Brucellosis is an infectious zoonosis that has huge economic and public health implications globally. The disease is prevalent in humans, livestock and wildlife in Sub Saharan Africa. A cross-sectional study was conducted between 6th May 2017 and 31st July 2020 during which 1712 sera from 177 cattle herds in Southern, Western and Eastern provinces of Zambia was collected and screened against brucellosis. Rose Bengal Test and c-ELISA were used in serial testing for detection of antibodies against Brucella species. Results: A total of 127 animals and 37 herds tested positive, giving an overall individual and herd seroprevalence of 7.42% (CI: 0.61-0.86) and 20.9% respectively. Namwala district recorded the highest seroprevalence (12.2%) while Lundazi had the lowest (0%). A higher seropositivity was observed among female animals (8.5%), those aged between 11 and 17 years (14.1%) and pregnant cows (13.8%). Conclusions: Brucella seroprevalence among traditional cattle in Zambia remains high. It is vital that control programmes against bovine brucellosis are introduced in order to reduce its zoonotic impact on human health and increase animal production.

Abattoir workers are liable to zoonotic infections from animals and animal products, pri-marily to diseases with asymptomatic and chronic clinical manifestations in animals such as brucellosis. No published reports exist on the seroprevalence of brucellosis in abattoir workers in South Africa. Therefore, this cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the occurrence and risk factors for Brucella exposure in abattoir workers in Gauteng Province. A total of 103 abattoir workers and managers from six abattoirs, where brucellosis-positive slaughtered cattle and sheep were previously detected, were interviewed, and tested with serological assays using the Rose Bengal test (RBT), BrucellaCapt, and IgG-ELISA. A pre-tested questionnaire was administered to consenting respondents to obtain infor-mation on risk factors for brucellosis. Of the 103 respondents tested, the distribution of fe-male and male workers was 16 (15.5%) and 87 (84.5%), respectively. The seroprevalence for exposure to brucellosis was 21/103 (20.4%, 95%CI: 13.1-29.5) using a combination of RBT, BrucellaCapt, or IgG-ELISA. For test-specific results, seroprevalences by RBT, BrucellaCapt, and IgG-ELISA were 13/103 (12.6%, 95%CI: 6.9-20.6), 9/103 (8.74%, 95%CI: 4.1-15.9) and 18/103 (17.5%, 95%CI: 10.7-26.2), respectively. Low-throughput abattoirs were identified as associated risk as 29.3% of workers were seropositive compared to 12.7% of workers in high-throughput abattoirs, which highlights that direct contact at abattoirs poses higher risk to workers than indirect and direct contact outside abattoirs. This study confirmed the occurrence of Brucella spp. antibodies among abattoir workers in South Africa, possibly due to occupational exposure to Brucella spp. and highlight the occupational hazard to workers. Furthermore, findings underscore that abattoir facilities can serve as points for active and passive surveillance for indicators of diseases of public health importance. We recommend periodic implementation of brucellosis testing of abattoir workers country-wide to establish baseline data for informing appropriate preventive practices and reduce the potential burden of infection rate among these high-risk workers.

Background and Objective: In the present study, the purpose was to compare the demographic, clinical and laboratory results of pediatric brucella cases who had liver involvement and who had no specific organ involvement. Material and Methods: The data of 248 patients between 2 and 18 years of age diagnosed with Brucellosis between July 2017 and August 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients who had liver involvement and who did not have other specific organ involvement were compared in terms of presentation, physical examination findings, age, gender, hemogram, AST, ALT, GGT, ALP, bilirubines, sedimentation, CRP, clinical and laboratory findings, and culture and relapse rates. Results: No significant differences were detected between the patients who had liver involvement (n=92) and who did not have specific organ involvement (n=156) in terms of diagnosis age and gender. Loss of appetite, nausea and sensitive stomach were higher in the patients who had hepatic involvement, and weariness was determined to be more in the control group patients. In the patients who had hepatic involvement, the hemoglobin and platelet values were lower, and the sedimentation, CRP and blood culture growth were higher. The relapse rates were lower in patients who had liver involvement. Conclusion: In patients who have liver involvement, in addition to elevated hepatomegaly and transaminase levels, the growth rate of the acute-phase reactants and brucella is higher in blood culture; and the relapse rate is lower after treatment. Brucellosis must be considered in the differential diagnosis of hepatomegaly and transaminase elevation where brucellosis is seen endemically. We believe that early diagnosis of brucellosis is important in treatment response.

Brucellosis is one of the most common etiologies of laboratory-acquired infections worldwide, and handling of living brucellae should be performed in a Class II biological safety cabinet. The low infecting dose, multiple portals of entry to the body, the great variety of potentially contaminated specimens, and the unspecific clinical manifestations of human infections facilitate the unintentional transmission of brucellae to laboratory personnel. Work accidents such as spillage of culture media cause only a small minority of exposures, whereas >80% of events result from unfamiliarity with the phenotypic features of the genus, misidentification of isolates, and unsafe laboratory practices such as aerosolization of bacteria and working on an open bench without protective goggles or gloves. Although the bacteriological diagnosis of brucellae by traditional methods is simple, the Gram stain and the biochemical profile of the organism, as determined by commercial kits, can be misleading, resulting in inadvertent exposure and contagion. The use of novel identification technologies is not hazard-free. The MALDI-TOF technology requires an initial bacterial inactivation step, while the instruments’ reference database may misidentify Brucella as belonging to other Gram-negative species. The rapid identification by the FISH method mistakes brucellar isolates for members of the closely related Ochrobactrum genus.

In livestock, brucellosis is mainly an asymptomatic disease except for abortion, therefore two serological tests are used for diagnosis as no single test is suitable. Abattoir samples enable a combination of culture, molecular and serological tests to detect brucellosis. This study assessed Brucella specific PCR (ITS-PCR) to detect brucellosis and to conduct molecular characterization of Brucella spp. isolated from PCR-positive livestock (n=565) slaughtered at abattoirs and the appropriate sample tissue(s). ITS-PCR detected Brucella DNA in 33.6% cattle, 14.5% sheep and 4.7% pig tissues. Impure Brucella cultures from PCR-positive tissues were 43.6% (44/94) cattle, 51.7% (15/29) sheep, and 50% (2/4) pigs with predominantly B. abortus identification with AMOS-PCR and low isolation of mixed B. abortus and B. melitensis in all species. In cattle 33% of isolates were from lymph nodes while in sheep 38.0% were from liver and kidney and only from tonsils in pigs (2/4). Brucella infections identified with AMOS-PCR were present in seropositive and mainly seronegative (75.6-100%) livestock with the potential to cause brucellosis during pregnancy or breeding. This study demonstrated the value of the polyphasic approach, especially with chronic infections and the potential risk of these asymptomatic animals.

Effectively preventing and controlling zoonotic diseases requires a One Health approach that involves collaboration across sectors responsible for human health, animal health (both domestic and wildlife), and the environment, as well as other partners. Here we describe the Generalizable One Health Framework (GOHF), a five-step framework that provides structure for using a One Health approach in zoonotic disease programs being implemented at the local, sub-national, national, regional, or international level. Part of the framework is a toolkit that compiles existing resources and presents them following a stepwise schematic, allowing users to identify relevant resources as they are required. Coupled with recommendations for implementing a One Health approach for zoonotic disease prevention and control in technical domains including laboratory, surveillance, preparedness and response, this framework can mobilize One Health and thereby enhance and guide capacity building to combat zoonotic disease threats at the human-animal-environment interface.