Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 2073–2076 | Cite as

Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis and associated risk factors in Nakasongola district, Uganda

  • James BugezaEmail author
  • Adrian Muwonge
  • Musso Munyeme
  • Phillip Lasuba
  • Jacques Godfroid
  • Clovice Kankya
Short Communications

Abstract

A cross-sectional study was carried out between November 2015 and January 2016 to determine the seroprevalence of Brucella antibodies in cattle raised under communal, fenced farms and tethering systems and the associated factors. Seven hundred twenty-eight bovine sera were collected and tested with rose Bengal test as a screening test and the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay as a confirmatory test. Animal- and herd-level data were collected and binary logistic regression was used to assess the potential risk factors. True animal- and herd-level prevalence was highest in the fenced farms (4.5% (95%CI, 2.3–6.9) and 19.5% (95%CI, 8.2–32.7) respectively). The risks for natural brucellosis infection were sharing water with wild animals (OR = 0.21, 95%CI, 0.104–0.83), herd size (medium: OR = 0.089, 95%CI 0.017–0.449; large: OR = 0.024, 95%CI 0.003–0.203), fenced farms (OR = 3.7, 95% CI, 1.7–7.9), sex (OR = 0.03, 95%CI, 0.01–0.079), and lactation (OR = 0.013, 95%CI, 0.004–0.049). Changes in rangeland tenure and the shift towards intensive cattle production have influenced brucellosis epidemiology. Future studies should aim at identifying the infecting Brucellae and examining the role of wildlife in brucellosis epidemiology.

Keywords

Brucellosis Production systems Rangeland tenure Uganda 

Abbreviations

iELISA

Indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

RBT

Rose Bengal test

Notes

Acknowledgements

Mr. Bahati Milton of the National Animal Diseases Diagnostics and Epidemiology Centre is acknowledged for his support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Statement of animal rights

All applicable guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11250_2018_1631_MOESM1_ESM.docx (113 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 113 kb)

References

  1. Assenga, J. A., Matemba, L. E., Muller, S. K., Malakalinga, J. J., & Kazwala, R. R. (2015). Epidemiology of Brucella infection in the human, livestock and wildlife interface in the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem, Tanzania. BMC veterinary research, 11(1), 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charan, J., & Biswas, T. (2013). How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian journal of psychological medicine, 35(2), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ducrotoy, M. J., & Bardosh, K. L. (2017). How do you get the Rose Bengal Test at the point-of-care to diagnose brucellosis in Africa? The importance of a systems approach. Acta tropica, 165, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ducrotoy, M. J., Bertu, W. J., Ocholi, R. A., Gusi, A. M., Bryssinckx, W., Welburn, S., & Moriyon, I. (2014). Brucellosis as an emerging threat in developing economies: lessons from Nigeria. PLoS neglected Tropical Diseases, 8(7), e3008.Google Scholar
  5. Ducrotoy, M., Bertu, W. J., Matope, G., Cadmus, S., Conde-Álvarez, R., Gusi, A. M., ... & Moriyón, I. (2017). Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges for management, diagnosis and control. Acta Tropica, 165, 179–193.Google Scholar
  6. Godfroid, J. (2017). Brucellosis in livestock and wildlife: zoonotic diseases without pandemic potential in need of innovative one health approaches. Archives of Public Health, 75(1), 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kanouté, Y. B., Gragnon, B. G., Schindler, C., Bonfoh, B., & Schelling, E. (2017). Epidemiology of brucellosis, Q fever and Rift Valley fever at the human and livestock interface in northern Côte d’Ivoire. Acta tropica, 165, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mai, H. M., Irons, P. C., Kabir, J., & Thompson, P. N. (2012). A large seroprevalence survey of brucellosis in cattle herds under diverse production systems in northern Nigeria. BMC veterinary research, 8(1), 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Makita, K., Fèvre, E. M., Waiswa, C., Eisler, M. C., Thrusfield, M., & Welburn, S. C. (2011). Herd prevalence of bovine brucellosis and analysis of risk factors in cattle in urban and peri-urban areas of the Kampala economic zone, Uganda. BMC veterinary research, 7(1), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marín, C., Moreno, E., Moriyon, I., Diaz, R., & Blasco, J. (1999). Performance of competitive and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, gel immunoprecipitation with native hapten polysaccharide, and standard serological tests in diagnosis of sheep brucellosis. Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 6(2), 269–272.Google Scholar
  11. Matope, G., Bhebhe, E., Muma, J. B., Oloya, J., Madekurozwa, R. L., Lund, A., & Skjerve, E. (2011). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and its associated risk factors in cattle from smallholder dairy farms in Zimbabwe. Tropical animal health and production, 43(5), 975–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maurice, N. A., Wungak, S. Y., Gana, B. A., Nanven, M. B., Ngbede, E. O., Ibrahim, A., Aworh, M. K., Konzing, L., Hambolu, S. E., & Gugong, V. T. (2013). Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in northern Plateau State, North Central Nigeria. Asian Pacific journal of tropical disease, 3(5), 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDermott, J., Grace, D., & Zinsstag. (2013). Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Rev Sci Tech, 32(1), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muhereza, F. E. (2001). Ranchers and pastoralists: restructuring of government ranching, Uganda. African Pastoralism: Conflict, Institutions and Government, Pluto Press, London, 100–133.Google Scholar
  15. Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1(1), 9–14.Google Scholar
  16. Nizeyimana, G., Mwiine, F. N., & Ayebazibwe, C. (2013). Comparative Brucella abortus antibody prevalence in cattle under contrasting husbandry practices in Uganda. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 84(1), 01–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogan, W. J., & Gladen, B. (1978). Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. American journal of epidemiology, 107(1), 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Livestock Resources Research InstituteTororoUganda
  2. 2.Department of Genetics and Genomics-The Roslin InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Department of Disease ControlUniversity of ZambiaLusakaZambia
  4. 4.Department of Animal ProductionUniversity of JubaJubaSouth Sudan
  5. 5.Department of Arctic and Marine BiologyUniversity of Tromsø - the Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  6. 6.Department of Biosecurity Ecosystems and Veterinary Public HealthMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda

Personalised recommendations