| Literature DB >> 29535853 |
J Awah-Ndukum1, M M M Mouiche1, H N Bayang2, V Ngu Ngwa1, E Assana1, K J M Feussom3, T K Manchang2, P A Zoli1.
Abstract
A cross-sectional seroprevalence study was conducted on cattle in the North and Adamawa Regions of Cameroon to investigate the status of bovine brucellosis and identify potential risk factors. The diagnosis was carried out using the Rose Bengal Plate test (RBPT) and indirect ELISA (i-ELISA), while questionnaires were used to evaluate risk factors for bovine brucellosis in cattle. The Bayesian approach was used to evaluate the diagnostic tests' sensitivity and specificity. The overall individual level (n = 1031) and herd level (n = 82) seroprevalence were 5.4% (0.4-10.5) and 25.6% (16.2-35.0), respectively. Bayesian analysis revealed sensitivity of 58.3% (26.4-92.7) and 89.6% (80.4-99.4) and specificity of 92.1% (88.7-95.2) and 95.7% (91.1-99.7) for RBPT and i-ELISA, respectively. Management related factors such as region, locality, herd size, and knowledge of brucellosis and animal related factors such as sex and age were significantly associated with seropositivity of brucellosis. Zoonotic brucellosis is a neglected disease in Cameroon. The study highlights the need for control measures and the need to raise public awareness of the zoonotic occurrence and transmission of bovine brucellosis in the country. An integrated disease control strategy mimicking the one health approach involving medical personnel, veterinarians, related stakeholders, and affected communities cannot be overemphasized.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29535853 PMCID: PMC5817279 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3468596
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Int ISSN: 2042-0048
Figure 1Map showing study areas in the North and Adamawa Regions of Cameroon.
Combined results of Rose Bengal Plate test and indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay among cattle in the North and Adamawa Regions of Cameroun (n = 1031).
| Serological results | Number of cases (% [95% CI]) |
|---|---|
| RBPT (+) | 108 (10,5% [8,6; 12,4]) |
| RBPT (−) | 923 (89,5% [87,6; 91,4]) |
| i-ELISA (+) | 91 (8,8% [7,1; 10,5]) |
| i-ELISA (−) | 940 (91,2% [89,5; 92,9]) |
| RBPT (+) i-ELISA (+) | 51 (5,0% [3,7; 6,3]) |
| RBPT (+) i-ELISA (−) | 57 (5,5% [4,1; 6,9]) |
| RBPT (−) i-ELISA (+) | 40 (3,9% [2,7; 5,1]) |
| RBPT (−) i-ELISA (−) | 883 (85,6% [83,4; 87,7]) |
| RBPT or i-ELISA (+) | 148 (14,4% [12,2; 16,5]) |
| RBPT or i-ELISA (−) | 883 (85,6% [83,4; 87,7]) |
(−): negative; (+): positive; i-ELISA: indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; RBPT: Rose Bengal Plate test.
Figure 2Map showing distribution of apparent seroprevalence rates at individual animal level according to locality and diagnostic test.
Risk factor model for brucellosis seropositivity in individual cattle in Adamawa and North Regions of Cameroon (n = 1031).
| Factor | Variable | Number# (positive) | Seropositivity using i-ELISA [95% CI] | Odds ratio |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | North | 509 (31) | 6.1% [4.0–8.2] | 1 | - |
| Adamawa | 522 (60) | 11.5% [8.8–14.2] | 2.0 [1.2–3.1] | 0.003 | |
|
| |||||
| Locality | Vina | 117 (2) | 1.7% [0–4.0] | 1 | - |
| Mbere | 187 (12) | 6.4% [2.9–9.9] | 3.9 [0.9–17.9] | 0.076 | |
| Benoue | 134 (21) | 15.7% [9.5–21.8] | 10.7 [2.4–46.6] | 0.002 | |
| Faro-et-Deo | 218 (46) | 21.1% [15.7–26.5] | 15.4 [3.7–64.6] | <0.0001 | |
| Mayo-Louti | 117 (10) | 8.5% [3.4–13.5] | 5.4 [1.1–25.1] | 0.032 | |
| Mayo Rey | 258 (0) | 0% | |||
|
| |||||
| Herd size | ≤30 | 69 (2) | 2.9% [1.0–6.8] | 1 | - |
| 30–59 | 279 (38) | 13.6% [9.6–17.6] | 0.5 [0.3–0.8] | 0.003 | |
| ≥60 | 683 (51) | 7.5% [5.5–9.5] | 0.2 [0.0–0.8] | 0.024 | |
|
| |||||
| Livestock systems | Semi-intensive | 645 (55) | 8.5% [6.3–10.6] | 1 | - |
| Extensive | 386 (36) | 9.3% [6.4–12.2] | 1.1 [0.7–1.7] | 0.662 | |
|
| |||||
| Contact with wildlife | Yes | 476 (46) | 9.7% [7.0–12.3] | 1 | - |
| No | 555 (45) | 8.1% [5.8–10.4] | 0.8 [0.5–1.3] | 0.381 | |
|
| |||||
| Knowledge of brucellosis | Yes | 301 (15) | 5.0% [2.5–7.5] | 1 | - |
| No | 339 (40) | 11.8% [8.4–15.2] | 2.5 [1.4–4.7] | 0.003 | |
|
| |||||
| Occupational risk of brucellosis | Yes | 164 (10) | 6.1% [2.4–9.8] | 1 | - |
| No | 476 (48) | 10.1% [7.4–12.8] | 1.7 [0.8–3.5] | 0.129 | |
|
| |||||
| Breed | Mbororo (red) | 82 (5) | 0.5% [0–2.0] | 1 | - |
| Fulani (white) | 167 (20) | 1.9% [0–4.0] | 1.5 [0.7–3.3] | 0.295 | |
| Gudali | 715 (58) | 5.6% [3.9–7.3] | 1.5 [0.9–2.6] | 0.123 | |
| Crossbreed | 67 (8) | 0.8% [0–2.9] | 0.6 [0.2–1.8] | 0.374 | |
|
| |||||
| Sex | Female | 852 (83) | 9.7% [7.7–11.7] | 1 | - |
| Male | 179 (8) | 4.5% [1.5–7.5] | 0.43 [0.20–0.91] | 0.028 | |
|
| |||||
| Age (years) | Young (≤4) | 116 (8) | 6.9% [2.3–11.5] | 1 | - |
| Adult (5–8) | 818 (65) | 7.9% [6.0–9.7] | 1.6 [0.9–2.8] | 0.087 | |
| Old (≥9) | 97 (18) | 18.6% [10.8–26.3] | 3.8 [1.9–7.6] | <0.0001 | |
|
| |||||
| Body Condition Score | Poor (<3) | 33 (1) | 3.0% [0.0–8.8] | 1 | - |
| Good (3-4) | 887 (82) | 9% [7.3–11.1] | 0.8 [0.3–1.6] | 0.481 | |
| Very Good (>4) | 111 (8) | 7.2% [2.4–12.0] | 0.3 [0–2.3] | 0.248 | |
|
| |||||
| Abortion | Yes | 310 (20) | 6.5% [3.7–9.2] | 1 | - |
| No | 330 (35) | 10.6% [7.3–13.9] | 1.7 [1.0–3.0] | 0.063 | |
|
| |||||
| Stillbirth | Yes | 244 (19) | 7.8% [4.4–11.2] | 1 | - |
| No | 394 (36) | 9.1% [6.3–11.9] | 1.2 [0.7–2.1] | 0.555 | |
|
| |||||
| Retained placenta | Yes | 162 (12) | 8.0% [3.8–12.2] | 1 | - |
| No | 478 (42) | 8.8% [6.3–11.3] | 1.1 [0.6–2.1] | 0.765 | |
#Observed reactions of individual animals (n = 1031) or of animals of farmers who responded to questionnaire (n depends on number of animals of the farmer) were used in the category. Crossbreed between local breeds.