BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS: EPIDEMIOLOGY & CONTROL

PROGRAMMES IN INDIA

PRUTHVISHREE B. S., M.V.Sc. ScholarBHOJ R SINGH, Head

Division of EpidemiologyIVRI, Izatnagar

Overview

Organism

Transmission

Disease manifestations

Epidemiology

Vaccination

Constraints in control of brucellosis

National brucellosis control programme.

Introduction

In India, brucellosis was 1st recognized in 1942.

Bovine brucellosis is caused by Brucella abortus.

Eradicated from most of the European countries, Japan, Australia, Canada & New Zealand.

Economic losses to the tune of Rs.350 million/year in India.

Causal organism: Category B bioterrorism agent. ( PD ADMAS, 2012)

Disease Attributes

Risk factors - breed, herd size, management practices, breeding methods & source of replacement stock.

Strains of Pathogen: Cattle & buffaloes harbor predominantly B. abortus biotype-1; followed by biotype-3; rarely biotypes-2, 4, 5,6 and 9.

Principal manifestation of animal brucellosis are reproductive failure, abortion in primaparous cows in third trimester. epididymitis and orchitis in males.

History of Brucellosis

450 BC: Described by Hippocrates

1914: B. suis. Indiana, United States

1953: B. ovis. New Zealand, Australia

1966: B. canis. Dogs, caribou, and reindeer

Cont.,,,

Sir William Burnett(1779-1861)

Sir David Bruce (1855-1931)Micrococcus melitensis

Bernhard Bang Bacterium abortus

The Organism

Brucella abortus Gram negative , coccobacillus 9 biovars The genome organization

characterized by the presence of 2 chromosomes

Can persist in the environment

Brucella species

Species Biovar/serovar Natural host Human pathogen

Brucella abortus 1-6,9 cattle, bison, buffalo yes

B. melitensis 1-3 Sheep, goat yes

B. suis 1,2,3245

SwineEuropean haresReindeer, caribourodents

YesYesYesyes

B.canis none Dogs,other canids yes

B.ovis none sheep no

B. neotomae none rodents no

B. pinnipediaeB. CetiB.microtiB.inopinata

SealCetaceansCommon voleBreast implant

Yes

Centre for food security and public health(CFSPH), Lawa state university, 2012

Transmission

Disease in Bovines

Cows Abortion, stillbirth Weak calves Retained placenta Decreased lactation

Bulls Epididymitis, orchitis

Infertility, arthritis

LABORATORY DIAGNOSISof Brucella spp.

IDENTIFICATION

SEROLOGY OTHER TESTS

Biochemical Tests Dye Tolerance

Slide Agglutination

Gel Formation

Requirement of CO2

Tbilisi Phage Lysis

H2S test

Nucleic acid recognition methods- PCR,RFLPIdentification of vaccine strains

Brucellin skin testSATNative hap ten based gel precipitation testMilk test

MRT, Milk- ELISAInterferon gamma assay

Stamp's stainingCulture-

Ferrell's medium

Buffered plate agglutination testsCFTELISA

A-B ELISAFPA

Rose Bengal plate agglutination test (RBPT)

Epidemiology Poor farm hygiene

Unrestricted trade movement

Seasonal maintenance

AI with infected semen

Brucellosis Situation in Animals

Serological survey of brucellosis was performed in 23 states of India. A total of 30,437 bovine samples were screened with RBPT and STAT which reveals 1.9% prevalence in cattle and 1.8% in buffaloes. (Isloor et al., 1998).

PD-ADMAS conducted long-term serological studies which indicated 5% of cattle and 3% of buffaloes are infected with brucellosis. (Rajasekhar et al., 2002).

Sero-prevalence of brucellosis in Mithun (Bos frontalis) in Nagaland state by ELISA, STAT and RBPT is 34%, 20% and 11% respectively. (Rajkhowa et al., 2004)

•Brucellosis in India

Prevalence rate for brucellosis was 8.58% in cattle, 8.85% in goat and 7.08% in sheep from the states of Rajasthan and Bihar. (Singh, 2007)

The overall herd & animal prevalence in peri-urban areas of Gujarath was 33.70% & 11.90% respectively. (Patel,2014)

Prevalence was 40.4% in bovines by AB-ELISA in Maharashtra State. (Lodhe et al., 2011)

Brucellosis in India

The Avidin biotin ELISA in sera samples from 52 villages of Punjab state revealed prevalence in Buffaloes was 13.4% and in Cattle was 9.9%. (Dhand et al., 2005)

Milk-ELISA in 345 cattle and buffalo from 32 villages, 18.26% of animals were found positive in Punjab. (Aulakh et al., 2008).

Examination of 4580 animals of 119 dairy farms by RBPT & ELISA revealed , overall herd prevalence was 65.54% & individual animal prevalence was 26.50%.

Individual animal prevalence in Punjab(34.15%) was higher than Haryana(22.34%). (Chand,2013)

Sero-prevalence of brucellosis in Yak in Arunachal Pradesh by A-B ELISA, RBPT & STAT is 23.29%, 21.11% and 18.98% respectively. (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2008).

Brucellosis in India

Seroprevelence range from 6.6% in Madhya Pradesh to 60% in Assam.

6.5% prevalence in cattle from organized farms compared to 5.1% in unorganized farms. (Mehra, 2000)

Seroprevelence study of bovine brucellosis using indirect- ELISA shows 45.80%, 22.39%, 8.57% seropositivity in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh & UttaraKhand respectively. (Jagapur, 2013)

Brucellosis in cattle and buffalo

B. abortus biotype-1 appears to be the predominants biotype(21 out of 39) in most parts of the country, followed by B. abortus biotype-3 (8 of 39) in northern states of uttar pradesh and Haryana and the eastern states of Orissa.

B. abortus biotype 9 in orrisa and B. abortus biotypes 4,6 and 9 and B. melitensis biotype-2 in the Southern state of Tamilnadu.

B. melitensis biotype-1 was encountered in cattle and buffalo from haryana and in the Southern state of Andhra pradesh and Karnataka. (Sen and Sharma, 1975; Hemashettar et al., 1987)

National survey of cattle brucellosiscumulative results (1994-2001)

402 247 199 122 243 91 232 43 109 49 9 27 2

10567

3750 34052843 2622 2615

19421336 1361 1121 920 764 700

3.8 6.6 5.8 4.3 9.3 3.5 12 3.2 8 4.4 1 3.5 0.30

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Positive Sample tested Percentage

(Renukaradhya et al.,)

National survey of cattle brucellosiscumulative results (1994-2001)

38 5 2 115 0 0 8 4 0 4 0 11952676 665 636 592 402 395 348 325 142 121 66 5

38319

5.6 0.8 0.3 19.4 0 0 2.3 1.2 0 3.3 0 20 50

50001000015000200002500030000350004000045000

Positive Sample tested Percentage

( Renukaradhya et al.,)

National survey of Buffalo brucellosis cumulative results (1994-2001)

41 14 111 47 1 16 3 3 13 25 7281

1678

222

2233 1961

190 569 542 173911 675

30

9456

2.4 6.3 5 2.4 0.5 2.8 0.6 1.7 1.4 3.7 23.3 30

100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

Positive Sample tested Percentage

(Renukaradhya et al., 2002)

Seroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis in different States of India

6066

2246 2091 2032 1869

920 865 794 764 700183 40 14 18 47 9 19 20 27 2

3 1.8 0.7 6.9 2.5 1 2.2 2.5 3.5 0.30

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000Sample tested Positive Percentage

( Isloor et al., 1998)

676 665 636 541 455 342 220 70

23284

38 5 2 2 4 7 1 2 440

5.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.9 2 0.5 2.9 1.90

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sample tested Positive Percentage

Isloor et al.,1998

Seroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis in different States of IndiaSeroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis

in different States of India

Seroprevalence of Buffalo brucellosisin different States of India

13531832 1561

221743 433 173 488

7153

39 34 15 14 13 3 3 7 128

2.9 1.9 1 6.3 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.80

10002000300040005000600070008000

Sample tested Positive Percentage

( Isloor et al., 1998)

Seroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis in Uttar Pradesh

27

14

41

2125

44

26

36

0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 14

0

7.14

25

0

4.760 0

50

16.6711.11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Sample tested Positive Percentage

( Upadhyay et al., 2007).

Seroprevalence of Cattle brucellosis in Uttar Pradesh

6 618

89

17 34 23

373

1 2 3

47

0 0 1

6316.67 33.33

16.67

52.81

0 0 4.3516.89

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Sample tested Positive Percentage

( Upadhyay et al., 2007)

Seroprevalence of Buffalo brucellosisin Uttar Pradesh

73 48 38 2083

40

512

2 2 2 2 7 2 17

2.74 4.17 5.26 10 8.43 5 3.320

100

200

300

400

500

600

Sample tested Positive Percentage

( Upadhyay et al,, 2007)

Sero-prevalence of Brucellosis in Northern States

19692

1496816806

13906

18611615564 122 431 1638.2 3.7 1.1 3.09 8.760

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2008-09

Random sample tested positive percentage

(Annual report-NRDDL)

Seroprevalance of Brucellosis in Western States

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Gujarat Maharashtra Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh

260

941

39

2795

712

82

328

5

575

29431.54

34.86 12.82 20.57 41.29

Sample tested Positive Percentage

(Gajendragad , 2007)

Seroprevalence of Brucellosis

in Eastern States

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Manipur Assam Mizoram

700

395

676

2 038

0.28 0 5.62

Sample tested Positive Percentage

(Gajendragad , 2007)

Seroprevalence of Brucellosis

in southern States

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Andhra pradesh Kerala Karnataka

2843

1361

10767

122 109402

4.3 8 3.8

Sample tested Positive Percentage

(Gajendragad , 2007)

Seroprevalence of brucellosis in animals

2013

3425

1595

679

348 28756 5017.28 2 3 50

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2010-11

sample tested positive percentage

(CADRAD,2012)

Vaccination for Control ofbovine brucellosis

Brucella abortus S-19 (calf hood vaccine)

Not recommended in pregnancy

Persistent vaccinal antibody titre

Infective in humans

Brucella abortus RB51 differentiate “wild type”

exposure from immunization

Infectious to humans Not Validated in

buffaloes

Constraints in control of brucellosis

1 •Disease confirmation – distress sale

2 •Increased trade movement & commercial dairy farming.

3 •No policy for slaughter of infected animals/compensations

4 •Lack of public awareness

5 •Calf hood vaccination is not practiced

Biannual village level screening of pooled milk samples. For differentiation in clean and non clean herds

Biannual B.abortus S-19 vaccination for female calves of 4-8 M age

NATIONAL CONTROL PROGRAMME ON

BRUCELLOSIS

Mass screening & castration of infected bulls

Reduce the impact of disease on human health and to reduce economic losses.

NCPB is a time bound 5-year intensive location targeted control program.

Intends to involve village milk cooperatives in diagnosis and control through vaccination.

Periodical surveillance using milk ring test for pooled milk and ELISA for random or herd screening.

Targets B. abortus S19 vaccination for all the female calves of 4 to 8 months in infected villages.

Program assures very high & sustained cost benefit ratio to farmer & dairy industry & helps to establish accredited herds/ villages.

Expected benefits of NCPB

Why the NCPB in India have high probability for failure?

1. No solid plan for disposal of Brucella positive animals.2. No administrative control of animal rearing, management and

movement can be implemented.3. Farmers hardly know about NCPB and its benefits.4. Failure of vaccine and vaccination programme (even on well

organized dairy herds in National Institutes brucellosis is rampant despite of regular vaccination).

5. Brucella has a wide host range, just screening and vaccination of dairy animals can not be sufficient. Sheep, goat, pigs and other animals are often reared by the farmers in the same village in the same locality.

6. Dearth of assured quality semen. 7. Poverty, lack of education and inability to opt for hygiene are at

the top of every plan to fall.

And---and---and---many----many---many---more reasons.

Future prospective:Targets to be looked in

•Development of good Vaccines & Diagnostics.

•Formulation & execution of viable eradication programmes

•Development of Vaccines for all species of animals.

•Development of honest Reporting system for brucellosis in animals to health authorities

•Good animal husbandry practices

•Mass vaccination of livestock.