6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Abstract

          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. 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. 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Brucellosis remains a neglected disease in the developing world: a call for interdisciplinary action

          Background Brucellosis is an endemic zoonotic disease in most of the developing world that causes devastating losses to the livestock industry and small-scale livestock holders. Infected animals exhibit clinical signs that are of economic significance to stakeholders and include reduced fertility, abortion, poor weight gain, lost draught power, and a substantial decline in milk production. In humans, brucellosis typically manifests as a variety of non-specific clinical signs. Chronicity and recurring febrile conditions, as well as devastating complications in pregnant women are common sequelae. Discussion In regions where the disease is endemic, brucellosis has far-reaching and deleterious effects on humans and animals alike. Deeply entrenched social misconceptions and fear of government intervention contribute to this disease continuing to smolder unchecked in most of the developing world, thereby limiting economic growth and inhibiting access to international markets. The losses in livestock productivity compromise food security and lead to shifts in the cognitive competency of the working generation, influence the propagation of gender inequality, and cause profound emotional suffering in farmers whose herds are affected. The acute and chronic symptoms of the disease in humans can result in a significant loss of workdays and a decline in the socioeconomic status of infected persons and their families from the associated loss of income. The burden of the disease to society includes significant human healthcare costs for diagnosis and treatment, and non-healthcare costs such as public education efforts to reduce disease transmission. Conclusion Brucellosis places significant burdens on the human healthcare system and limits the economic growth of individuals, communities, and nations where such development is especially important to diminish the prevalence of poverty. The implementation of public policy focused on mitigating the socioeconomic effects of brucellosis in human and animal populations is desperately needed. When developing a plan to mitigate the associated consequences, it is vital to consider both the abstract and quantifiable effects. This requires an interdisciplinary and collaborative, or One Health, approach that consists of public education, the development of an infrastructure for disease surveillance and reporting in both veterinary and medical fields, and campaigns for control in livestock and wildlife species.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife.

            To describe and discuss the merits of various direct and indirect methods applied in vitro (mainly on blood or milk) or in vivo (allergic test) for the diagnosis of brucellosis in animals. The recent literature on brucellosis diagnostic tests was reviewed. These diagnostic tests are applied with different goals, such as national screening, confirmatory diagnosis, certification, and international trade. The validation of such diagnostic tests is still an issue, particularly in wildlife. The choice of the testing strategy depends on the prevailing brucellosis epidemiological situation and the goal of testing. Measuring the kinetics of antibody production after Brucella spp. infection is essential for analyzing serological results correctly and may help to predict abortion. Indirect ELISAs help to discriminate 1) between false positive serological reactions and true brucellosis and 2) between vaccination and infection. Biotyping of Brucella spp. provides valuable epidemiological information that allows tracing an infection back to the sources in instances where several biotypes of a given Brucella species are circulating. Polymerase chain reaction and new molecular methods are likely to be used as routine typing and fingerprinting methods in the coming years. The diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife is complex and serological results need to be carefully analyzed. The B. abortus S19 and B. melitensis Rev. 1 vaccines are the cornerstones of control programs in cattle and small ruminants, respectively. There is no vaccine available for pigs or for wildlife. In the absence of a human brucellosis vaccine, prevention of human brucellosis depends on the control of the disease in animals.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Advancement of knowledge of Brucella over the past 50 years.

              Fifty years ago, bacteria in the genus Brucella were known to cause infertility and reproductive losses. At that time, the genus was considered to contain only 3 species: Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis, and Brucella suis. Since the early 1960s, at least 7 new species have been identified as belonging to the Brucella genus (Brucella canis, Brucella ceti, Brucella inopinata, Brucella microti, Brucella neotomae, Brucella ovis, and Brucella pinnipedialis) with several additional new species under consideration for inclusion. Although molecular studies have found such high homology that some authors have proposed that all Brucella are actually 1 species, the epidemiologic and diagnostic benefits for separating the genus based on phenotypic characteristics are more compelling. Although pathogenic Brucella spp have preferred reservoir hosts, their ability to infect numerous mammalian hosts has been increasingly documented. The maintenance of infection in new reservoir hosts, such as wildlife, has become an issue for both public health and animal health regulatory personnel. Since the 1960s, new information on how Brucella enters host cells and modifies their intracellular environment has been gained. Although the pathogenesis and histologic lesions of B. abortus, B. melitensis, and B. suis in their preferred hosts have not changed, additional knowledge on the pathology of these brucellae in new hosts, or of new species of Brucella in their preferred hosts, has been obtained. To this day, brucellosis remains a significant human zoonosis that is emerging or reemerging in many parts of the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sharminchowdhury77@gmail.com
                Journal
                Vet Med Sci
                Vet Med Sci
                10.1002/(ISSN)2053-1095
                VMS3
                Veterinary Medicine and Science
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2053-1095
                19 September 2020
                January 2021
                : 7
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/vms3.v7.1 )
                : 86-98
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (CVASU) Chittagong Bangladesh
                [ 2 ] Institute of Epidemiology Disease Control and Research (IEDCR) Dhaka Bangladesh
                [ 3 ] Ecohealth Alliance New York NY USA
                [ 4 ] Department of Livestock Services Farmgate Dhaka Bangladesh
                [ 5 ] Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Science Deakin University Geelong VIC Australia
                [ 6 ] Bangladesh Agricultural University Mymensingh Bangladesh
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Sharmin Chowdhury, Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (CVASU), Chittagong, Bangladesh.

                Email: sharminchowdhury77@ 123456gmail.com

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1986-4960
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6094-2452
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4548-7225
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9210-3351
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9660-4949
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8031-5998
                Article
                VMS3348
                10.1002/vms3.348
                7840193
                32949434
                0a8a2aea-1ed4-421e-bad3-a912134f7ea9
                © 2020 The Authors. Veterinary Medicine and Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 August 2019
                : 27 July 2020
                : 16 August 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 7, Pages: 13, Words: 8456
                Funding
                Funded by: University Grants Commission (UGC), HEQEP
                Award ID: CP‐3220
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.7 mode:remove_FC converted:27.01.2021

                brucellosis,celisa,lactating cows,rbpt,seroprevalence
                brucellosis, celisa, lactating cows, rbpt, seroprevalence

                Comments

                Comment on this article