02362nas a2200265   4500000000100000008004100001260003200042653002400074653001900098653001800117653001700135653001200152653003600164100001500200700001300215700001100228700001200239700001300251245015000264856007000414300001100484490000700495520158000502022001402082       2026                            d  c07/2026bInforma UK Limited10aSurveillance system10aPublic health 10aLeishmaniasis10aEpidemiology10aEcuador10a Metropolitan District of Quito1 aSanchez JD1 aTorres A1 aFors M1 aRueda W1 aSierra J00aEpidemiological trends of leishmaniasis in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Ecuador (2015–2021): implications for public health surveillance  uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23779497.2026.2688573  a1 - 110 v113 a<p>Leishmaniasis remains a significant public health challenge in Ecuador, yet subnational epidemiological data are scarce. This descriptive, retrospective, cross-sectional study characterizes leishmaniasis in the Metropolitan District of Quito from 2015 to 2021 using national epidemiological surveillance (VIEPI) data. We analyzed demographic, geographical, and clinical variables, alongside temporal patterns, for 460 confirmed cases. The study revealed a statistically significant male predominance (61.5%, $p &lt; 0.001$) and higher incidence in rural areas (67.0%). The 20–49 years age group was most affected (42.4%), while pediatric cases (0–14 years) accounted for 25.1%, exceeding the regional average for the Americas and indicating peridomestic transmission. Cutaneous leishmaniasis predominated (97.2%) with no visceral cases reported. The hospitalization rate was low (4.1%) and no fatalities were recorded, suggesting clinically manageable disease with effective outpatient management. Linear regression analysis indicated a modest upward tendency, though substantial year-to-year variability suggests persistent transmission with fluctuating incidence rather than a strictly linear trend. In conclusion, leishmaniasis in Quito exhibits a defined epidemiological pattern. These results provide baseline evidence to inform targeted local public health strategies. Key limitations include reliance on passive surveillance data, which may underestimate the true burden, and the absence of molecular species characterization and environmental covariates.</p>
  a2377-9497