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

Bugeza, James; Muwonge, Adrian; Munyeme, Musso; Lasuba, Phillip; Godfroid, Jacques; Kankya, Clovice

doi:10.1007/s11250-018-1631-6

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The seroprevalence we reported based on the RBPT assay (20.3%) was consistent with the 20.4% reported on a government dairy farm in Dhaka, Bangladesh (Rahman et al, 2019). Rahman and Mia (1970) (Adugna, Agga, & Zewde, 2013;Bugeza et al, 2019). In the non-lactating group, there were some heifers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Lactating animals were significantly associated with a higher risk of being seropositive to brucellosis both in univariable logistic regression and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Separate study from Ethiopia and Uganda reported, seropositivity was found in lactating and pregnant cows only (Adugna, Agga, & Zewde, 2013; Bugeza et al, 2019). In the non‐lactating group, there were some heifers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Islam

Barua

Moni

et al. 2020

Veterinary Medicine & Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Islam

Barua

Moni

et al. 2020

Veterinary Medicine & Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would also result in the reduction in calves born and may be applicable to the herds investigated in our study. Other reported herd symptoms and risk factors, such as herd size, sex and fenced-in camps [62,66,67], were not found to be significant in our study area.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Most developed countries mainly focus on intensive farming, while countries with lower incomes focus mainly focus on extensive farming. The prevalence of disease in countries with intensive farming is higher than that in countries with extensive farming, which has been confirmed in several studies (66)(67)(68).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

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

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

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About