-
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases May 2020Brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease of remarkable importance worldwide. The focus of this systematic review was to investigate occupational brucellosis and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease of remarkable importance worldwide. The focus of this systematic review was to investigate occupational brucellosis and to identify the main infection risks for each group exposed to the pathogen. Seven databases were used to identify papers related to occupational brucellosis: CABI, Cochrane, Pubmed, Scielo, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science. The search resulted in 6123 studies, of which 63 were selected using the quality assessment tools guided from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Case Report Guidelines (CARE). Five different job-related groups were considered greatly exposed to the disease: rural workers, abattoir workers, veterinarians and veterinary assistants, laboratory workers and hunters. The main risk factors and exposure sources involved in the occupational infection observed from the analysis of the articles were direct contact with animal fluids, failure to comply with the use of personal protective equipment, accidental exposure to live attenuated anti-brucellosis vaccines and non-compliance with biosafety standards. Brucella species frequently isolated from job-related infection were Brucella melitensis, Brucella abortus, Brucella suis and Brucella canis. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed using the case-control studies and demonstrated that animal breeders, laboratory workers and abattoir workers have 3.47 [95% confidence interval (CI); 1.47-8.19] times more chance to become infected with Brucella spp. than others individuals that have no contact with the possible sources of infection. This systematic review improved the understanding of the epidemiology of brucellosis as an occupational disease. Rural workers, abattoir workers, veterinarians, laboratory workers and hunters were the groups more exposed to occupational Brucella spp. infection. Moreover, it was observed that the lack of knowledge about brucellosis among frequently exposed professionals, in addition to some behaviors, such as negligence in the use of individual and collective protective measures, increases the probability of infection.
Topics: Abattoirs; Animals; Brucella; Brucellosis; Humans; Laboratory Personnel; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Veterinarians
PubMed: 32392223
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008164 -
BMC Public Health Aug 2016Brucellosis is a debilitating zoonotic disease affecting humans and animals. A comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of literature and officially available data on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Brucellosis is a debilitating zoonotic disease affecting humans and animals. A comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of literature and officially available data on animal and human brucellosis for Kenya are missing. The aim of the current review is to provide frequency estimates of brucellosis in humans, animals and risk factors for human infection, and help to understand the current situation in Kenya.
METHODS
A total of accessible 36 national and international publications on brucellosis from 1916 to 2016 were reviewed to estimate the frequency of brucellosis in humans and animals, and strength of associations between potential risk factors and seropositivity in humans in Kenya.
RESULTS
The conducted studies revealed only few and fragmented evidence of the disease spatial and temporal distribution in an epidemiological context. Bacteriological evidence revealed the presence of Brucella (B.) abortus and B. melitensis in cattle and human patients, whilst B. suis was isolated from wild rodents only. Similar evidence for Brucella spp infection in small ruminants and other animal species is unavailable. The early and most recent serological studies revealed that animal brucellosis is widespread in all animal production systems. The animal infection pressure in these systems has remained strong due to mixing of large numbers of animals from different geographical regions, movement of livestock in search of pasture, communal sharing of grazing land, and the concentration of animals around water points. Human cases are more likely seen in groups occupationally or domestically exposed to livestock or practicing risky social-cultural activities such as consumption of raw blood and dairy products, and slaughtering of animals within the homesteads. Many brucellosis patients are misdiagnosed and probably mistreated due to lack of reliable laboratory diagnostic support resulting to adverse health outcomes of the patients and routine disease underreporting. We found no studies of disease incidence estimates or disease control efforts.
CONCLUSION
The risk for re-emergence and transmission of brucellosis is evident as a result of the co-existence of animal husbandry activities and social-cultural activities that promote brucellosis transmission. Well-designed countrywide, evidence-based, and multidisciplinary studies of brucellosis at the human/livestock/wildlife interface are needed. These could help to generate reliable frequency and potential impact estimates, to identify Brucella reservoirs, and to propose control strategies of proven efficacy.
Topics: Animal Husbandry; Animals; Animals, Domestic; Animals, Wild; Brucella; Brucella abortus; Brucella melitensis; Brucellosis; Cattle; Communicable Diseases, Emerging; Humans; Incidence; Kenya; Risk Factors; Zoonoses
PubMed: 27549329
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3532-9 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2021This study aimed to consolidate current knowledge of wildlife brucellosis in Africa and to analyse available predictors of infection. The Preferred Reporting Items for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aimed to consolidate current knowledge of wildlife brucellosis in Africa and to analyse available predictors of infection. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Information on species, test used, test results, area, rainfall, livestock and wildlife contact and year of study were extracted. This systematic review revealed 42 prevalence studies, nine disease control articles and six articles on epidemiology. Brucella abortus, Brucella melitensis, Brucella inopinata and Brucella suis were reported in wildlife. The prevalence studies revealed serological evidence of brucellosis in buffalo, antelope (positive in 14/28 species), carnivores (4/12) and other species (7/20) over the last five decades. Buffalo populations were more likely to be infected and had a higher seroprevalence than other species; the pooled seroprevalence was 13.7% (95% CI 10.3-17.3%) in buffalo, 7.1% (95% CI 1.1-15.5%) in carnivores and 2.1% (95% CI 0.1-4.9%) in antelope. Wildlife in high rainfall areas (≥ 800 mm) were more likely to be infected, and infected populations showed higher seroprevalence in high rainfall areas and in studies published after 2000. Domestic animal contact was associated with increased seroprevalence in antelope and carnivore species, but not in buffalo, supporting the hypothesis that buffalo may be a reservoir species.
Topics: Africa; Animal Diseases; Animals; Animals, Wild; Arachnid Vectors; Brucella; Brucellosis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Multivariate Analysis; Public Health Surveillance; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Ticks; Zoonoses
PubMed: 33727580
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85441-w -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2021Brucellosis, a zoonotic disease, infects various hosts, including swine and humans. It has reemerged in recent years as a public health concern, and current studies on...
Brucellosis, a zoonotic disease, infects various hosts, including swine and humans. It has reemerged in recent years as a public health concern, and current studies on brucellosis infection in swine have been conducted worldwide. However, no meta-analyses of global brucellosis infection in swine have been published. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of species (spp.) in swine worldwide and the factors associated with its persistence. We searched seven databases for published epidemiological studies on brucellosis in pigs, including the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, the VIP Chinese Journal Database and PubMed. We selected 119 articles published from January 1, 2000 to January 3, 2020 for inclusion in the meta-analysis and analyzed the data using a random-effects model. Funnel plots and Egger's test showed significant publication bias in the included studies. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that our study was relatively stable and reliable. The prevalence of brucellosis in swine was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6), of which the highest infection rate, which was found in Europe, was 17.4% (95% CI: 11.1-24.9). The prevalence in feral pigs (15.0%, 95% CI: 8.4-23.2) was higher than that in domestic pigs (1.1%, 95% CI 0.2-2.5). The prevalence in high-income countries (15.7%, 95% CI 8.0-25.3) was significantly higher than that in middle- (0.8%, 95% CI 0.5-1.1), and low-income countries (0.1%, 95% CI 0.0-0.2). The prevalence was highest in finishing pigs at 4.9% (95% CI 0.9-11.0), and lowest among suckling pigs at 0% (95% CI 0.0-0.5). The prevalence in pig herds currently is distributed widely throughout the world. In some countries, swine brucellosis may be a neglected zoonotic disease. We recommend long-term monitoring of the prevalence of brucellosis in domestic and wild pig herds. Attention should also be paid to animal welfare on intensive pig farms; controlling the breeding density may play an important role in reducing the spread of brucellosis among pigs.
PubMed: 34026886
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.630960