Documenting the absence of brucellosis in cattle, goats and dogs in a "One Health" interface in the Mnisi community, Limpopo, South Africa

Documenting the absence of bovine brucellosis in dairy cattle herds in the southern region of Malawi and the associated knowledge, attitudes and practices of farmers

There is paucity of Brucella prevalence data in Malawi. For this reason, a cross-sectional study was conducted, from 06 January 2020 to 27 February 2020, to estimate the seroprevalence of brucellosis in dairy cattle herds amongst smallholder farmers, government and private dairy farms in the southern region. A total of 529 serum samples were screened for anti-Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA). A pre-tested electronic (Epicollect tool, Wellcome Sanger Institute, United Kingdom) questionnaire was administered to 378 smallholder farmers to assess their knowledge, attitudes and practices towards brucellosis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data in Microsoft Excel^® and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS^®) version 21. No animal tested positive for presence of anti-Brucella antibodies, indicating 0% prevalence (individual and herd levels). The majority (94.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.8–96.5) of smallholder farmers had never heard about brucellosis. Furthermore, assisting during parturition without protective equipment (41.3%; 95% CI: 36.3–46.2) and using bulls for breeding (75%; 95% CI: 70.2–78.9) were amongst the common risk practices that were identified. We could not detect brucellosis in this study that indicates the disease could be very rare or even absent in the dairy cattle herds of the southern region of Malawi. However, further Brucella studies need to be conducted in cattle, small livestock, wildlife and humans to document the true status of brucellosis in the country. Brucellosis surveillance, monitoring, awareness and preventive measures are required to maintain this favourable situation.

Research priorities for control of zoonoses in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Zoonoses pose major threats to the health of humans, domestic animals and wildlife, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoonoses are the commonest source of emerging human infections and inter-species transmission is facilitated by anthropogenic factors such as encroachment and destruction of wilderness areas, wildlife trafficking and climate change. South Africa was selected for a 'One Health' study to identify research priorities for control of zoonoses due to its complex disease burden and an overstretched health system.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 18 experts identified priority zoonotic diseases, knowledge gaps and proposed research priorities for the next 5 y. Each priority was scored using predefined criteria by another group of five experts and then weighted by a reference group (n=28) and the 18 experts.

RESULTS

Seventeen diseases were mentioned with the top five being rabies (14/18), TB (13/18), brucellosis (11/18), Rift Valley fever (9/11) and cysticercosis (6/18). In total, 97 specific research priorities were listed, with the majority on basic epidemiological research (n=57), such as measuring the burden of various zoonoses (n=24), followed by 20 on development of new interventions. The highest research priority score was for improving existing interventions (0.77/1.0), followed by health policy and systems research (0.72/1.0).

CONCLUSION

Future zoonotic research should improve understanding of zoonotic burden and risk factors and new interventions in public health. People with limited rural services, immunocompromised, in informal settlements and high-risk occupations, should be the highest research priority.

Socio-economic impacts of brucellosis on livestock production and reproduction performance in Koibatek and Marigat regions, Baringo County, Kenya

Background

Brucellosis in Africa is caused by Brucella species transmitted through contaminated or contacts with infected animals or their carcasses. The disease reduces livestock production and reproduction performance evident by frequent episodes of abortion, still births, swollen testes, weak calves/lambs and swollen joints. However, the socio-economic impacts of these brucellosis-associated symptoms on milk, fat, meat and blood production, infertility, sale value, dowry and costs of treatment has not been evaluated extensively in developing countries. In Baringo County, Kenya, there is a continuous movement of cattle as a result of trade and grazing, which predisposes many herds to brucellosis infection. The objective of this study was to investigate the socio-economic impacts of Brucella infection on production systems for sheep, goats, cattle and camels and explore the impact of brucellosis on livestock production and reproduction performance among livestock keeping communities in Baringo County, Kenya. The study adopted a cross-sectional survey using quantitative data collection methods.

Results

Results demonstrated an impact on milk production in suspected brucellosis cases resulting from abortions (OR = 0.151, P < 0.0001) and swollen joints (OR = 2.881, P < 0.0001). In terms of infertility, abortion as a symptom of brucellosis (OR = 0.440, P = 0.002), still birth (OR = 0.628, P = 0.042), and weak calf or lamb (OR = 0.525, P = 0.005) had an impact on infertility. In terms of sale value, abortion (OR = 0.385, P = 0.008), weak calf/lamb (OR = 2.963, P = 0.013) had an impact on sale value. Other analyses demonstrated that for dowry, swollen testes (OR = 5.351, P = 0.032), weak calf and lambs (OR = 0.364, P = 0.019) had a likelihood of reduction of dowry value. Finally, in terms of cost of treatment, abortion (OR = 0.449, P = 0.001), still births (OR = 0.208, P = 0.015), swollen testes (OR = 0.78, P = 0.014), weak calf/lambs (OR = 0.178, P = 0.007) and swollen joints (OR = 0.217, P = 0.003) significantly increased the costs of treatments. There was no impact on fat and meat and blood production.

Conclusion

Even though there was a huge socio-economic impact on milk production, infertility, sale value, and dowry, it was the costs of treatment that was significantly impacted on all symptoms associated with brucellosis on this community. A ‘One Health’ approach in tackling the brucellosis menace as a holistic approach is recommended for both humans and their livestock.

Brucellosis and chlamydiosis seroprevalence in goats at livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe, there have been no chlamydiosis and limited brucellosis studies in goats. This study was conducted to determine the seroprevalence and risk factors of the two diseases in goats at three different livestock-wildlife interface areas: porous, non-porous and non-interface in the south-eastern lowveld of Zimbabwe. Collected sera (n = 563) were tested for Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT) and the complement fixation test (CFT); and for Chlamydia abortus antibodies using the CFT. All tested goats were negative for Brucella antibodies. Overall, chlamydial seroprevalence was 22%. The porous [c2 = 9.6, odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, p = 0.002] and non-porous (c2 = 37.5, OR = 5.8, p < 0.00001) interfaces were approximately three and six times more likely to be chlamydial seropositive than the non-interface area, respectively. Chlamydial seroprevalence was not associated with sex (c2 = 0.5, OR = 1.2, p = 0.5), abortion history in female goats (c2 = 0.7, OR = 1.3, p = 0.4), keeping goats with cattle (c2 = 0.2, OR = 1.5, p = 0.7) or flock size (c2 = 0.03, OR = 1.4, p = 0.9). Our study provides the first serological evidence of chlamydiosis in goats in Zimbabwe and the results suggest that proximity to wildlife is associated with increased chlamydial seropositivity. Further studies are required to determine the role of chlamydial infection on goat reproductive failure and that of wildlife on C. abortus transmission to domestic ruminants.

Brucella spp. at the Wildlife-Livestock Interface: An Evolutionary Trajectory through a Livestock-to-Wildlife "Host Jump"?

Brucella infections in wildlife have gained a lot of interest from the scientific community and different stakeholders. These interests are often different and sometimes conflicting. As a result, different management perspectives and aims have been implemented (One Health, public health, veterinary public health, maintenance of a brucellosis free status in livestock, sustainable wildlife harvesting by hunters, wildlife and environmental health). When addressing Brucella infection in wildlife, the most important features of Brucella infection should be considered and the following questions need to be answered: (1) Is Brucella infection a result of a spillover from livestock or is it a sustainable infection in one or more wildlife host species? (2) Did the epidemiological situation of Brucella infection in wildlife change over time and, if so, what are the main drivers of change and does it impact the wildlife population dynamics? (3) Does Brucella infection in wildlife represent a reservoir of Brucella strains for livestock? (4) Is Brucella infection in wildlife of zoonotic concern? These questions point to the fundamental biological question of how animal (domestic and wildlife)/Brucella spp. partnerships are established. Will we be able to decipher an evolutionary trajectory through a livestock-to-wildlife "host jump"? Whole genome sequencing and new "omics" techniques will help in deciphering the molecular basis of Brucella host preference and open new avenues in brucellosis management aimed at preventing opportunities for Brucella host jumps.

Immunological response to Brucella abortus strain 19 vaccination of cattle in a communal area in South Africa

Brucellosis is of worldwide economic and public health importance. Heifer vaccination with live attenuated Brucella abortus strain 19 (S19) is the cornerstone of control in low- and middle-income countries. Antibody persistence induced by S19 is directly correlated with the number of colony-forming units (CFU) per dose. There are two vaccination methods: a 'high' dose (5-8 × 1010 CFU) subcutaneously injected or one or two 'low' doses (5 × 109 CFU) through the conjunctival route. This study aimed to evaluate serological reactions to the 'high' dose and possible implications of the serological findings on disease control. This study included 58 female cases, vaccinated at Day 0, and 29 male controls. Serum was drawn repeatedly and tested for Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal Test (RBT) and an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA). The cases showed a rapid antibody response with peak RBT positivity (98%) at 2 weeks and iELISA (95%) at 8 weeks, then decreased in an inverse logistic curve to 14% RBT and 32% iELISA positive at 59 weeks and at 4.5 years 57% (4/7 cases) demonstrated a persistent immune response (RBT, iELISA or Brucellin skin test) to Brucella spp. Our study is the first of its kind documenting the persistence of antibodies in an African communal farming setting for over a year to years after 'high' dose S19 vaccination, which can be difficult to differentiate from a response to infection with wild-type B. abortus. A recommendation could be using a 'low' dose or different route of vaccination.