4.2 Article

Seroprevalence of Rift Valley Fever, Q Fever, and Brucellosis in Ruminants on the Southeastern Shore of Lake Chad

Journal

VECTOR-BORNE AND ZOONOTIC DISEASES
Volume 14, Issue 10, Pages 757-762

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2014.1585

Keywords

Serology; Brucellosis; Lake Chad; Domestic ruminants; Rift Valley Fever; Q fever

Funding

  1. The Institut de Rechercehe en Elevage pour le Developpement (IRED) ex Laboratoire de Recherches Veterinaires et Zootechniques (LRVZ)
  2. AfriqueOne-IRED consortium Project - Wellcome Trust in N'Djamena, Chad

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The seroprevalence of Rift Valley fever (RVF), brucellosis, and Q fever among domestic ruminants on the southeastern shore of Lake Chad was studied. The study area consisted of two parts, including mainland and islands. On the mainland, the study was conducted in nine randomly selected villages and camps. On the islands, samples were collected from all four available sites. A total of 985 serum samples were collected and 924 were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for RVF. A total of 561 samples collected from islands were analyzed using ELISA for Q fever and both ELISA and Rose Bengal tests (RBT) for brucellosis. The apparent RVF seroprevalence by species was 37.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.2-41.3) in cattle, 18.8% (95% CI 12.3-25.2) in goats, and 10.8% (95% CI 3.0-18.5) in sheep. For brucellosis and Q fever, only cattle samples from islands were analyzed. For Q fever, the apparent seroprevalence was 7.8% (95% CI 5.6-10.1). For brucellosis, the RBT showed a prevalence of 5.7% (95% CI 3.8-7.6), and ELISA showed 11.9% (95% CI 9.3-14.6) with a kappa value of 0.53 showing a moderate agreement between the two tests. This study confirms the presence of the three diseases in the study area. More research is required to assess the importance for public health and conservation of the Kouri cattle breed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available