| Literature DB >> 29978092 |
Salima-Yamina Derdour1, Fella Hafsi1, Naouelle Azzag1, Safia Tennah1, Abdelouahab Laamari1, Bernard China2, Farida Ghalmi1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Abortion in cattle is a major source of economic losses for the agriculture sector. It can be due to infectious or non-infectious factors. Among infectious factors, parasites, bacteria, viruses, and fungi can be involved. The present work investigated the prevalence of the main infectious agents of abortion in Algerian cattle.Entities:
Keywords: Algeria; abortion; cows; infectious agents
Year: 2017 PMID: 29978092 PMCID: PMC5894425 DOI: 10.1515/jvetres-2017-0044
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vet Res ISSN: 2450-7393 Impact factor: 1.744
Prevalence of the different studied abortive pathogens
| Pathogen | Positive | Negative | Prevalence(%) | CI95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | 306 | 15.00 | 11.31–18.69 | |
| BoHVl | 2 | 358 | 0.55 | 0–1.31 |
| BoHV4 | 13 | 347 | 3.61 | 1.68–5.54 |
| BVD virus | 5 | 355 | 1.39 | 0.18–2.6 |
| ll | 349 | 3.06 | 1.28–4.84 | |
| 5 | 355 | 1.39 | 0.18–2.6 | |
| 14 | 346 | 3.89 | 1.89–5.89 | |
| 6 | 354 | 1.67 | 0.35–2.99 | |
| 3 | 357 | 0.83 | 0–1.77 | |
| 0 | 360 | 0.00 | ND | |
| At least one pathogen | 80 | 280 | 22.22 | 17.9–26.5 |
ND–not determined
Cows presenting multiple infections
| Cow | case | NC | BoHV1 | BoHV4 | BVD | BA | SD | LI | CA | CB | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 3 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 5 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 6 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 7 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 8 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 9 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 10 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 11 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 12 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 13 | No | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 14 | No | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 15 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 16 | No | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 17 | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 18 | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 19 | yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 20 | No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | No | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | Yes | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 16 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 58 |
NC – Neospora caninum ; BA – Brucella abortus ; SD – Salmonella Dublin ; LI – Leptospira interrogans ; CA – Chlamydophila abortus ; CB – Coxiella burnetii
Analysis of the relation between contact with a pathogen and the abortion in cows: a case-control study
| Pathogen | Status | + | – | Total | Exposition rate | OR | CI95% | p | EAF | PAF | P(A/P) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| case | 21 | 61 | 82 | 25.6% | 2.56 | 1.38–4.73 | <0.01 | 60.9% | 15.6% | 0.39 | |
| control | 33 | 245 | 278 | 11.9% | |||||||
| BoHV1 | case | 0 | 82 | 82 | 0.0% | 0.67 | 0.03–14.1 | 0.8 | ND | ND | 0.0 |
| control | 2 | 276 | 278 | 0.7% | |||||||
| BoHV4 | case | 9 | 73 | 82 | 11.0% | 8.45 | 2.53–28.2 | <0.01 | 88.2% | 9.7% | 0.69 |
| control | 4 | 274 | 278 | 1.4% | |||||||
| BVD | case | 4 | 78 | 82 | 4.9% | 14.21 | 1.57–128.93 | <0.05 | 93.0% | 4.5% | 0.8 |
| control | 1 | 277 | 278 | 0.4% | |||||||
| case | 6 | 76 | 82 | 7.3% | 4.31 | 1.28–14.51 | <0.05 | 76.8% | 5.6% | 0.55 | |
| control | 5 | 273 | 278 | 1.8% | |||||||
| case | 4 | 78 | 82 | 4.9% | 14.21 | 1.57–128.93 | <0.05 | 93.0% | 4.5% | 0.7 | |
| control | 1 | 277 | 278 | 0.4% | |||||||
| case | 10 | 72 | 82 | 12.2% | 9.44 | 2.88–30.99 | <0.01 | 89.4% | 10.8% | 0.76 | |
| control | 4 | 272 | 278 | 1.4% | |||||||
| case | 0 | 82 | 82 | 0.0% | 0.48 | 0.02–9.33 | 0.63 | ND | ND | 0.0 | |
| control | 3 | 275 | 278 | 1.1% | |||||||
| case | 4 | 78 | 82 | 4.9% | 7.08 | 1.27–39.36 | <0.05 | 85.9% | 4.2% | 0.67 | |
| control | 2 | 276 | 278 | 0.7% | |||||||
| At least one pathogen | case | 36 | 46 | 82 | 43.9% | 4.16 | 2.42–7.16 | <0.01 | 76% | 33.4% | 0.45 |
| control | 44 | 234 | 278 | 15.8% | |||||||
: The OR normally has an infinite value due to the presence of 0 negative samples in case farms. In this case, we added 0.5 at each value.
Exposed attributable fraction = EAF = (OR–1)/OR
Population attributable fraction = PAF = Po(OR–1)/(1+(Po(OR–1))
Po = number of exposed in controls/number of controls
P(A/P) = probability of abortion (A) if pathogen (P) = p (A∩P)/P(P)
ND – not determined