Background Human rabies remains a significant public health problem in Africa with outbreaks reported in most countries. In Nigeria–the most populous country in Africa–rabies causes a significant public health burden partly due to perennial obstacles to implementing a national prevention and control program. Methods We conducted a scoping review using standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify and select published articles from Nigeria during 1978–2020 reporting on rabies virus infections (human, canine, livestock, and wildlife), canine bites, knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) surveys on rabies and canine ecology studies. We extracted information on study location, year and additional details of each study such as rabies prevalence, general characteristics of offending dogs, dog vaccination status and health-seeking behaviours. Findings Between 1978 and 2020, 90 published articles met our inclusion criteria. The prevalence of rabies virus antigen detection varied between 3% and 28%, with more studies in the north. Most bites were unprovoked from dog bite studies (36.4%-97%), by dogs with low vaccination rates (12–38%). A more significant proportion of biting dogs were owned (31–90%). Laboratory confirmation for biting was available for only a small proportion of studies (6%; n = 2/32). Of the dogs surveyed during ecology studies, indigenous dogs accounted for the majority (62–98%), used mostly for security purposes (52–98%), with the vaccination rate between 15% and 38% in most states. Studies conducted in areas distant from rabies diagnostic facilities accounted for more human rabies cases and fewer dog rabies cases. Conclusion Significant improvements are necessary to achieve the elimination of human rabies mediated via dogs by 2030.

No abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to explore the outbreak situation in terms of animal, place, and time towards minimizing the risk of animal infection at the source in future and subsequent spillover in human in the endemic rural settings. Methodology: An outbreak investigation team from the Department of Livestock Services visited in each of the outbreak sites to explore the event towards strengthening the control program in the future. Meat samples of the infected slaughtered animals were collected to confirm the causal agent of the animal outbreak using polychrome methylene blue microscopic examination technique. Participatory epidemiology tool such as semi-structured interview had been used in these investigations to realize the knowledge and practices of local people/cattle keepers on anthrax control and prevention in animal and human as well. Results: All identified affected human cases had been confirmed as a history of contact with the animal carcasses or handling/processing with infected meat. The level of awareness at the community level was not satisfactory for the prevention and control of anthrax at the source and further spillover in human. The infected slaughtered animals found to be in non-vaccinated status during the outbreak investigation and uncontrolled animal movement is considered to be responsible for new outbreaks in a vaccinated zone where enforcement of veterinary legislation is inadequate. Conclusion: A comprehensive preparedness and response strategy is to be obligatory for prevention, control and respond on anthrax in Bangladesh. Maximum vaccination coverage in the animal, increase community awareness of animal and human anthrax are also demanded for transmission of anthrax from animal to human.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The study was undertaken for a period of 60 days to investigate the production systems of swine in Rangamati and Khagrachari districts, Bangladesh. Production systems, particularly housing, feeding, breeding, disease prevalence, vaccination, bio-security, marketing, socio-economic condition and constraints of pig production were investigated during the study period. It was found that the propensity of rearing pig differed significantly (P<0.01) among the pig owners. Pigs were reared mostly by poor and landless peoples (54.7%) followed by marginal (32.1%), medium (9.4%) and large (3.8%). Rearing systems were also different (P<0.01) and the mean figures were 43.4% for free range, 24.5% for tin shed housing , 20.8% for fencing and 11.3% for girth tethering systems. The average litter size, birth weight, post-weaning weight and weaning period were 9.3, 1.72 kg, 9.0 kg and 40.8 days respectively. Prevalence of diseases differed (P<0.01) and most prevalent diseases were diarrhea (35.8%), coccidiosis (20.8%), pneumonia (17.0%) and hemorrhagic septicemia (13.2%). The economic benefits generated from farming were selling of piglets.

L ive bird markets (LBMs) have long been identifi ed as major sites for the maintenance, transmission, amplifi cation, and dissemination of infl uenza A(H5) virus (1,2). Studies in the United States, China, Indonesia, and Vietnam have shown that LBMs can pose a public health risk for zoonotic spill-over to humans through environmental contamination (2-8). In Bangladesh, the fi rst evidence of zoonotic transmission of infl uenza A(H5) virus emerged in 2012; LBMs in Dhaka were considered the main source of exposure for all 3 human cases reported (9,10). The relatively low level of infl uenza A(H5) endemicity found in studies conducted in LBMs in Bangladesh since 2012 (e.g., <10% prevalence at live bird sampling level) (11-13) have contributed to a false sense of security regarding contamination risk. Indeed, since 2013, several infl uenza A(H5) outbreaks in poultry (9 outbreaks), wild birds (5 outbreaks), and humans (2 outbreaks) have occurred in Bangladesh (14,15). During March 2007-December 2020, Bangladesh reported 556 outbreaks of infl uenza A(H5) virus in poultry ( 14) and 8 cases in humans (15).Environmental sampling in LBMs for the purposes of avian infl uenza virus surveillance was fi rst introduced in the United States in 1986 (16). A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of environmental sampling for infl uenza A surveillance and described multiple sampling sites in an LBM (17). Earlier studies from Bangladesh primarily focused on collecting samples from market environment sites (such as market fl oor, stall fl oor, slaughter area, waste bin, poultry cage, water, fecal material on or underneath the poultry cage, blood, and poultry offal) to understand the LBM environment status for infl uenza A (11,12,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25).Few studies to date-1 in Indonesia and 3 in Guangdong, China-have performed simultaneous sampling in different LBM work zones, such as the poultry delivery, poultry holding, poultry slaughter, poultry sale, and waste disposal zones (26)(27)(28)(29). These studies indicated that the poultry slaughter and sale zones were the 2 most contaminated LBM work zones for infl uenza A(H5N1) in Indonesia ( 27) and infl uenza A(H7N9), (H5), and (H9) in China (26,28,29). To date, no studies have been performed in Bangladesh on infl uenza A environmental contamination within different LBM work zones. The results from China and Indonesia have provided additional justifi cation to evaluate the infl uenza A surveillance program of