Previously submitted to: JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (no longer under consideration since Apr 12, 2018)
Date Submitted: Mar 12, 2018
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Evidence of melioidosis, brucellosis, and Q fever infections in Northeastern Thailand
Background:
Thailand is considered a hotspot for outbreaks of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases.
Objective:
This is a seroprevalance report from Nakhon Ratchasima province, one of the five pilot provinces in Northeastern Thailand undergoing epidemiologic surveillance under the One Health concept for melioidosis, and the potentially unrecognized brucellosis, and Q fever.
Methods:
A prevalence study with purposive sampling was conducted between February and August 2012. Blood samples from 505 persons with occupations related to animals, and 1699 ruminants, were examined for evidence of melioidosis, using IHA technique, Q fever (IFA test in humans and ELISA in animals), and brucellosis (ELISA IgG/IgM in humans, RBT for screening and CFT for confirmation in animals).
Results:
Minimal protection at work was noted; 4.6% wore face masks, 6.0% gloves and 16.4% boots. Serological tests of samples from humans in close contact with animals revealed that 14.5% were positive for melioidosis, 4.4% for brucellosis and 12.7% for Q fever. In livestock and wild animals, 70 of 77 farms tested (90.9%) were seropositive for melioidosis (n=1440, 48.7%). However, we found seronegative results for both brucellosis, and Q fever in all farms. Serologic evidence of brucellosis, and Q fever infection in humans may warrant a closed surveillance and monitoring, and identifying the route of transmission as none of the animals tested positive in this study. A substantial number of both humans and animals were seropositive for melioidosis explaining the alarming rate of disease in the region.
Conclusions:
A surveillance system for disease detection, educating the risk population on the preventive regulations for zoonotic diseases, and increasing awareness among physicians and veterinarians are still pertinent.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.