This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log in
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct 17;13(10):e0007506.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007506. eCollection 2019 Oct.

Positive association between Brucella spp. seroprevalences in livestock and humans from a cross-sectional study in Garissa and Tana River Counties, Kenya

Affiliations

Positive association between Brucella spp. seroprevalences in livestock and humans from a cross-sectional study in Garissa and Tana River Counties, Kenya

Salome Kairu-Wanyoike et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Brucella spp. is a zoonotic bacterial agent of high public health and socio-economic importance. It infects many species of animals including wildlife, and people may get exposed through direct contact with an infected animal or consumption of raw or undercooked animal products. A linked livestock-human cross-sectional study to determine seroprevalences and risk factors of brucellosis in livestock and humans was designed. Estimates were made for intra-cluster correlation coefficients (ICCs) for these observations at the household and village levels.

Methodology: The study was implemented in Garissa (specifically Ijara and Sangailu areas) and Tana River (Bura and Hola) counties. A household was the unit of analysis and the sample size was derived using the standard procedures. Serum samples were obtained from selected livestock and people from randomly selected households. Humans were sampled in both counties, while livestock could be sampled only in Tana River County. Samples obtained were screened for anti-Brucella IgG antibodies using ELISA kits. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression models with the household (herd) and village being used as random effects.

Results: The overall Brucella spp. seroprevalences were 3.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.72-4.36%) and 35.81% (95% CI: 32.87-38.84) in livestock and humans, respectively. In livestock, older animals and those sampled in Hola had significantly higher seroprevalences than younger ones or those sampled in Bura. Herd and village random effects were significant and ICC estimates associated with these variables were 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.60) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.08-0.52), respectively. In humans, Brucella spp. seroprevalence was significantly higher in older people, males, and people who lived in pastoral areas than younger ones, females or those who lived in irrigated or riverine areas. People from households that had at least one seropositive animal were 3.35 (95% CI: 1.51-7.41) times more likely to be seropositive compared to those that did not. Human exposures significantly clustered at the household level; the ICC estimate obtained was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.06-0.52).

Conclusion: The presence of a Brucella spp.-seropositive animal in a household significantly increased the odds of Brucella spp. seropositivity in humans in that household. Exposure to Brucella spp. of both livestock and humans clustered significantly at the household level. This suggests that risk-based surveillance measures, guided by locations of primary cases reported, either in humans or livestock, can be used to detect Brucella spp. infections in livestock or humans, respectively.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Map showing the study site (ILRI GIS Map, 2013).

References

    1. Corbel MJ. Brucellosis: an overview. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3: 213–221. 10.3201/eid0302.970219 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Callaghan DO, Whatmore AM. Brucella genomics as we enter the multi-genome era. 2011;10: 334–341. 10.1093/bfgp/elr026 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roth F, Zinsstag J, Orkhon D, Chimed-Ochir G, Hutton G, Cosivi O, et al. Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis:case study. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81: 867–876. 10.1590/S0042-96862003001200005 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McDermott J, Grace D, Zinsstag J. Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Rev Sci Tech. 2013;32: 249–261. 10.20506/rst.32.1.2197 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Corbel MJ. Brucellosis in humans and animals. WHO; 2006; 1–102. 10.2105/AJPH.30.3.299 - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

Cite

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /