| Literature DB >> 33170869 |
S K Shaheenur Islam1,2, Tanzida Begum Rumi3, S M Lutful Kabir1, Adri G M van der Zanden4, Vivek Kapur5, A K M Anisur Rahman6, Michael P Ward7, Douwe Bakker8, Allen G Ross3, Zeaur Rahim3.
Abstract
A cross-sectional survey was conducted in selected districts of Bangladesh to estimate the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), and to identify the risk factors for bTB. We included 1865 farmed cattle from 79 herds randomly selected from five districts. Herd and animal level data were collected using semi-structured interviews with cattle herd owners. The single intradermal comparative tuberculin test (SICTT) was used to estimate the prevalence of bTB. The risk factors were identified using mixed-effect multiple logistic regression analyses. The overall herd and animal level prevalences of bTB were estimated to be 45.6% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 34.3-57.2%) and 11.3 (95% CI = 9.9-12.8%), respectively, using the OIE recommended >4 mm cut-off. The true animal level prevalence of bTB was estimated to be 11.8 (95% Credible Interval = 2.1-20.3%). At the herd level, farm size, bTB history of the farm and type of husbandry were significantly associated with bTB status in univariable analysis. Similarly, age group, sex, pregnancy status and parity were significantly associated with bTB at cattle level. However, in multivariable analysis only herd size at the herd level and age group and pregnancy status at the cattle level were significant. Compared to a herd size of 1-10, the odds of bTB were 22.8 (95% CI: 5.2-100.9) and 45.6 times (95% CI: 5.0-417.7) greater in herd sizes of >20-50 and >50, respectively. The odds of bTB were 2.2 (95% CI: 1.0-4.5) and 2.5 times (95% CI: 1.1-5.4) higher in cattle aged >3-6 years and > 6 years, compared to cattle aged ≤1 year. Pregnancy increased the odds of bTB by 1.7 times (95% CI: 1.2-2.4) compared to non-pregnant cattle. Taken together, the results suggest high herd and animal level prevalence of bTB in these 5 districts, with the greatest risk of bTB in older and pregnant cattle within large herds (>20), and highlight an urgent need for continued surveillance and implementation of bTB control programs in Bangladesh.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33170869 PMCID: PMC7654795 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study districts of Bangladesh.
A total of 79 cattle farms of 5 districts were surveyed (as coordinates of some of the farms are closely located, all farms are not pictured separately in the map).
Characteristics of herd composition and management practices (N = 79 cattle farm).
| Factor | Category | Frequency number (n) | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herd status | Positive | 36 | 45.6 |
| Negative | 43 | 54.4 | |
| History TB in the farm | Yes | 7 | 8.9 |
| No | 51 | 64.5 | |
| Don’t know | 21 | 26.6 | |
| Distribution dairy farms | Dhaka | 53 | 67.0 |
| Gazipur | 1 | 1.3 | |
| Jamalpur | 11 | 14.0 | |
| Munshiganj | 1 | 1.3 | |
| Mymensingh | 13 | 16.5 | |
| Herd size(nos of cattle) | 2–10 | 39 | 49.4 |
| 10–20 | 11 | 13.9 | |
| 20–50 | 18 | 22.8 | |
| >50 | 11 | 13.9 | |
| Type of farm | Both (Fattening and Dairy) | 45 | 57.0 |
| Dairy | 34 | 43.0 | |
| Husbandry type | Intensive | 54 | 68.4 |
| Semi-intensive | 25 | 31.7 | |
| Manure use | Use after production of biogas | 7 | 8.9 |
| Use without biogas | 72 | 91.1 | |
| Silage feeding | Yes | 5 | 6.3 |
| No | 74 | 93.7 | |
| Introduction of new animal | No | 44 | 55.7 |
| Single | 12 | 15.2 | |
| Multiple | 23 | 29.1 | |
| Veterinary practitioner | Paraprofessional/ Quack | 57 | 72.2 |
| Vet | 22 | 27.9 | |
| Other animal (sheep, goat, poultry) keeping | Yes | 18 | 22.8 |
| No | 61 | 77.2 | |
| Bio-security type | High | 15 | 19.0 |
| Low | 14 | 17.7 | |
| Medium | 50 | 63.3 |
Status of animal level parameters in 1865 cattle in five districts of Bangladesh.
| Parameters | Animal (N = 1865) | % |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | 210 (1865) | 11.3 |
| Negative | 1523 (1865) | 81.7 |
| Inconclusive | 132 (1865) | 7.1 |
| Male | 305 (1865) | 16.4 |
| Female | 1560 (1865) | 83.6 |
| ≤1 year | 284 (1865) | 15.2 |
| 1–3 years | 666 (1865) | 35.7 |
| 3–6 years | 458 (1865) | 24.6 |
| More than 6 years | 457 (1865) | 24.5 |
| Bought | 794 (1865) | 42.6 |
| Farm | 1071(1865) | 57.4 |
| Holstein Friesian cross | 1541 (1865) | 82.6 |
| Local | 117 (1865) | 6.3 |
| Other cross (Jersey/Brahman) | 83 (1865) | 4.5 |
| Shahiwal cross | 124 (1865) | 6.7 |
| 1–100 | 211 (1865) | 11.3 |
| 100–200 | 287 (1865) | 15.4 |
| 200–400 | 834 (1865) | 44.7 |
| 400–500 | 458 (1865) | 24.6 |
| >500 | 75 (1865) | 4 |
| Yes | 967 (1331) | 72.7 |
| No | 364 (1331) | 27.3 |
| Yes | 708 (1420) | 49.9 |
| No | 712 (1420) | 50.10 |
| 1–2 | 346 (967) | 35.8 |
| 3–5 | 527 (967) | 54.5 |
| 5+ | 94 (967) | 9.8 |
| Poor (BCS:0–3) | 48 (1865) | 2.6 |
| Good (BCS:>6) | 1239 (1865) | 66.4 |
| Medium (BCS:4–6) | 578 (1865) | 31 |
Fig 2Skin responses at both sites (bovine and avian) of cross reaction of bTB with paratuberculosis and or environmental mycobacterium were documented in 303 (N) cattle in the SICTT.
As per standard criteria 69 (>4mm), 46 (2-4mm) and 188 (<2mm) were interpreted as positive, inconclusive and negative (n = 188, <2 mm) animals [5, 24].
Status of SICTT herds by district, subdistrict/ city corporation and study sites level or using the standard method (positive: >4 mm cut off value, inconclusive = 2–4 mm and negative <2 mm) of interpretation.
| District | Subdistrict/City Corporation area | Study area | Inconclusive (2–4 mm) | Negative (<2mm) | Positive (>4 mm cut off value) | Total animal | Farm | Within herd prevalence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dhaka | DNCC | Demra | 3 | 19 | 18 | 40 | 1 | 45.0 |
| Dhour | 3 | 63 | 5 | 71 | 1 | 7.0 | ||
| Rajabari | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 1 | - | ||
| Harirampur | 2 | 63 | 1 | 66 | 1 | 1.5 | ||
| DSCC | Meradia | 6 | 41 | 4 | 51 | 1 | 7.8 | |
| Jamun | 16 | 56 | 7 | 79 | 2 | 8.9 | ||
| Prembag | 2 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 11.1 | ||
| Mogardiya | 20 | 158 | 22 | 200 | 2 | 11.0 | ||
| Vangamosjid | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | - | ||
| Lohargate | 10 | 58 | 58 | 126 | 2 | 46.0 | ||
| Pilkhana | 11 | 116 | 15 | 142 | 3 | 10.6 | ||
| Hazaribag | 2 | 97 | 1 | 100 | 9 | 1.0 | ||
| Dhmarai | Borakoi | 4 | 36 | 1 | 41 | 1 | 2.4 | |
| Savar | Kathgora | 2 | 44 | 1 | 47 | 1 | 2.1 | |
| Ragamatiya | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 1 | - | ||
| Nagorchor | 6 | 16 | 11 | 33 | 1 | 33.3 | ||
| Keranigang | Barirgoan | 2 | 108 | 1 | 111 | 13 | 0.9 | |
| Ghaterchar | 0 | 57 | 3 | 60 | 4 | 5.0 | ||
| Atipara | 7 | 35 | 12 | 54 | 2 | 22.2 | ||
| Shikaritola | 2 | 49 | 0 | 51 | 1 | - | ||
| Nagda | 0 | 38 | 1 | 39 | 1 | 2.6 | ||
| Brahamankirton | 10 | 30 | 15 | 55 | 3 | 27.3 | ||
| Total | 109 | 1108 | 177 | 1394 | 53 | 12.7 | ||
| Munshiganj | Lohagong | Khidirpur | 6 | 30 | 13 | 49 | 1 | 26.5 |
| Total | 6 | 30 | 13 | 49 | 1 | 26.5 | ||
| Gazipur | Sreepur | Faugan | 1 | 81 | 1 | 83 | 1 | 1.2 |
| Total | 1 | 81 | 1 | 83 | 1 | 1.2 | ||
| Mymensingh | Sadar | Batta | 0 | 46 | 1 | 47 | 2 | 2.1 |
| Sadar | Aqua bypass | 1 | 62 | 1 | 64 | 1 | 1.6 | |
| Muktagacha | Duttapara | 6 | 50 | 11 | 67 | 3 | 16.4 | |
| Digorgoan | Muktagacha | 5 | 25 | 2 | 32 | 5 | 6.3 | |
| Fulpur | Fulpur | 0 | 50 | 3 | 53 | 2 | 5.7 | |
| Total | 12 | 233 | 18 | 263 | 13 | 6.8 | ||
| Jamalpur | Sarishabari | Natherpara | 2 | 55 | 0 | 57 | 6 | - |
| Tikrapara | 2 | 16 | 1 | 19 | 5 | 5.3 | ||
| Total | 4 | 71 | 1 | 76 | 11 | 1.3 | ||
| Grand total | 132 | 1523 | 210 | 1865 | 79 | 11.3 | ||
| Overall prevalence | 7.1 (1865) | 11.3 (1865) |
DNCC = Dhaka North City Corporation, DSCC = Dhaka South City Corporation.
Result from univariable logistic regression analysis displaying the relationship between bTB and herd level exposure variables in 79 cattle farms.
| Exposure variables | Category | TST positive | Odds ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of farm | 1–5 years | 9 (42.9) | 2.8 (0.6–13.2) | 0.20 |
| 5–10 years | 7 (31.8) | 1.0 | ||
| >10 years | 20 (55.6) | 3.3 (0.9–12.5) | ||
| Herd size | 2–10 | 7 (17.9) | 1.0 | <0.001 |
| >10–20 | 4 (36.4) | 2.6 (0.6–11.4) | ||
| >20–50 | 15 (83.3) | 22.8 (5.2–100.9) | ||
| >50 | 10 (90.9) | 45.7 (5.0–417.7) | ||
| Type of farm | Dairy | 15 (44.1) | 1.0 | 0.52 |
| Both (dairy and beef) | 21 (46.7) | 1.4 (0.5–3.9) | ||
| Type of husbandry | Intensive | 31 (57.4) | 7.9 (1.9–32.5) | 0.004 |
| Semi-intensive | 5 (20.0) | 1.0 | ||
| Manure use | Use without biogas | 30 (41.7) | 1.0 | 0.06 |
| After biogas | 6 (85.7) | 10.2 (0.9–105.6) | ||
| Silage feeding | Yes | 4 (80.0) | 5.2 (0.5–51.7) | 0.16 |
| No | 32 (43.2) | 1.0 | ||
| New animal incursion | No | 17 (38.6) | 1.0 | 0.08 |
| Yes | 19 (55.9) | 2.4 (0.8–6.7) | ||
| Vet service provider | Vet | 14 (63.6) | 2.7 (0.9–7.8) | 0.07 |
| Para Vet/ Lay | 22 (38.6) | 1.0 | ||
| Other animals in herd | Yes | 11 (61.1) | 1.9 (0.6–6.0) | 0.27 |
| No | 23 (41.1) | 1.00 | ||
| Bio-security status | Good | 9 (60.0) | 3.0 (0.6–14.5) | 0.36 |
| Moderate | 22 (44.0) | 1.5 (0.4–5.4) | ||
| Poor | 5 (35.7) | 1.0 | - | |
| bTB history in the farm | No | 29 (41.4) | 1.0 | |
| Yes | 7 (77.8) | 5.9 (1.0–33.6) | 0.04 |
Univariable logistic regression analysis of animal level risk factors for bTB (N = 1865).
| Risk factor | Category | TST positive | Odds ratio | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 16 (5.2) | 1.0 | 0.006 |
| Female | 194(12.4) | 2.4 (1.3–4.5) | - | |
| Age | ≤1 year | 11 (4.6) | 1.0 | <0.001 |
| 1–3 years | 43 (6.0) | 1.3 (0.6–2.7) | - | |
| 3–6 years | 116 (18.2) | 2.81.4–5.8) | ||
| > 6 years | 40 (14.7) | 3.3 (1.5–7.0) | ||
| Animal source | Farm | 111 (10.4) | 1.0 | |
| Bought | 99 (12.5) | 1.23 (0.92, 1.64) | 0.156 | |
| Breed | Local | 4 (2.9) | 1.0 | 0.59 |
| Friesian cross | 191 (12.5) | 2.2 (0.696.83) | ||
| Shahiwal/ Sindhi cross | 10 (7.4) | 1.9 (0.41–8.21) | ||
| Other cross (Jersey/Brahma) | 5 (8.5) | 1.8 (0.55–6.9) | ||
| Pregnancy status | No | 89 (7.7) | 1.0 | >0.001 |
| Yes | 121 (17.1) | 2.0 (1.4, 2.8) | ||
| Parity | 0–2 | 93 (7.5) | 1.0 | <0.001 |
| 2–5 | 104 (19.5) | 1.9 (1.4–2.8) | ||
| >5 | 13 (14.0) | 2.2 (1.0–4.4) | ||
| BCS | Poor (BCS: 0–3) | 5 (10.6) | 0.8 (0.3–2.4) | 0.84 |
| Good (BCS:>6) | 149 (12.0) | 1.1 (0.7–1.6) | ||
| Medium (BCS: 4–6) | 56 (9.7) | 1.0 |
Factors retained in the final multivariable mixed effect logistic regression model of risk of bovine tuberculosis at animal level in Bangladesh (N = 1865 cattle).
| Risk factor | Category | Estimate | SE | Odds ratio | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy status | No | Reference | - | 1.0 | - |
| Yes | 0.62 | 0.19 | 1.7 (1.2–2.4) | 0.004 | |
| Age (Years) | Up to 1 | Reference | - | 1.0 | - |
| >1–3 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 1.1 (0.52–2.31) | 0.81 | |
| >3–6 | 0.77 | 0.37 | 2.2 (1.0–4.5) | 0.04 | |
| >6 | 0.90 | 0.40 | 2.5 (1.1–5.4) | 0.03 |