Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

, 11:865 | Cite as

Risk factors for human brucellosis among a pastoralist community in South-West Kenya, 2015

  • Mathew Muturi
  • Austine Bitek
  • Athman Mwatondo
  • Eric Osoro
  • Doris Marwanga
  • Zeinab Gura
  • Phillip Ngere
  • Zipporah Nganga
  • S. M. Thumbi
  • Kariuki Njenga
Open Access
Research note

Abstract

Objective

Brucellosis is one of the top five priority zoonosis in Kenya because of the socio-economic burden of the disease, especially among traditional, livestock keeping communities. We conducted a 1 year, hospital based, unmatched case–control study to determine risk factors for brucellosis among Maasai pastoralists of Kajiado County in 2016. A case was defined by a clinical criteria; fever or history of fever and two clinical signs suggestive of brucellosis and a positive competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test (c-ELISA). A control was defined as patients visiting the study facility with negative c-ELISA. Unconditional logistic regression was used to study association between exposure variables and brucellosis using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Forty-three cases and 86 controls were recruited from a population of 4792 individuals in 801 households. The mean age for the cases was 48.7 years while that of the controls was 37.6 years. The dominant gender for both cases (62.7%) and controls (58.1%) groups was female. Regular consumption of un-boiled raw milk and assisting animals in delivery were significantly associated with brucellosis by OR 7.7 (95% CI 1.5–40.1) and OR 3.7 (95% CI 1.1–13.5), respectively.

Keywords

Brucellosis Risk factors Kenya 

Abbreviations

AOR

adjusted odds ratio

C-ELISA

competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

CI

confidence interval

IgM

immunoglobulin M

IgG

immunoglobulin G

OD

optical density

OR

odds ration

Introduction

Brucellosis is a debilitating febrile illness in humans and reproductive disease of livestock, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella [1]. There are six Brucella species based on primary host preference, but only four have zoonotic potential; B. melitensis (goats and sheep), Brucella abortus (cattle), B. suis (swine) and B. canis (dogs) [2, 3, 4, 5]. Human infection occurs through direct contact with infected animal tissues like products of abortion and blood or ingestion of unpasteurized milk and dairy products [2, 6]. Although livestock are the primary source of human infection, wild animals may act as reservoirs in regions with human-wildlife interaction [7, 8]. Human brucellosis presents as an acute to chronic illness characterized by fever and other constitutional symptoms such as joint pains, fatigue and muscle ache that vary with the stage of infection and body system affected [9, 10]. The disease has a low mortality rate, but the relapsing and chronic nature of human infection, the long cause of treatment and negative implication on livestock trade qualifies brucellosis as a serious public health and socio-economic problem [2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

Brucellosis is the most common zoonotic infection globally with more than half a million human cases annually, however, infection rates vary significantly between developed and developing countries [1, 16, 17]. The human disease has been eliminated in most developed countries like Canada, Japan and Australia but remains endemic in most developing countries in Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa [1, 16, 18, 19, 20].

In Kenya, brucellosis is ranked as a top priority zoonosis due to the socio-economic burden and amenability to control, however, as is common with other neglected zoonotic diseases, establishing the true morbidity and socio-economic impact of the disease is a challenge because of misdiagnosis and underreporting [21]. Studies in Kenya indicate high prevalence in humans and livestock although this varies with geographical region and livestock production system [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Brucellosis is endemic in Kenya and identifying potential risk factors of brucellosis among the most vulnerable populations; primarily rural livestock keeping communities is important in defining control and prevention strategies. We conducted a case–control study in a pastoral community in rural Kenya to identify potential risk factors for brucellosis as a step towards comprehensive understanding of the disease among pastoralists to inform public health interventions.

Main text

Materials and methods

Study area and population

The study was conducted in Arroi, Sultan-Hamud and Mashuru sub-counties in Kajiado East sub-county, Kenya (Fig. 1). The study area is an arid rangeland inhabited primarily by the Maasai nomadic pastoralist community [23, 28]. The site was selected because a previous study had reported high brucellosis prevalence and because it represent an ecosystem with high frequency of human-livestock-wildlife interaction [23, 29, 30].
Fig. 1

Map of Kenya showing Kajiado County in red and the study site in grey

Study design

We conducted a hospital based unmatched case–control study in three health facilities that historically had the highest patient load in the year preceding the study. Participants were recruited from 80 randomly selected households in the study area that were part of an ongoing longitudinal brucellosis study in humans and livestock (population = 4792 people). To enhance case finding at health facilities, recruited household members were sensitized on brucellosis using a community level case definition adapted from the World Health Organisation, and provided with free treatment at the participating health facility [2]. The community case definition for brucellosis used was fever of undetermined origin with at least one of the following symptoms; chills, lethargy, joint pains, body ache, abdominal pain and headaches.

Sample size calculation

Sample size was calculated using the Kelsey Kelsey formula for unmatched case control studies using an open-Epi version 2 open source online calculator (http://www.openepi.com) [31]. The appropriate sample size was determined using a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05 to detect an odds ratio greater than 3 for exposure factors present in 20% of controls as estimated in other similar studies [3, 32]. A control to case ratio of 2:1 was used to improve study power. This yielded a sample size of 43 cases and 86 controls.

Selection of cases and controls

A case was defined as any person from the study population presenting to any of the three health facilities with fever or history of fever (> 37.5 °C) and at-least two of the following signs; joint pains, joint swelling, headache, backache and was negative for malaria and salmonellosis on rapid diagnostic tests and with a positive c-ELISA Immunoglobulin M (IgM) or Immunoglobulin G (IgG) result. A control was defined as a person from the same study population presenting to the study facilities with history of fever within the same study period and was negative for brucellosis by c-ELISA IgM and IgG. Cases were tested for malaria and Salmonellosis because the diseases are common aetiologies of similar clinical disease.

Laboratory testing

Laboratory testing was carried out at the Kenya Medical Research Institute using IgM and IgG ELISA kit sourced from Immuno-Biological Laboratories, America (Minneapolis, Minnesota). All assays were conducted as per manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, human sera were diluted at 1:10 with sample diluent, added to microtitre plates pre-coated with Brucella antigen (Brucella abortus, strain W99; lysate of a NaCl extract) and incubated at room temperature for 1 h. Conjugate was added and incubated for 30 min before adding substrate. The conjugate–substrate reaction was terminated after 20 min by adding a stop solution. Sample optical densities (ODs) were read at 450 nm. Equivocal samples were not included in analysis.

Questionnaire and interviewing

A study nurse was stationed in each of the three facilities. Once a patient was identified as a member of the study population during triage (coming from a study household), they were directed to the study nurse who examined them and administered a standard questionnaire pre-loaded on a personal data assistant. The questionnaire collected information on patients’ demographic, risk factors, history of illness and point of care test results. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Data analysis

A number of risk factors were investigated including consumption of goats, sheep, or cow milk, drinking fresh livestock blood, livestock ownership, herding and slaughtering animals, handling skins and hides, and helping in animal delivery. Bivariate analysis was performed using the Chi squared test. Variables with a p-value ≤ 0.10 in the bivariate analysis were included in a multivariate logistic regression model. Adjusted odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals along with the p-values were reported with significance level being set at 5%. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with brucellosis and to estimate the magnitude of the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for each factor while controlling for other confounding factors. Only the significant variables were included in the model to control for confounding and get a final logistic regression model. Only those variables that had a p-value < 0.05 in the final model were considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.2.

Results

Patient socio-demographic characteristics

Of the 236 participants from the study population who met the inclusion criteria, majority, 64% were majority female. Participants had a mean age of 40 years (standard deviation = 16.9, range 7–75) and 129 (54.6%) of them were enrolled in the case control study, including 43 cases and 86 controls. The mean age for the cases was 48.7 (standard deviation = 20, range = 10–85) years while that of the controls was 37.6 (standard deviation = 18.8, range = 8–72). Among cases, 70% (n = 30) were between 20 and 59 years. The dominant gender for both cases (62.7%) and controls (58.1%) was female. Majority of both cases and controls were non-skilled laborers and there was no significant difference in socio-demographic characteristics (sex, religion, occupation, marital status and education) between cases and controls besides age.

Clinical information

Sixty percent of the cases presented at-least 7 days after the onset of the first symptom while 37% presented between 11 and 60 days after onset of symptoms. The mean number of days between onset of symptoms and visit to hospital was 12 days (standard deviation = 13.3). The most commonly reported symptoms by both cases were headache (83.7%) back pains (62.8%) and joint pains (60.6%). This was similar to the symptoms reported by the controls; headache (82.6%), back pains (47.7%) and joint pains (69.8%).

Bivariate analysis

On bivariate analysis, consuming un-boiled cow milk, drinking fresh blood, slaughtering animals (cattle, wild animals), assisting goats in giving birth, handling animal hides were associated with increased risk of brucellosis (p-value ≤ 0.1). Of these factors, handling skins and hides, assisting goats with delivery, and consuming un-boiled goat milk were significantly associated with disease (p-value ≤ 0.05). Having cattle in the household was found to be protective as shown in the Table 1.
Table 1

Bivariate analysis of risk factors for human brucellosis

Variable

Controls (n = 86)

Cases (n = 43)

Crude OR (95% CI)

p-value

Yes

Yes

Consume fresh goat milk

 More than 3 times a week

14

14

2.4 (1.0–6.0)

0.114

 Less than 3 times a week

21

8

0.9 (0.4–2.4)

 No

51

21

1.0

Consume cow milk

 Boiled

82

32

7.7 (1.5–40.1)

0.016

 Unboiled

2

6

 

Consume fresh sheep milk

 More than 3 times a week

1

1

2.1 (0.1–34.1)

0.756

 Less than 3 times a week

4

3

1.6 (0.3–7.3)

 No

81

39

1.0

Drink fresh blood

 Yes

6

7

2.6 (0.8–8.3)

0.098

 No

80

36

 

Had cattle in the household

 Yes

55

26

0.1 (0.0–0.9)

0.035

 No

31

17

 

Slaughter cattle at home

 Occasionally

54

32

2.3 (0.8–6.2)

0.102

 Never

23

6

 

Herding sheep

 Several times a week

16

14

2.0 (0.5–7.8)

0.196

 Occasionally

49

19

0.9 (0.2–3.2)

 Never

9

4

1.0

Assisting sheep in delivery

 Several times a week

1

1

4.0 (0.2–72.2)

0.116

 Occasionally

45

30

2.7 (1.0–6.9)

 Never

28

7

1.0

Slaughtering goats at home

 Several times a week

1

1

4.8 (0.3–90.3)

0.115

 Occasionally

53

33

3.0 (1.0–8.6)

 Never

24

5

1.0

Assisting goats in delivery

 Occasionally

48

31

3.7 (1.3–10.7)

0.043

 Never

29

5

1.0

Slaughtering wild animals

 Yes

1

3

 

0.073

 No

82

40

6.4 (0.6–63.2)

Cleaning animal barns

 Several times a week

57

5

0.4 (0.1–1.3)

0.132

 Occasionally

19

14

 

Handle animal hides

 Yes

30

23

2.1 (1.2–4.5)

0.043

 No

56

20

 

Multivariable analysis results

On multivariate logistic regression analysis consuming un-boiled cow milk (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.5–40.1) and assisting animals in delivery (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.1–13.5) remained significantly associated with brucellosis as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Multivariate logistic regression of factors associated with brucellosis

Variable

Adjusted OR (95% CI)

p-value

Slaughter animals

6.2 (1.1–34.7)

0.350

Handling animal hides

1.3 (0.5–3.6)

0.563

Own cattle

0.6 (0.2–1.6)

0.327

Drinks fresh blood

3.1 (0.8–11.2)

0.088

Assisting livestock in delivery

3.7 (1.1–13.5)

0.050

Drinking un-boiled cow milk

7.7 (1.5–40.1)

0.036

Discussion

Our case–control study identified consumption of raw cow milk, assisting livestock in delivery, and handling animal hides as risk factors on bivariate analysis. However, only assisting livestock in delivery and drinking un-boiled cow milk remained significant risk facts after multivariate analysis. The association between assisting animals with delivery and increased risk of infection has been reported in other studies carried out in similar settings in East Africa [23, 33] Chad [34], the Middle East [35] and in Turkey [36, 37]. Given that Brucella spp. are known to have a predilection for reproductive organs particularly placenta and aborted fetuses, it is logical that assisting animals in delivery increases risk of infection [23]. The risk of brucellosis associated with consumption of un-boiled milk has been well documented [22, 23, 38]. Interestingly, even though most of the pastoralists around the world know about this risk, majority of them still consume raw milk as a tradition and for cultural reasons [39]. Although opinion differs between authors on whether direct contact with livestock (assisting in delivery, milking and feeding) or indirect contact with livestock (consumption of animal products) is a stronger risk factor, we found greater association with disease from consuming animal products than direct contact with animal. This finding is in agreement with other studies carried out within the East Africa region [23, 40, 41]. Studies have shown that consumption of unpasteurized milk is a common practise in Kenya, including communities in urban areas such as where 77% of households reported the risky practice [42]. Some studies show education and occupation are significant risk factors contrary to our data that shows there was no significant difference on the two variables between cases and controls. A possible explanation is the study area is a rural, predominantly Maasai agro-pastoral community where most households practise a traditional livestock rearing lifestyle. This means that cases and controls have similar occupation and education levels.

Conclusion and recommendations

The findings of this study show a significant association between infection and consumption of unpasteurized milk and assisting animals with delivery. This findings show that animal handlers; primarily farmers and animal health workers and people who consume unpasteurized milk; a common practise in Kenya, are at the greatest risk. We recommend Public health education on brucellosis transmission and prevention, specifically use of protective personal equipment when assisting animals in delivery and boiling of milk should be offered to farmers and the general public, respectively.

Limitations

There were some limitations to the study. Case–control studies are prone to selection bias but we took measures to minimise the same; we recruited cases and controls from households participating in an ongoing cohort study of brucellosis in livestock. This meant cases and controls were recruited from households with similar characteristics, which in turn minimises selection bias. Another significant limitation is the limited sample size. The study only recruited cases and controls from an ongoing study that had recruited 810 households with 4792 people; this limited the number of study participants who could be included in our analysis.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

MM was part of the team that designed the study, conducted the field work, data analyses, and did the first draft of the manuscript. AB, AM, EO, DM, ZG, PN ZN, SM, KN supervised the field work and contributed to the study design and manuscript. KN supervised all the work, analyses, and manuscript writing; and designed the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Kenya Directorate of Veterinary Services, Kenya Ministry of Health, County Governments of Kajiado, United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Kenya Dr. Peninah Munyua (US CDC) for her mentorship and advice during the study and Kenya Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program for their participation in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used and/or analysed during this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States’ Defence Threat Reduction Agency or US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Government of Kenya.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was reviewed and approved by the Kenyatta National Hospital Ethical Review committee. Cases and controls were enrolled after verbal and written consent and no personal identifiers were recorded on the questionnaire. After questioning, participants were provided free medical treatment.

Funding

Financial support was provided by the United States’ Defence Threat Reduction Agency, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Kenya Ministry of Health and the United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Pappas G, Papadimitriou P, Akritidis N, Christou L, Tsianos EV. The new global map of human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6(2):91–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO. Brucellosis in humans and and animals (World Health Organization). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Havas KA, Ramishvili M, Navdarashvili A, Hill AE, Tsanava S, Imnadze P, et al. Risk factors associated with human brucellosis in the country of Georgia: a case-control study. Epidemiol Infect. 2013;141(1):45–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young EJ. An overview of human brucellosis. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;21(2):283–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Figueiredo P, Ficht TA, Rice-Ficht A, Rossetti CA, Adams LG. Pathogenesis and immunobiology of brucellosis: review of Brucella–Host Interactions. Am J Pathol. 2015;185(6):1505–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corbel MJ. Brucellosis: an overview. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3(2):213–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Godfroid J, Scholz HC, Barbier T, Nicolas C, Wattiau P, Fretin D, et al. Brucellosis at the animal/ecosystem/human interface at the beginning of the 21st century. Prev Vet Med. 2011;102(2):118–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Assenga JA, Matemba LE, Muller SK, Malakalinga JJ, Kazwala RR. Epidemiology of Brucella infection in the human, livestock and wildlife interface in the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem, Tanzania. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11:189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franco MP, Mulder M, Gilman RH, Smits HL. Human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(12):775–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corbel MJ. Brucellosis: an overview. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3:213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Tawfiq JA, Memish ZA. Antibiotic susceptibility and treatment of brucellosis. Recent Pat Anti Infect Drug Discov. 2013;8(1):51–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seleem MN, Boyle SM, Sriranganathan N. Brucellosis: a re-emerging zoonosis. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(3–4):392–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ulu-Kilic A, Metan G, Alp E. Clinical presentations and diagnosis of brucellosis. Recent Pat Anti Infect Drug Discov. 2013;8(1):34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Díaz R, Casanova A, Ariza J, Moriyón I. The rose Bengal test in human brucellosis: a neglected test for the diagnosis of a neglected disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5(4):e950.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baba MM, Sarkindared SE, Brisibe F. Serological evidence of brucellosis among predisposed patients with pyrexia of unknown origin in the north eastern Nigeria. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2001;9(3):158–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dean AS, Crump L, Greter H, Schelling E, Zinsstag J. Global burden of human brucellosis: a systematic review of disease frequency. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(10):e1865.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shevtsova E, Shevtsov A, Mukanov K, Filipenko M, Kamalova D, Sytnik I, et al. Epidemiology of brucellosis and genetic diversity of brucella abortus in Kazakhstan. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0167496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maurin M. Brucellosis at the dawn of the 21st century. Med et Maladies Infect. 2005;35(1):6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDermott J, Grace D, Zinsstag J. Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Sci et Tech (International Office of Epizootics). 2013;32(1):249–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Godfroid J. Brucellosis in livestock and wildlife: zoonotic diseases without pandemic potential in need of innovative one health approaches. Arch Public Health. 2017;75:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munyua P, Bitek A, Osoro E, Pieracci EG, Muema J, Mwatondo A, et al. Prioritization of Zoonotic Diseases in Kenya, 2015. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Njeru J, Wareth G, Melzer F, Henning K, Pletz MW, Heller R, et al. Systematic review of brucellosis in Kenya: disease frequency in humans and animals and risk factors for human infection. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):853.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osoro EM, Munyua P, Omulo S, Ogola E, Ade F, Mbatha P, et al. Strong association between human and animal brucella seropositivity in a linked Study in Kenya, 2012–2013. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93(2):224–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Omballa VO, Musyoka RN, Vittor AY, Wamburu KB, Wachira CM, Waiboci LW, et al. Serologic evidence of the geographic distribution of bacterial zoonotic agents in Kenya, 2007. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94(1):43–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maichomo MW, McDermott JJ, Arimi SM, Gathura PB, Mugambi TJ, Muriuki SM. Study of brucellosis in pastoral community and the evaluation of the usefulness of clinical signs and symptoms in differentiating it from other flu-like diseases. Afr J Health Sci. 2000;7:114–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McDermott JJ, Arimi SM. Brucellosis in sub-Saharan Africa: epidemiology, control and impact. Vet Microbiol. 2002;90:111–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ari MD, Guracha A, Fadeel MA, Njuguna C, Njenga MK, Kalani R, et al. Challenges of establishing the correct diagnosis of outbreaks of acute febrile illnesses in Africa: the case of a likely Brucella outbreak among nomadic pastoralists, northeast Kenya, March–July 2005. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85(5):909–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galvin KA, Beeton TA, Boone RB, BurnSilver SB. Nutritional status of Maasai pastoralists under change. Hum Ecol. 2015;43(3):411–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Brien MP, Beja-Pereira A, Anderson N, Ceballos RM, Edwards WH, Harris B, et al. Brucellosis transmission between wildlife and livestock in the greater yellowstone ecosystem: inferences from DNA genotyping. J Wildl Dis. 2017;53(2):339–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tanner M, Inlameia O, Michel A, Maxlhuza G, Pondja A, Fafetine J, et al. Bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in cattle and African buffalo in the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2015;62(6):632–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dean AG SK, Soe MM. Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abo-Shehada MN, Abu-Halaweh M. Risk factors for human brucellosis in northern Jordan. East Mediterr Health J. 2013;19(2):135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    John K, Fitzpatrick J, French N, Kazwala R, Kambarage D. Quantifying risk factors for human brucellosis in rural northern Tanzania. PloS ONE. 2010;5:e9968.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schelling E, Diguimbaye C, Daoud S, Nicolet J, Boerlin P, Tanner M, et al. Brucellosis and Q-fever seroprevalences of nomadic pastoralists and their livestock in Chad. Prev Vet Med. 2003;61(4):279–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cooper CW. Risk factors in transmission of brucellosis from animals to humans in Saudi Arabia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992;86(2):206–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kutlu M, Ergonul O, Sayin-Kutlu S, Guven T, Ustun C, Alp-Cavus S, et al. Risk factors for occupational brucellosis among veterinary personnel in Turkey. Prev Vet Med. 2014;117(1):52–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Deniz S, Baykam N, Celikbas A, Yilmaz SM, Guzel TC, Dokuzoguz B, et al. Screening household members of acute brucellosis cases in endemic areas and risk factors for brucellosis. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015;15(8):468–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arimi SM, Koroti E, Kang’ethe EK, Omore AO, McDermott JJ. Risk of infection with Brucella abortus and Escherichia coli O157:H7 associated with marketing of unpasteurized milk in Kenya. Acta Trop. 2005;96(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kansiime C, Mugisha A, Makumbi F, Mugisha S, Rwego IB, Sempa J, et al. Knowledge and perceptions of brucellosis in the pastoral communities adjacent to Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Asiimwe BB, Kansiime C, Rwego IB. Risk factors for human brucellosis in agro-pastoralist communities of south western Uganda: a case–control study. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tumwine G, Matovu E, Kabasa JD, Owiny DO, Majalija S. Human brucellosis: sero-prevalence and associated risk factors in agro-pastoral communities of Kiboga District, Central Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Namanda AT, Kakai R, Otsyula M. The role of unpasteurized “hawked” milk in the transmission of brucellosis in Eldoret municipality, Kenya. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009;3(4):260–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kenya Zoonotic Disease Unit–Ministry of AgricultureLivestock and Fisheries and Ministry of HealthNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsNairobiKenya
  3. 3.Paul G. Allen School for Global Animal HealthWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  4. 4.Kenya Medical Research InstituteNairobiKenya
  5. 5.Kenya Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training ProgramNairobiKenya
  6. 6.County Government of KajiadoKajiadoKenya
  7. 7.Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and TechnologyNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations