Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis and associated risk factors in Nakasongola district, Uganda

Understanding brucellosis: knowledge, perceptions, and self-reported prevalence among agro-pastoralists in Nakasongola, Uganda

BACKGROUND

Brucellosis is an infectious zoonotic disease that poses serious health threats around the world including Uganda. Brucellosis is caused by Brucella spp., the bacteria being transmitted via contact through skin breaks, via inhalation, or orally through the consumption of raw milk and other dairy products. The aim of this study was to investigate self-reported prevalence, knowledge, and perceptions towards brucellosis transmission, within agro-pastoralist communities in the Nakasongola district, central Uganda.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design. A semi-structured questionnaire was developed and administered to 398 participants selected through convenience sampling method. The survey gathered information on socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge of brucellosis transmission, symptoms, preventive measures, and self-reported prevalence of brucellosis. Qualitative data involved the use of six focus group discussions, identifying factors for transmission based on their perceived level of risk or impact using ranking by proportional piling.

RESULTS

A majority (99.2%, n = 398) had heard about brucellosis and 71.2% were aware of the zoonotic nature of the disease. There were varied responses regarding transmission routes, symptoms, and preventive measures. Self-reported prevalence was relatively high (55.5%). Following adjusted analysis, factors such as subcounty, source of income, knowledge about symptoms of brucellosis, whether brucellosis is treatable, perception, and living close to animals were statistically significant. Participants from Wabinyonyi had 2.7 higher odds of reporting brucellosis than those from Nabiswera, aOR = 2.7, 95%CI 1.4-5.5. Crop farming and livestock had much higher odds of reporting brucellosis than those earning from casual sources, aOR = 8.5, 95%C 1.8-40.1 and aOR = 14.4, 95%CI 3.1-67.6, respectively. Those who had knowledge about symptoms had 6.9 higher odds of reporting brucellosis than who mentioned fever, aOR = 4.5, 95%CI 2.3-18.3. Likewise, living close with animals and handling aborted fetuses (aOR = 0.4, 95%CI: 0.17-0.86), (aOR = 0.2,95% CI: 0.07-0.0.42,) had significantly lower odds for self-reported prevalence compared to those who believed did not cause brucellosis. Risk factors identified included, handling of aborted fetuses and living in close proximity with animals. Overall, there was a moderate statistical agreement in the ranking across the focus groups discussion (Wc = 0.48, p < 0.01; n = 6).

CONCLUSION

While awareness of brucellosis is high in the community, understanding of the transmission routes, clinical symptoms, and preventive measures varied. Investigating the understanding and assessing knowledge, perceptions and self-reported prevalence in this region indicated a necessity for risk communication strategies and community-based interventions to better control brucellosis transmission.

Brucellosis and One Health: Inherited and Future Challenges

One Health is the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines to attain optimal health for people, animals and the environment, a concept that historically owes much to the study of brucellosis, including recent political and ethical considerations. Brucellosis One Health actors include Public Health and Veterinary Services, microbiologists, medical and veterinary practitioners and breeders. Brucellosis awareness, and the correct use of diagnostic, epidemiological and prophylactic tools is essential. In brucellosis, One Health implementation faces inherited and new challenges, some aggravated by global warming and the intensification of breeding to meet growing food demands. In endemic scenarios, disease awareness, stakeholder sensitization/engagement and the need to build breeder trust are unresolved issues, all made difficult by the protean characteristics of this zoonosis. Extended infrastructural weaknesses, often accentuated by geography and climate, are critically important. Capacity-building faces misconceptions derived from an uncritical adoption of control/eradication strategies applied in countries with suitable means, and requires additional reference laboratories in endemic areas. Challenges for One Health implementation include the lack of research in species other than cattle and small ruminants, the need for a safer small ruminant vaccine, the need to fill in the infrastructure gap, the need for realistic capacity-building, the creation of reference laboratories in critical areas, and the stepwise implementation of measures not directly transposed from the so-called developed countries.

Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014-2016

In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to Brucella on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to Brucella. Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt®) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA®), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt®) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA®). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5-49.9, p = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3-17.3, p < 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4-11.3; p = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4-44.9; p = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; p = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0-218.2; p = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0-13.3; p < 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6-24.4; p < 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1-43.6; p < 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8-18.3; p = 0.046), hygromas in cattle (p = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3-8.7; p = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with Brucella infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.

Cross-sectional study of Brucella spp. using real-time PCR from bovine whole blood in Colombia

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Colombia to recover Brucella spp. DNA from bovine whole-blood samples through probe-based real-time PCR (qPCR). By an SNP-based assay, vaccine strains were differentiated from field strains. The associated factors were evaluated using logistical regression models. A total of 656 random cows from 40 herds were selected and analyzed using serology and PCR. The qPCR assay detected 9.5% (n = 62/656; 95% CI: 7.3, 12.0) of the animals with Brucella-DNA presence, while the serological test detected a 6.6% (n = 43/656; CI: 4.8, 8.7). 62.5% (n = 25/40; 95% CI: 45.8, 77.3) of positive cases were detected at the herd-level by the qPCR, while only 27.5% (n = 11/40; 95% CI: 14.6, 43.9) were detected by the serological test. All positive samples were identified as field Brucella strains employing the SNP-based assay. In the final regression model at the animal-level, five variables were associated with Brucella-DNA presence: the use of bulls for mating recorded history of reproductive problems, pregnant cows, parlor milking, and cows belonging to farms ≤200 m from the main road. At the herd-level, two variables were associated with Brucella-DNA presence: recorded history of reproductive problems and the use of bulls for mating. Given the fluctuant brucellosis prevalence in endemic areas, updated epidemiological studies are necessary to evaluate the disease dynamic and if established prevention and control measures have been effective or need to be adjusted. The increase in the prevalence of brucellosis in animal reservoirs creates an important risk of transmission in humans.

Global Comprehensive Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Brucella spp. in Swine Based on Publications From 2000 to 2020

Background: Brucellosis, a zoonotic disease, infects various hosts, including swine and humans. It has reemerged in recent years as a public health concern, and current studies on brucellosis infection in swine have been conducted worldwide. However, no meta-analyses of global brucellosis infection in swine have been published. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of Brucella species (spp.) in swine worldwide and the factors associated with its persistence.

Results: We searched seven databases for published epidemiological studies on brucellosis in pigs, including the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, the VIP Chinese Journal Database and PubMed. We selected 119 articles published from January 1, 2000 to January 3, 2020 for inclusion in the meta-analysis and analyzed the data using a random-effects model. Funnel plots and Egger's test showed significant publication bias in the included studies. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that our study was relatively stable and reliable. The prevalence of brucellosis in swine was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6–2.6), of which the highest infection rate, which was found in Europe, was 17.4% (95% CI: 11.1–24.9). The prevalence in feral pigs (15.0%, 95% CI: 8.4–23.2) was higher than that in domestic pigs (1.1%, 95% CI 0.2–2.5). The prevalence in high-income countries (15.7%, 95% CI 8.0–25.3) was significantly higher than that in middle- (0.8%, 95% CI 0.5–1.1), and low-income countries (0.1%, 95% CI 0.0–0.2). The prevalence was highest in finishing pigs at 4.9% (95% CI 0.9–11.0), and lowest among suckling pigs at 0% (95% CI 0.0–0.5).

Conclusion: The Brucella prevalence in pig herds currently is distributed widely throughout the world. In some countries, swine brucellosis may be a neglected zoonotic disease. We recommend long-term monitoring of the prevalence of brucellosis in domestic and wild pig herds. Attention should also be paid to animal welfare on intensive pig farms; controlling the breeding density may play an important role in reducing the spread of brucellosis among pigs.

Brucellosis: Prevalence with reference to East African community countries - A rapid review

Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease which is endemic to certain regions of the world including Sub-Saharan Africa. The aim of this article is to provide a recent and rapid review on brucellosis prevalence in East African Community (EAC) countries. Literature was obtained using Google Scholar search engine and screened for relevancy and fulfilment of criteria to 1, 17, 4, 4, 30 and 29 articles retained for brucellosis prevalence in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Recent literature (published in the last decade 2010 to 2019) was considered for prevalence results in this review. In EAC, livestock had an animal-level prevalence of 0.2% to 43.8%, 0.0% to 20.0% and 0.0% to 13.8% for cattle, goats and sheep respectively. In humans, the prevalence varied mostly between 0.0% and 35.8%. In conclusion, brucellosis is quite prevalent in the region. The reported prevalence calls for plans or more efforts from individual member countries and from EAC, as a region, to control brucellosis.

Seroepidemiology of bovine brucellosis in Colombia's preeminent dairy region, and its potential public health impact

A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the associated factors of brucellosis in Colombia's preeminent dairy region declared in quarantine. A total of 656 samples were collected from cows ≥ 2-year-old from 40 herds. Samples were screened by the Rose Bengal Plate Test, and the Fluorescence Polarized Assay test and Competitive ELISA were used as confirmatory tests. A cow was classified as positive if the screening and both confirmatory tests were positive. A herd was classified as positive if at least one cow was seropositive. The factors associated to seropositivity were tested using a logistic regression model with explanatory variables regarding cattle management, zootechnical parameters, and sanitary practices. The seroprevalence at the animal level was 6.6% (43/656) and at herd level 27.5% (11/40). In the model, five variables explained the animal cases: purchase or animal transfer between owner's farms (OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.42, 5.49), history of abortion (OR = 4.22, 95% CI 1.91, 9.33), birth of weak calves (OR = 13.77, 95% CI 2.75, 68.91), use of a bull for mating (OR = 9.69, 95% CI 2.23, 42.18), and the vaccination in adulthood (OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.04.8.78). In the model at the herd level, two variables explained the cases: birth of weak calves (OR = 9.60, 95% CI 1.54, 59.76) and purchase or animal transfer between owner's farms (OR = 7.22, 95% CI 1.03, 50.62). These results justify the need for a quarantine declaration in the region and the implementation of epidemiological studies as a public health measures used to combat outbreak.

Seroprevalence and risk factors for bovine brucellosis in the Chittagong Metropolitan Area of Bangladesh

Brucellosis is a neglected endemic zoonosis in Bangladesh and has a significant impact on public health and animal welfare of dairy farming as well as dairy farm economics. A cross‐sectional study was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of and risk factors for brucellosis in dairy cattle in the Chittagong metropolitan area (CMA) of Chittagong, Bangladesh. We collected serum samples (n = 158) from six randomly selected dairy farms in the CMA between February and November, 2015. The Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT) and a competitive ELISA (cELISA) were used as the screening and confirmatory tests respectively. Farm level and animal level demographic and risk factor data were collected using a questionnaire. The risk factors were analysed using a multivariable logistic regression with random effects. The overall seroprevalences of antibodies against brucellosis in cattle were 21.5% (34/158) and 7.6% (12/158) based on parallel and serial interpretation of the two tests respectively. Our results revealed that 20.3% (32/158) samples were positive using the RBPT and 8.9% (14/158) were positive using the cELISA. The within‐herd seroprevalence ranged from 10% to 26.3% and 5 to 20.7% using the RBPT and cELISA tests respectively. The odds of seropositivity were significantly higher in lactating cows (OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.02–6.55), cows producing less than 2 litres of milk (OR: 29.6; 95% CI: 4.3–353.8), cow producing 2–12 litres of milk (OR: 4.8; 95% CI: 1.1–33.4) and cows with reproductive disorders (OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.2–10.1). About 7.6% (12/158) and 1.3% (2/158) of cattle were found to be infected with acute and chronic brucellosis respectively. Based on these results, we suggest that cows that have reproductive disorders and are producing little milk should be prioritized for brucellosis screening in CMA. The screening tests should be used to control brucellosis in cattle in order to protect animal welfare, human health and to minimize the economic losses.