4.5 Article

Sero-prevalence of brucellosis, Q-fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock in Somali Region, Ethiopia

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008100

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
  2. Jigjiga University
  3. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) [7F-09057.01.02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study highlights the presence of zoonotic diseases like brucellosis, Q-fever, and Rift Valley fever in pastoralist communities and their livestock. The seroprevalence of these diseases varies among different areas and species. The One Health approach, which simultaneously considers human and animal health, is crucial for better reporting and addressing zoonotic diseases, providing benefits for human health, animal health, and financial savings. The study in the Somali region of Ethiopia is the first to establish the public health and economic importance of these zoonotic diseases in humans and livestock.
Information on zoonotic diseases in humans and livestock are limited in pastoral/agro-pastoral communities in Ethiopia. A multi-stage cross sectional cluster design study was implemented with the aim to establish the seroprevalence of zoonotic diseases including brucellosis, Q-fever and Rift Valley fever (RVF) in humans and livestock in Adadle Woreda of the Somali Region, Ethiopia. Blood samples were collected from humans and livestock and tested by relevant serological tests. For brucellosis, Rose Bengal test (RBT) and indirect ELISA was used for screening and confirmatory diagnosis respectively. Indirect and competitive ELISA were also used for Q-fever and RVF respectively. The individual seropositivity of Q-fever in livestock was 9.6% (95% CI 5.9-15.1) in cattle, 55.7% (95% CI 46.0-65.0) in camels, 48.8% (95% CI 42.5-55.0) in goats, and 28.9% (95% CI 25.0-33.2) in sheep. In humans, seropositivity of Q-fever was 27.0% (95% CI 20.4-34.0), with prevalence in males of 28.9% vs 24.2% in females (OR = 1.3; 95% CI 0.6-2.5). Camel seropositivity of Q-fever was significantly associated with age (OR = 8.1; 95% CI 2.8-23.7). The individual apparent seroprevalence of RVF was 13.2% (95% CI 8.7-18.8) in humans, 17.9% (95% CI 11.0-27.8) in cattle, 42.6% (95% CI 34.8-50.7) in camels, 6.3% (95% CI 3.3-11.6) in goats and 7.4% (95% CI 4.7-11.5) in sheep. Camels had the highest seropositivity of both Q-fever and RVF. Only a weak correlation was observed between human and livestock seropositivity for both Q-fever and RVF. Only cattle and camels were seropositive for brucellosis by iELISA. The individual seroprevalence of brucellosis was 2.8(0.9-6.4) in humans, 1.5% (95% CI 0.2-5.2) in cattle and 0.6% (95% CI 0.0-3.2) in camels. This study showed the importance of zoonoses in Somali Region and is the first published study to describe RVF exposure in humans and livestock in the country. Even though human exposure to RVF virus was reported, public health sector of Somali Region has not given attention to such zoonoses. Collaboration between public and animal health sectors for further investigation on these zoonoses using the One Health concept is indispensable. Author summary Our study highlighted the presence of infectious zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis, Q-fever and Rift Valley fever that affected pastoralist communities and their livestock. The seroprevalence of the above-mentioned diseases were different in different kebeles as well as species. Better reporting of such zoonotic diseases could not be possible if it were not done in humans and livestock simultaneously. Such approach is known as One Health approach and has many benefits by adding value in terms of human health, animal health and financial savings. The unique characteristic of the current study was establishing the public health and economic importance of brucellosis, Q-fever and Rift Valley fever in humans and livestock using One Health approach for the first time in Somali region of Ethiopia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据