Survey of Brucellainfection and malaria among Abattoir workers in Kampala and Mbarara Districts, Uganda

Abstract

BackgroundBrucellosis is among the most widespread zoonotic infections estimated at 14% in Uganda. A cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the sero-prevalence, risk factors of Brucella infection and malaria among abattoir workers.MethodsA survey was conducted among 232 abattoir workers in main abattoirs of Kampala and Mbarara districts in February 2007. A pre-tested questionnaire captured socio-demographic and occupational data. Brachial vein blood was tested for Brucella using Microplate Agglutination Test (MAT) and Standard Tube Agglutination Test (STAT) with a cut off titre of 1:160, and giemsa stained blood slides for malaria. Data was analyzed in SPSS 17.0.ResultsSeven males (3%, n = 232) had malaria and dual brucella and Plasmodium falciparum malaria was found in one person. Brucella sero-positivity was 10% (95% CI 6 – 16; n = 232) with 12% (n = 161) in Kampala and 7% (n = 71) in Mbarara district. Non-use of protective gear Odds ratio (OR 3.3, 95% CI (1.25 – 50) and working in the abattoir beyond 5 years OR 2.4 95% CI (1.4 – 5.6) were associated with increased risk of Brucella infection. Age, sex, religion, keeping animals and consumption of raw milk or products were not significant.ConclusionsBrucella infection is a real risk among abattoir workers and use of full protective gear reduced risk significantly. Sensitization and public health care programs are needed to control this emerging problem.

Spatial distribution of Brucella antibodies with reference to indigenous cattle populations among contrasting agro-ecological zones of Uganda

“…The consequences are widespread incidences of human brucellosis (Faye et al, 2005;Swai and Schoonman, 2009;Kunda et al, 2010). Recent reports by Nabukenya et al (2013) indicate a seroprevalence of 7-10% among abattoir workers in Kampala and Mbarara. Indigenous cattle in Uganda constitute approximately 93.3% of the national herd and have adjusted to local agro-ecological conditions under the stewardship of rural smallholder farmers (MAAIF/UBOS, 2009;Balikowa, 2011).…”

“…Its economic burden among pastoral and smallholder livestock farmers results into reduced success of poverty reduction initiatives through loss of productivity and income (WHO, 2006;MAAIF, 2010). Cattle brucellosis is primarily caused by Brucella abortus organisms (Radostits et al, 2000), which occur in high concentration in placental membranes and fluids at parturition, aborted fetuses, unpasteurized dairy products consequently acting as sources of infection to other susceptible livestock and humans (Nabukenya et al, 2013;Racloz et al, 2013;Ducrotoy et al, 2014). Reproductive failure, lost milk yields and restrictions to lucrative markets (Mangen et al, 2002) comprise the main losses incurred due to cattle brucellosis.…”

Brucella sero-prevalence and modifiable risk factors among predisposed cattle keepers and consumers of un-pasteurized milk in Mbarara and Kampala districts, Uganda

“…A recent study among abattoir workers in Uganda reported a brucella seropositivity of 10% (95%CI: 6-16; n=232) 6 (Nabukenya et al, 2013). Symptoms of acute brucellosis caused by B. abortus and /or B. melitensis are flu-like and are highly non-specific.…”

“…The disease is a zoonosis of worldwide distribution and a common cause of economic loss and ill health among animals and human populations. Although the incidence of brucellosis has decreased significantly in developed countries 6,8 , the disease remains a major public health threat in many developing countries including Uganda 7,8,9,10 .…”

“…of a farm) by computing their respective odds ratios and chi square values before offeringfeeding them into a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) 15 and executed in SAS IML macro (SAS institute Inc., version 6,1985) 15,17 to further study the relationship between the postulated risk factors and the disease outcome for purposes of identifying modifiable ones. Significance at initial screening and for the final model was set at p<0.25 and p<0.05, respectively.…”