Seroprevalence and related risk factors of Brucella spp. in livestock and humans in Garbatula subcounty, Isiolo county, Kenya.

Athman Mwatondo, Mathew Muturi, James Akoko, Richard Nyamota, Daniel Nthiwa, Josphat Maina, Jack Omolo, Stephen Gichuhi, Marianne W Mureithi, Bernard Bett
Author Information
  1. Athman Mwatondo: Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. ORCID
  2. Mathew Muturi: International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
  3. James Akoko: International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
  4. Richard Nyamota: International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
  5. Daniel Nthiwa: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Embu, Embu, Kenya.
  6. Josphat Maina: Zoonotic Disease Unit, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
  7. Jack Omolo: County Government of Kilifi, Department of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Fisheries, Kilifi, Kenya.
  8. Stephen Gichuhi: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
  9. Marianne W Mureithi: Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
  10. Bernard Bett: International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease that affects both animals and humans, causing debilitating illness in humans and socio-economic losses in livestock-keeping households globally. The disease is endemic in many developing countries, including Kenya, but measures to prevent and control the disease are often inadequate among high-risk populations. This study aimed to investigate the human and livestock seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated risk factors of Brucella spp. in a pastoralist region of northern Kenya.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a two-stage cluster sampling method to select households, livestock, and humans for sampling. Blood samples were collected from 683 humans and 2157 animals, and Brucella immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were detected using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data on potential risk factors associated with human and animal exposures. Risk factors associated with Brucella spp. exposures in humans and livestock were identified using Multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: The results indicated an overall livestock Brucella spp. seroprevalence of 10.4% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 9.2-11.7). Camels had the highest exposure rates at 19.6% (95% CI: 12.4-27.3), followed by goats at 13.2% (95% CI: 9.3-17.1), cattle at 13.1% (95% CI: 11.1-15.3) and sheep at 5.4% (95% CI: 4.0-6.9). The herd-level seroprevalence was 51.7% (95% CI: 47.9-55.7). Adult animals (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 2.3, CI: 1.3-4.0), female animals (aOR = 1.7, CI: 1.1-2.6), and large herd sizes (aOR = 2.3, CI: 1.3-4.0) were significantly associated with anti-brucella antibody detection while sheep had significantly lower odds of Brucella spp. exposure compared to cattle (aOR = 1.3, CI: 0.8-2.1) and camels (aOR = 2.4, CI: 1.2-4.8). Human individual and household seroprevalences were 54.0% (95% CI: 50.2-58.0) and 86.4% (95% CI: 84.0-89.0), respectively. Significant risk factors associated with human seropositivity included being male (aOR = 2.1, CI:1.3-3.2), residing in Sericho ward (aOR = 1.6, CI:1.1-2.5) and having no formal education (aOR = 3.0, CI:1.5-5.9). There was a strong correlation between human seropositivity and herd exposure (aOR = 1.6, CI:1.2-2.3).
CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence of high human and livestock exposures to Brucella spp. and identifies important risk factors associated with disease spread. These findings emphasize the need for targeted prevention and control measures to curb the spread of brucellosis and implement a One Health surveillance to ensure early detection of the disease in Isiolo County, Northern Kenya.

References

  1. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Aug;21(2):283-9; quiz 290 [PMID: 8562733]
  2. BMC Vet Res. 2021 Oct 30;17(1):342 [PMID: 34717610]
  3. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2018 Dec 05;89(0):e1-e8 [PMID: 30551701]
  4. Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Nov 11;9(11): [PMID: 34828587]
  5. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017 Mar;49(3):599-606 [PMID: 28176187]
  6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Apr;13(4):527-31 [PMID: 17553265]
  7. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Jun 10;15(6):e0009500 [PMID: 34111114]
  8. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Aug;93(2):224-231 [PMID: 26101275]
  9. Rev Saude Publica. 2017 Jun 22;51:57 [PMID: 28658364]
  10. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Aug;83(2):314-8 [PMID: 20682874]
  11. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 24;11(8):e0161576 [PMID: 27557120]
  12. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Nov;36 Suppl 1:S12-7 [PMID: 20692128]
  13. Int J Infect Dis. 2010 Jun;14(6):e469-78 [PMID: 19910232]
  14. Prev Vet Med. 2011 Nov 1;102(2):118-31 [PMID: 21571380]
  15. J Health Popul Nutr. 2019 Feb 7;38(1):6 [PMID: 30732649]
  16. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Jul 24;8(7):e3008 [PMID: 25058178]
  17. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Oct 17;13(10):e0007506 [PMID: 31622339]
  18. Trop Med Int Health. 2017 May;22(5):539-546 [PMID: 28196298]
  19. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(10):e1865 [PMID: 23145195]
  20. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Mar 26;15(3):e0009275 [PMID: 33770095]
  21. Am J Pathol. 2015 Jun;185(6):1505-17 [PMID: 25892682]
  22. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013 May;36(3):241-8 [PMID: 23044181]
  23. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2016 Nov 15;181:51-58 [PMID: 27032465]
  24. BMC Vet Res. 2019 Mar 7;15(1):81 [PMID: 30845954]
  25. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022 Aug 15;2(8):e0000682 [PMID: 36962768]
  26. Epidemiol Infect. 2023 Feb 08;151:e40 [PMID: 36750223]
  27. J Med Microbiol. 2011 Dec;60(Pt 12):1767-1773 [PMID: 21835974]
  28. Turk J Med Sci. 2014;44(2):220-3 [PMID: 25536728]
  29. Arch Public Health. 2017 Sep 11;75:34 [PMID: 28904791]
  30. BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 22;16(1):853 [PMID: 27549329]
  31. Prev Vet Med. 1997 Jan;29(3):221-39 [PMID: 9234406]
  32. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2009 Jan;21(1):3-14 [PMID: 19139495]
  33. Int J Infect Dis. 2007 Jan;11(1):52-7 [PMID: 16651018]
  34. J Comp Pathol. 2009 Feb-Apr;140(2-3):149-57 [PMID: 19111839]
  35. Vet Med Sci. 2021 Jul;7(4):1254-1262 [PMID: 33645902]
  36. PeerJ. 2018 May 23;6:e4794 [PMID: 29844961]
  37. Vet J. 2010 May;184(2):146-55 [PMID: 19733101]
  38. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Jan 25;15(1):e0008100 [PMID: 33493173]
  39. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jan 11;18(1):125 [PMID: 29325516]
  40. Front Vet Sci. 2022 Nov 18;9:1031639 [PMID: 36467641]

MeSH Term

Adult
Cattle
Humans
Animals
Male
Female
Sheep
Brucella
Livestock
Seroepidemiologic Studies
Kenya
Cross-Sectional Studies
Camelus
Brucellosis
Risk Factors
Antibodies, Bacterial
Goats

Chemicals

Antibodies, Bacterial

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CI:1aOR=95%Brucella3humanslivestockassociatedfactorsspp0diseasehumanrisk2animalsKenya9CI:1seroprevalenceusingexposures4%7exposure6householdsmeasurescontrolstudybrucellosissampling13cattlesheep543-41-2herdsignificantlydetectionseropositivityspreadIsioloBACKGROUND:Brucellosisneglectedzoonoticaffectscausingdebilitatingillnesssocio-economiclosseslivestock-keepinggloballyendemicmanydevelopingcountriesincludingpreventofteninadequateamonghigh-riskpopulationsaimedinvestigatepastoralistregionnorthernMETHODS:cross-sectionalsurveyconductedtwo-stageclustermethodselectBloodsamplescollected6832157immunoglobulinGIgGantibodiesdetectedenzyme-linkedimmunosorbentassaysstructuredquestionnaireusedcollectdatapotentialanimalRiskidentifiedMultivariatelogisticregressionRESULTS:resultsindicatedoverall10ConfidenceIntervalCI:2-11Camelshighestrates196%124-27followedgoats2%3-171%111-150-6herd-level517%479-55AdultAdjustedOddsRatiofemalelargesizesanti-brucellaantibodyloweroddscompared8-2camels2-48Humanindividualhouseholdseroprevalences540%502-5886840-89respectivelySignificantincludedmale3-3residingSerichowardformaleducation5-5strongcorrelation2-2CONCLUSIONS:providesevidencehighidentifiesimportantfindingsemphasizeneedtargetedpreventioncurbimplementOneHealthsurveillanceensureearlyCountyNorthernSeroprevalencerelatedGarbatulasubcountycounty

Similar Articles

Cited By