Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016
In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to <i>Brucella</i> on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-11-01
|
| Series: | Pathogens |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/12/1547 |
| _version_ | 1827670455270506496 |
|---|---|
| author | Krpasha Govindasamy Peter N. Thompson Bernice N. Harris Jennifer Rossouw Darrell A. Abernethy Eric M. C. Etter |
| author_facet | Krpasha Govindasamy Peter N. Thompson Bernice N. Harris Jennifer Rossouw Darrell A. Abernethy Eric M. C. Etter |
| author_sort | Krpasha Govindasamy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to <i>Brucella</i> on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to <i>Brucella</i>. Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup>) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup>), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup>) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup>). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5–49.9, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3–17.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4–11.3; <i>p</i> = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4–44.9; <i>p</i> = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1–10.4; <i>p</i> = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0–218.2; <i>p</i> = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0–13.3; <i>p</i> < 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6–24.4; <i>p</i> < 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1–43.6; <i>p</i> < 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8–18.3; <i>p</i> = 0.046), hygromas in cattle (<i>p</i> = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3–8.7; <i>p</i> = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with <i>Brucella</i> infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:22:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4ad7b18cbeee4d388434d5bed2de58f4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-0817 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:22:20Z |
| publishDate | 2021-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pathogens |
| spelling | doaj.art-4ad7b18cbeee4d388434d5bed2de58f42023-11-23T10:00:27ZengMDPI AGPathogens2076-08172021-11-011012154710.3390/pathogens10121547Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016Krpasha Govindasamy0Peter N. Thompson1Bernice N. Harris2Jennifer Rossouw3Darrell A. Abernethy4Eric M. C. Etter5Department of Production Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South AfricaDepartment of Production Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South AfricaSchool of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0031, South AfricaCentre for Emerging Zoonotic and Parasitic Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Johannesburg 2192, South AfricaCentre for Veterinary Wildlife Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South AfricaDepartment of Production Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South AfricaIn South Africa, the prevalence of cattle handler exposure to <i>Brucella</i> on cattle farms is unknown and risk factors and cattle symptoms associated with infected cattle herds are unavailable. To address this gap, a case-control study of cattle herds was conducted in Gauteng province and farm workers and veterinary officials were tested for exposure to <i>Brucella</i>. Seroprevalence amongst farm workers exposed to case herds ranged from 4.0% (BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup>) to 16.7% (IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup>), compared to those exposed to control herds, where seroprevalence ranged from 1.9% (BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup>) to 5.7% (IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup>). Seroprevalence amongst veterinary officials was significantly greater compared to farm workers exposed to case herds for the outcome RBT+ IgM- IgG+ (OR = 11.1, 95% CI: 2.5–49.9, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and RBT- IgM- IgG+ (OR = 6.3, 95% CI: 2.3–17.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Risk factors associated with being an infected herd were: being a government-sponsored farm vs. private farm (OR 4.0; 95% CI: 1.4–11.3; <i>p</i> = 0.009), beef vs. dairy herd (OR 7.9; 95% CI: 1.4–44.9; <i>p</i> = 0.020), open vs. closed herd (OR 3.3; 95% CI: 1.1–10.4; <i>p</i> = 0.038) and the presence of antelope on the farm (OR 29.4; 95% CI: 4.0–218.2; <i>p</i> = 0.001). Abortions (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 2.0–13.3; <i>p</i> < 0.001), weak calves in the herd (OR = 8.0; 95% CI: 2.6–24.4; <i>p</i> < 0.001), reduction in number of calves born (OR = 9.0; 95% CI: 2.1–43.6; <i>p</i> < 0.001), reduction in conception rate (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 0.8–18.3; <i>p</i> = 0.046), hygromas in cattle (<i>p</i> = 0.011) and farmers reporting brucellosis-like symptoms in their farm workers or in him/herself (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3–8.7; <i>p</i> = 0.006) were more likely to be associated with <i>Brucella</i> infected herds than control herds. This evidence can be used in strategic planning to protect both human and herd health.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/12/1547brucellosiscattle handlerveterinary officialseroprevalenceBrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup>IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup> |
| spellingShingle | Krpasha Govindasamy Peter N. Thompson Bernice N. Harris Jennifer Rossouw Darrell A. Abernethy Eric M. C. Etter Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 Pathogens brucellosis cattle handler veterinary official seroprevalence BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup> IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup> |
| title | Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 |
| title_full | Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 |
| title_fullStr | Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 |
| title_short | Bovine Brucellosis in Gauteng, South Africa: Seroprevalence amongst Cattle Handlers and Variables Associated with Seropositive Cattle Herds, 2014–2016 |
| title_sort | bovine brucellosis in gauteng south africa seroprevalence amongst cattle handlers and variables associated with seropositive cattle herds 2014 2016 |
| topic | brucellosis cattle handler veterinary official seroprevalence BrucellaCapt<sup>®</sup> IgG ELISA<sup>®</sup> |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/12/1547 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT krpashagovindasamy bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 AT peternthompson bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 AT bernicenharris bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 AT jenniferrossouw bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 AT darrellaabernethy bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 AT ericmcetter bovinebrucellosisingautengsouthafricaseroprevalenceamongstcattlehandlersandvariablesassociatedwithseropositivecattleherds20142016 |