptospirosis: dynamics of infection in the changing world. Clin Microbiol Infect Off Publ Eur Soc Clin Microbiol Infect Dis2011;17:494-501. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03474.x. [ Links ]

23. Lau CL, Smythe LD, Craig SB, Weinstein P. Climate change, flooding, urbanisation and leptospirosis: fuelling the fire? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2010;104(10):631-638. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.07.002. [ Links ]

24. Tilahun Z, Reta D, Simenew K. Global Epidemiological Overview of Leptospirosis. Int J Microbiol Res 2013;4:9-15. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.5829/idosi.ijmr.2013.4.1.7134. [ Links ]

25. Bakoss P, Macháčová E, Jareková J. Long-term trends in the epidemiology of human leptospirosis (Slovak Republic, 1954-2006). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2012;31:2167-2176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1551-8. [ Links ]

26. Jansen A, Schöneberg I, Frank C, Alpers K, Schneider T, Stark K. Leptospirosis in Germany, 1962-2003. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11(7):1048-1054. doi: https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1107.041172. [ Links ]

27. Yusti D, Arboleda M, Agudelo-Flórez P. Factores de riesgo sociales y ambientales relacionados con casos de leptospirosis de manejo ambulatorio y hospitalario, Turbo-Colombia. Biomédica 2012;33:117-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v33i0.1457. [ Links ]

28. Guerra-Silveira F, Abad-Franch F. Sex Bias in Infectious Disease Epidemiology: Patterns and Processes. PLoS One 2013;8(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062390. [ Links ]

29. García-Ramírez LM, Giraldo-Pulgarin JY, Agudelo-Marín N, Holguín-Rivera YA, Gómez-Sierra S, Ortiz-Revelo PV, et al. Geographical and Occupational Aspects of Leptospirosis in the Coffee-Triangle Region of Colombia, 2007-2011. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov2015;10:42-50. [ Links ]

30. Morgan J, Bornstein SL, Karpati AM, Bruce M, Bolin CA, Austin CC, et al. Outbreak of leptospirosis among triathlon participants and community residents in Springfield, Illinois, 1998. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34(12):1593-1599. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/340615. [ Links ]

31. Agampodi SB, Karunarathna D, Jayathilala N, Rathnayaka H, Agampodi TC, Karunanayaka L. Outbreak of leptospirosis after white-water rafting: sign of a shift from rural to recreational leptospirosis in Sri Lanka? Epidemiol Infect 2013;142(4):843-846. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268813001465. [ Links ]

32. Hochedez P, Rosine J, Théodose R, Abel S, Bourhy P, Picardeau M, et al. Outbreak of leptospirosis after a race in the tropical forest of martinique. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2011;84(4):621-626. doi: https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0502. [ Links ]

33. Pérez-García J, Agudelo-Flórez P, Parra-Henao GJ, Ochoa E, Arboleda M. Incidencia y subregistro de casos de leptospirosis diagnosticados con tres métodos diferentes en Urabá, Colombia. Biomedica 2019;39 (Supl 1):150-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v39i0.4577. [ Links ]

34. Flores PA. Leptospirosis humana en Colombia: la experiencia del Instituto Colombiano de Medicina Tropical - CES. CES Med 2007;21:55-58. [ Links ]

35. Arroyave E, Londoño AF, Quintero JC, Agudelo-Flórez P, Arboleda M, Díaz FJ, et al. Etiología y caracterización epidemiológica del síndrome febril no malárico en tres municipios del Urabá antioqueño, Colombia. Biomédica 2012;33:99-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v33i0.734. [ Links ]

36. Rodríguez-Villamarín FR, Prieto-Suárez E, Escandón PL, de la Hoz Restrepo F. Leptospirosis percentage and related factors in patients having a presumptive diagnosis of dengue, 2010 -2012. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota) 2014;16:597-609. [ Links ]

37. Fontes RM, Cavalcanti LP de G, Oliveira ACA, Bezerra LF de M, Gomes AMM, Colares JKB, et al. A New Possibility for Surveillance: Do We Identify All Cases of Leptospirosis? Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 2015;57(5):443-446. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-46652015000500014. [ Links ]

Funding Clara Arias-Monsalve thanks the Departmento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación - Colciencias (http://www.colciencias.gov.co/) for the support provided via call 567 for doctoral studies in Colombia. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Authorship declaration Clara S Arias-Monsalve: conception of the article, data analysis and interpretation of the results. Maria Rita Donalisio: conception of the article, data analysis and interpretation of the results. Daniela Salas: data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation of results

*Arias-Monsalve CS, Salas-Botero D, Donalisio MR. Epidemiology of leptospirosis in Colombia between 2007 and 2015. Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública. 2020;39(1):e339058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.e339058

Supplemental material 1

Supplemental material 2

Number of cases of leptospirosis at the departmental level
Department 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Amazonas (…) 0 1 3 1 3 2 1 7
Antioquia 4 89 111 168 336 289 331 218 201
Arauca (…) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
Atlántico 212 204 114 223 110 71 82 80 63
Bolívar 63 42 37 122 141 87 72 78 41
Boyacá (…) 2 1 2 0 9 6 7 5
Caldas 23 12 5 9 7 10 5 6 7
Caquetá (…) 0 3 1 5 4 3 2 3
Casanare 5 4 3 1 8 12 3 2 1
Cauca 2 37 34 23 37 31 14 12 10
Cesar 3 20 4 36 15 31 17 6 2
Chocó 1 3 4 6 16 16 15 21 16
Córdoba 17 5 8 3 26 29 11 7 14
Cundinamarca 2 7 24 54 41 43 35 69 39
Guainía (…) 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0
Guaviare 72 94 55 83 29 12 20 38 85
Huila 2 0 24 11 10 18 8 17 20
La Guajira 6 6 3 6 16 19 12 2 10
Magdalena 18 18 188 103 69 63 54 24 14
Meta 1 0 6 2 2 3 2 5 9
Nariño 12 2 1 6 9 9 5 2 25
Norte de Santander 3 0 3 6 4 4 6 4 8
Putumayo (…) 2 2 0 12 4 1 2 3
Quindío 14 6 18 19 5 5 9 76 6
Risaralda 273 66 48 55 51 61 38 53 35
San Andrés 5 2 8 9 10 5 3 1 1
Santander (…) 2 7 10 31 11 8 10 20
Sucre 1 7 4 49 23 22 11 5 9
Tolima 5 7 18 15 29 53 38 43 33
Valle del Cauca 58 276 333 307 366 288 179 136 89
Vaupés (…) 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vichada (…) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Supplemental material 2 Table A: Annual number of leptospirosis cases at the departmental level. (…) corresponds to information not reported.

Incidence of leptospirosis per 100,000 people at the departmental level
Department 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Amazonas (…) 0 1.4 4.17 1.37 4.07 2.68 1.33 9.18
Antioquia 0.07 1.51 1.85 2.77 5.47 4.64 5.25 3.42 3.11
Arauca (…) 0 0 0 0 0.39 0.39 0 1.14
Atlántico 9.53 9.05 4.99 9.64 4.69 2.99 3.41 3.29 2.56
Bolívar 3.29 2.17 1.89 6.16 7.04 4.3 3.51 3.76 1.96
Boyacá (…) 0.16 0.08 0.16 0 0.71 0.47 0.55 0.39
Caldas 2.36 1.23 0.51 0.92 0.71 1.02 0.51 0.61 0.71
Caquetá (…) 0 0.68 0.22 1.1 0.87 0.64 0.42 0.63
Casanare 1.63 1.28 0.94 0.31 2.41 3.55 0.87 0.57 0.28
Cauca 0.16 2.85 2.6 1.74 2.78 2.31 1.03 0.88 0.73
Cesar 0.32 2.12 0.42 3.72 1.53 3.13 1.69 0.59 0.19
Chocó 0.22 0.64 0.85 1.26 3.33 3.3 3.06 4.24 3.2
Córdoba 1.12 0.33 0.51 0.19 1.62 1.78 0.66 0.42 0.82
Cundinamarca 0.08 0.29 0.98 2.18 1.63 1.68 1.35 2.61 1.46
Guainía NA 0 2.65 13.05 0 0 2.49 0 0
Guaviare 72.95 93.8 54.05 80.34 27.66 11.28 18.53 34.71 76.53
Huila 0.19 0 2.25 1.02 0.91 1.62 0.71 1.49 1.73
La Guajira 0.82 0.79 0.38 0.73 1.89 2.17 1.33 0.22 1.04
Magdalena 1.54 1.53 15.79 8.57 5.69 5.15 4.37 1.92 1.11
Meta 0.12 0 0.7 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.22 0.53 0.94
Nariño 0.76 0.13 0.06 0.37 0.54 0.54 0.29 0.12 1.43
Norte Santander 0.24 0 0.23 0.46 0.31 0.3 0.45 0.3 0.59
Putumayo (…) 0.63 0.62 0 3.64 1.2 0.3 0.59 0.87
Quindío 2.59 1.1 3.29 3.46 0.9 0.9 1.61 13.52 1.06
Risaralda 30.04 7.22 5.22 5.95 5.48 6.52 4.04 5.6 3.68
San Andrés 6.98 2.77 11 12.27 13.53 6.71 3.99 1.32 1.31
Santander (…) 0.1 0.35 0.5 1.53 0.54 0.39 0.49 0.97
Sucre 0.13 0.88 0.5 6.04 2.81 2.66 1.32 0.59 1.06
Tolima 0.36 0.51 1.3 1.08 2.08 3.8 2.71 3.06 2.34
Valle Del Cauca 1.36 6.43 7.68 7 8.26 6.44 3.96 2.98 1.93
Vaupés (…) 22.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vichada (…) 0 0 0 0 0 1.46 1.42 0

Supplemental material 2 Table B: Annual incidence per 100,000 people at the departmental level. (…) corresponds to information not reported

Supplemental material 3

Municipalities with the highest number of cases.
Municipality Department 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cali Valle Del Cauca 11 101 78 101 145 132 60 33 21
Barranquilla Atlántico 90 115 60 115 60 34 39 49 50
San José Del Guaviare Guaviare 69 91 53 80 28 11 20 30 66
Cartagena Bolívar 50 35 33 101 85 25 40 43 17
Turbo Antioquia (…) 24 19 50 64 64 51 59 61
Apartadó Antioquia (…) 16 13 27 63 44 66 34 22
Medellín Antioquia (…) 4 15 34 57 54 46 30 24
Santa Marta Magdalena 10 11 15 88 49 43 23 13 9
Pereira Risaralda 15 45 25 30 20 23 21 35 23
Bogotá Cundinamarca 2 3 16 38 24 33 28 57 26
Soledad Atlántico 43 44 28 40 13 17 12 9 7
Pueblo Rico Risaralda 195 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2
Tuluá Valle Del Cauca 3 11 17 8 26 32 31 25 10
Buga Valle Del Cauca 7 25 14 22 53 15 6 5 11
Cartago Valle Del Cauca (…) 5 49 29 41 11 16 2 2
Buenaventura Valle Del Cauca 7 26 10 33 10 9 15 28 15
Sabanas de San Ángel Magdalena (…) 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ibagué Tolima 4 5 13 6 16 26 17 15 13
Palmira Valle Del Cauca 3 27 6 10 10 16 10 5 5
Calarcá Quindío 10 0 3 3 2 1 0 69 0
Dosquebradas Risaralda 21 11 5 8 6 9 6 9 7
Guapi Cauca (…) 23 7 9 19 15 3 1 3
Valledupar Cesar 1 11 0 19 8 24 15 1 1
Carepa Antioquia (…) 1 3 5 28 14 16 4 8

Supplemental material 3 Table A: Annual number of leptospirosis cases in selected municipalities. (…) corresponds to information not reported.

Municipalities with the highest total incidence per 100,000 people
Municipality Department 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Pueblo Rico Risaralda 159.97 0.00 0.81 0.80 1.58 0.78 0.00 0.76 1.50
Sabanas De San Ángel Cesar (…) 0.00 90.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
San José Del Guaviare Guaviare 12.29 15.92 9.10 13.49 4.64 1.79 3.20 4.72 10.22
Puerto Arica (Cd) Amazonas (…) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44
El Cairo Valle Del Cauca (…) 0.00 23.98 3.11 1.03 6.14 0.00 1.01 0.00
Bolivar Valle Del Cauca 2.01 2.71 17.84 5.56 2.11 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.74
Turbo Antioquia (…) 1.81 1.40 3.58 4.46 4.35 3.37 3.80 3.83
Guapi Cauca (…) 7.92 2.40 3.08 6.47 5.09 1.02 0.34 1.01
Roldanillo Valle Del Cauca 0.58 2.93 12.39 5.04 1.79 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Coloso (Ricaurte) Sucre (…) 0.00 0.00 21.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mistrato Risaralda 1.96 1.95 1.93 0.00 6.36 6.32 1.88 0.62 0.00
Riofrio Valle Del Cauca 2.39 10.33 1.23 0.63 3.19 0.00 1.32 0.67 0.00
Versalles Valle Del Cauca 11.18 6.30 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartado Antioquia (…) 1.11 0.87 1.76 3.99 2.70 3.93 1.97 1.23
La Celia Risaralda 12.60 0.00 0.00 1.15 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
El Dovio Valle Del Cauca (…) 0.00 10.99 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Carepa Antioquia (…) 0.21 0.63 1.02 5.55 2.71 3.02 0.74 1.43
Tubara Atlántico (…) 1.83 2.74 8.20 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00
Argelia Valle Del Cauca 3.01 3.03 0.00 6.09 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piojo Atlántico (…) 0.00 0.00 7.88 0.00 3.92 0.00 1.95 0.00
Santa Rosa Del Sur Bolívar 0.56 0.00 0.27 0.00 2.34 8.39 1.49 0.49 0.00
Buga Valle Del Cauca 0.60 2.15 1.20 1.89 4.57 1.30 0.52 0.43 0.95
Simacota Santander (…) 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Alcala Valle Del Cauca (…) 0.54 1.58 2.59 1.01 1.49 1.95 3.34 0.47
Toro Valle Del Cauca (…) 0.00 3.11 2.48 0.00 6.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Calamar Guaviare 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 1.07 9.90
Cartago Valle Del Cauca (…) 0.39 3.84 2.26 3.17 0.85 1.22 0.15 0.15

Supplemental material 3 Table B: Annual incidence per 100,000 people in selected municipalities. (…) corresponds to information not reported

Received: July 23, 2019; Accepted: September 29, 2020

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. The manuscript presents personal opinions as a result of data analysis and does not represent the institution’s point of view.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License