Next Article in Journal
Efficacy of Antimicrobial Treatment in Dogs with Atopic Dermatitis: An Observational Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Recombinant Ehrlichia canis GP19 Protein as a Promising Vaccine Prototype Providing a Protective Immune Response in a Mouse Model
Previous Article in Journal
Canine Gastric Cancer: Current Treatment Approaches
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urinary Cytology: Potential Role in Canine Urinary Tract Infections
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/vetsci9080384
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Last Twenty-One Years (2001–2021)

by
Kabiru O. Akinyemi
1,*,
Christopher O. Fakorede
1,
Kehinde O. Amisu
1 and
Gamal Wareth
2
1
Department of Microbiology, Lagos State University, Km 15, Badagry Expressway, Lasu Post Office, Ojo, P.O. Box 0001, Lagos 102101, Nigeria
2
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Institute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Naumburger Str. 96a, 07743 Jena, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2022, 9(8), 384; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384
Submission received: 21 June 2022 / Revised: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 22 July 2022 / Published: 26 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bacterial Infectious Diseases of Companion Animals)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Brucellosis caused by Brucella spp. is transmitted by direct or indirect contact with infected animals or their secretions and through the consumption of infected animal meat and unpasteurized milk/milk products. Brucellosis is classified as one of the top neglected zoonosis by the World Health Organization (WHO), and despite this, it does not attract the appropriate attention it requires from both the Federal and State ministries of health in Nigeria. Currently, there is a lack of coordinated national data on the prevalence and distribution of human and animal brucellosis. Thus, published research works between 2001 and 2021 were studied based on set criteria to estimate the burden and distribution of brucellosis in Nigeria. The results of the national seroprevalence of human and animal brucellosis were 17.6% (554/3144) and 13.3% (8547/64,435), respectively. Specifically, 15.8% (7178/45,363) seroprevalence of brucellosis was recorded in northern Nigeria as against 8.7% (1902/21,740) in the southern part. Brucella abortus, B. melitensis, B. suis, and B. canis were reported in 27 of the 36 states. Improved sanitation at the abattoirs, use of personal protective equipment by animal handlers, vaccination of animals against brucellosis, and ranching of animals to curb the spread of the disease should be paramount to all stakeholders.

Abstract

The global burden of human and animal brucellosis remains enormous. The disease, which is endemic in Nigeria, lacks appropriate attention and national data. This review estimated the burden and distribution of human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria in the last twenty-one years (2001–2021). Publications reporting the detection of brucellosis in Nigeria were sorted from different search engines, including PubMed, ResearchGate, Scopus, and Google Scholar, to generate data on its prevalence, spatial distribution, and predisposing factors. The results of the national seroprevalence of human and animal brucellosis as revealed in this study were 17.6% (554/3144) and 13.3% (8547/64,435), respectively. Specifically, 15.8% (7178/45,363) seroprevalence of brucellosis was recorded in northern Nigeria as against 8.7% (1902/21,740) seroprevalence in the southern part. It also indicated that 78.7% of the detected brucellae were un-typed. The Brucella species detected were B. abortus (15.2%), B. melitensis (4%), B. suis (1.8%), and B. canis (0.4%). This study revealed that brucellosis is endemic in Nigeria. Culture and molecular methods for detecting brucellosis and reports on antimicrobial susceptibility testing remain a conjecture. This review will help researchers redirect their research focus and serve as a guide for policymakers on measures for managing brucellosis in Nigeria.

1. Introduction

Brucellosis, which is also referred to as the travel-related infectious disease “undulant fever”, “Mediterranean fever”, “gastric remittent fever”, or “Malta fever”, is a zoonotic disease caused by intracellular Gram-negative coccobacilli bacteria of the genus Brucella [1,2,3]. The disease is distributed globally, affecting humans, a wide range of wild animals, and economically viable domestic livestock such as cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, camels, swine, dogs, etc. [4]. Currently, 12 species of the genus Brucella are accepted; however, only B. melitensis, B. abortus, B. suis, and in rare cases, B. canis are characterized as human pathogens. The global burden of human brucellosis remains very large. The organism causes more than 500,000 infections per year worldwide [3]. The socio-economic impact of brucellosis is enormous and is higher in developing countries than the developed countries, with an estimated 3.5 billion individuals at risk of being infected with one or more Brucella spp. and a high morbidity rate in both humans and animals [5,6]. Brucellosis is highly contagious. It is transmitted by direct or indirect contact with infected animals or their secretions and through the consumption of infected animal meat and products such as unpasteurized milk/milk products [1,7]. The risk of acquiring the disease has been attributed to a certain occupation (occupational hazard) but most especially among livestock caregivers. People who work with animals and are constantly in contact with blood, placenta, foetuses, and uterine secretions have an increased risk of contracting the disease. This method of transmission primarily affects farmers, butchers, hunters, veterinarians, and laboratory personnel [4]. However, in endemic areas, human brucellosis has serious public health consequences. The organism can enter the human body through breaks in the skin, mucous membranes, conjunctiva, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, resulting in systemic infection with acute and chronic phases [3,8]. The disease may persist as relapse, chronic localized infection, or delayed convalescence. Symptoms of the disease include but are not limited to fever or chill, arthralgia or arthritis, sweating, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, anorexia, asthenia, fatigue, weakness, pallor, diarrhea, jaundice, lymphadenopathy, rash, and malaise [1,8]. Urbanization and the subsequent expansion of animal industries, coupled with a lack of good hygienic practices, especially in animal husbandry and food handling, partly account for brucellosis remaining a public health problem [1]. It affects people of all races, age groups, and both sexes. Although many countries have made great progress in controlling the disease, Brucella infection persists in domestic animals in some regions, and consequently, transmission to the human population is imminent. Brucellosis in livestock is mostly a reproductive disease characterized by infertility, late abortion, retained foetal membranes, and impaired productivity [9]. Brucellosis infects many species, especially cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. Different Brucella types infect different species preferentially. The disease is still widely distributed in Africa, especially in areas with large animal populations [10].
Brucellosis, currently classified as one of the top neglected zoonosis by the World Health Organization (WHO), does not attract the appropriate attention it requires from both Federal and State ministries of health in Nigeria. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2019 [11], Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and ranked 7th in the world with over 201 million people. A projection of its population is expected to rise to about 401 million people by 2050, with an estimated livestock population of 20.49 million cattle, 23.07 million sheep, 28.07 million goats, 6.54 million pigs, 18,200–90,000 camels, and 210,000 horses [12,13]. Livestock slaughtered at the different abattoirs in Nigeria for human consumption are not usually screened for brucellosis. Free-range domestic animals are also commonplace in Nigeria; pet animals, i.e., dogs, cats, and livestock, i.e., goats, sheep, and cattle, move freely amongst the people. The incidence of brucellosis in Nigeria is under-reported. Currently, there is insufficient epidemiological data on Nigeria’s prevalence and distribution of human and animal brucellosis. This review of the literature on reported cases of brucellosis in Nigeria was undertaken to determine the true prevalence and distribution of the disease across the country and to make valuable suggestions that will serve as a guide for the implementation of measures for sustainable management of this disease in Nigeria.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in Nigeria, made up of 6 geopolitical zones (North-East, North-West, North-Central, South-East, South-West, and South-South). Each zone comprises 6 states, except for the South-East with 5 states and North-West with 7 states, respectively. Nigeria has 36 states and a federal capital territory (Abuja). The states within each geopolitical zone have similar ethnic groups, political history, culture, spoken language, and environmental conditions. The North-West covers an area of 242,425 km2 or 25.75% of the country’s total land mass. The North-East occupies about 272,451 km2. The North-Central covers an area of approximately 193,088 km2. Meanwhile, in southern Nigeria, the South-East occupies an area of approximately 29,525 km2, while the South-West covers a land mass totalling 79,665 km2, and the South-South occupies approximately 84,587 km2.

2.2. Search Strategy and Data Acquisition

This systematic review was performed using public scientific databases, which include ResearchGate, Google Scholar, Scopus, and PubMed, to retrieve original articles reporting prevalence, serotypes, and antibiotic resistance in brucellae isolated from humans and animals in the last twenty-one years from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2021 from all the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. Publications reporting full research articles and letters on detecting Brucella by culture, serology, and molecular methods published in English languages were accessed within the six geopolitical zones. The following search strings were also applied: “Brucella”, “brucellae”, “brucellosis”, “undulant fever”, “Mediterranean fever”,” gastric remittent fever” or “Malta fever”, “humans”, “animals”, febrile, “abortion”, “prevalence”, “incidence”, “sensitivity testing”, “treatment”, “antibiotic susceptibility”, and “antimicrobial activity”. The list of the 36 states of Nigeria, including the six geopolitical zones, was used as the basis for searching.

2.3. Selection Criteria

Online articles/abstracts (full text) were reviewed individually to include articles that performed serological methods and cultural and molecular techniques on human and animal samples to detect Brucella in Nigeria. Relevant articles were retrieved and thoroughly reviewed using inclusion and exclusion criteria set for this study. The reference sections of retrieved publications were also reviewed thoroughly in search of further potential articles for inclusion.

2.4. Inclusion Criteria

Research articles on cross-sectional and cohort studies were included if they reported the detection of Brucella from human and animal samples if samples were collected from a named hospital or farms within a named community, state, or geopolitical zone if the study subjects were recruited in Nigeria.

2.5. Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if the reported brucellosis-associated diseases were not based on serology, culture, or molecular methods and if Brucella species were not from human and animal samples. Reports that are based on clinical diagnosis, systematic reviews, ecological correlation, books, and book chapters were excluded from the studies. Research works conducted within Nigeria and outside Nigeria whose study subjects were not recruited in Nigeria were also excluded. Duplicated articles were verified and removed using two de-duplication options, which included the Mendeley citation manager and Ovid multifile search.

2.6. Data Extraction

Descriptive and quantitative variables relevant to the inclusion criteria set for this systemic review were extracted from each of the selected articles. A Microsoft Excel 2013 workbook was used to create a standard template, with each column corresponding to the investigating parameters. To ensure accuracy, double data extraction and entry were performed. Information extracted from the articles included state, geopolitical zone, year of sampling/study, name of the author (first), publication date, date of sample collection, source of sample (humans and animals), types of sample, sample size, number of human participants, number of animal participants, types of animals, testing method, number of positive samples from serology, culture and molecular methods, and Brucella biotypes, the number of isolates, species of Brucella isolated and antibiotic resistance profile.

3. Results

3.1. Data Analysis

Data drawn from this study were cleaned, and a descriptive analysis was performed. Online databases were searched; these included Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, and PubMed from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2021, which produced 3149 articles. These articles were assessed for relevance based on the inclusion criteria. In all, 150 articles were found to be eligible. A further quantitative review of the articles with the removal of duplicate studies yielded only 99 articles (Figure 1). Reported cases of brucellosis were directly assessed from the literature. Prevalence was calculated in this study as the percentage of positive samples for Brucella in the total samples recorded.

3.2. Prevalence of Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria

A total of 99 research articles spanning 27 states (Plateau, Benue, Kwara, Kogi, Niger, Nasarawa, Borno, Gombe, Yobe, Bauchi, Adamawa, Jigawa, Kano, Kaduna, Katsina, Sokoto, Taraba, Zamfara, Enugu, Anambra, Ebonyi, Edo, Cross River, Akwa-Ibom, Lagos, Ogun, and Oyo states) and the federal capital territory (Abuja) from online database who reported Brucella infection from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2021 were reviewed. Brucellosis cases were reported in six geo-political zones in Nigeria; in NC [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37], NE [15,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62], NW [15,16,36,40,48,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88], SE [36,62,89,90,91,92,93,94], SS [62,95,96,97] and SW [15,35,62,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110] (Supplementary Table S1). Of the 99 publications, 11 investigated brucellosis in humans, 85 investigated Brucella infection in animals, and 3 investigated Brucella infection in humans and animals, respectively. In this study, 554 out of the 3144 were positive for human brucellosis, representing a 17.6% national prevalence. The highest prevalence of human brucellosis was observed in the South-South with a prevalence of 30.7% from a publication, while the lowest prevalence was observed in the South-West (SW) with a prevalence of 7.9%. Others include North-Central (NC) 17.1%, North-East (NE) 13.7%, North-West 8.8%, and a prevalence of 28.6% were recorded in the South-East (Table S1 and Table 1). In all, brucellosis was investigated in nine different animal hosts, i.e., cattle, donkeys, camels, horses, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, and dogs. The national seroprevalence of brucellosis in cattle stood at 12.2% (5187/42,508), with an odds ratio of 0.1390, Z-statistics of 120.853, and a p-value of 0.0001 at a 95% confidence level from 43 publications. The seroprevalence of Brucella infection in donkeys was 10.2% (215/2101), with an odds ratio of 0.2427, z-statistic of 16.247, and p-value of 0.0001 at 95% CL from four publications. The seroprevalence in camels was 20.9% (514/2459) from five publications. The seroprevalence in horses was 10.7% (106/988) from eight publications, while in goats, seroprevalence was 10.2% (846/8309) from 20 publications. The seroprevalence in sheep was 23.3% (912/3908) from 22 scientific articles, and in pigs, seroprevalence was 28.3% (276/975) from five publications. Others are chicken, including turkey, guinea fowl, and avian spp., with 8.4% seroprevalence (47/1555) from three publications, and the seroprevalence in dogs was 18.9% (444/2291) from eight publications (Table 2).

3.3. Regional Prevalence of Brucellosis in Common Domestic Animals in Nigeria

The prevalence of brucellosis in the different domestic animals investigated varies from region to region. In cattle, the prevalence of brucellosis in North-Central (NC) Nigeria was 8.6% (277/3213), while the North-East (NE) was 22% (1154/5253), North-West (NW) was 13.3% (2617/19,648), South-East (SE) was 3.3% (51/1567), South-South (SS) was 40.9% (151/369), and South-West (SW) was 7.5% (937/12,458). Only the NE geopolitical zones reported an incidence of brucellosis in donkeys with a prevalence of 10.2% (215/2101). Similarly, the NE and NW geopolitical zones are the only regions that reported seroprevalence of brucellosis in camels, with a prevalence of 31.4% (398/1267) and 9.7% (116/1192), respectively. Prevalence of brucellosis in horses was 27.9% (24/86) in the NC, 16% (16/100) in the NE, 13.5% (54/400) in the NW, and 3% (12/402) in the SE. There were no reports on brucellosis in horses from SS and SW Nigeria. Moreover, in goats, a prevalence of 19.2% (410/2134) was observed in the NC region, while an overall prevalence of 9% (75/831) was seen in the NE, 13.8% (303/2191) in the NW, 3.5% (12/340) in the SE and 1.6% (46/2813) in the SW. In contrast, the SS has no report. In sheep, a 24.6% (322/1308) seroprevalence was observed in the NC, 24.6% (14/57) in the NE, 22.9% (562/2449) in the NW, and 14.9% in the SW (14/94), with no record in the SE and SS. The highest occurrence of Brucella-associated infection within the geopolitical zones was observed in pigs from SS Nigeria, with 100% (55/55) prevalence, as multiple Brucella serotypes were reported per sample. Meanwhile, the NC recorded a 34% (125/369) prevalence rate, which in the SE was 0.6% (2/352) and in the SW was 0% (0/200). Seroprevalence of brucellosis in chickens was 3.6% (10/275) in the NW, 2.5% (18/730) in the NE, 3.4% (14/410) in the SE and 3.6% (5/140) in the SW. Seroprevalence of brucellosis as observed in dogs was 23.4% (115/492) in the NC, 20.3% (76/374) in the NE, 21.5% (43/200) in the NW, 27.6% (34/123) in the SE, 0% in the SS and 16% (176/1102) in the SW (Table 2).

3.4. Prevalence of Brucella Infection According to Sample Type

In this study, 7826 out of the 58,561 blood samples collected from different animals across the country were positive for brucellosis, giving a seroprevalence of 13.4% in animals nationwide. However, in the milk samples, 10.2% (574/5608) seroprevalence was obtained, and 12.4% (89/720) seroprevalence was observed in vaginal swabs. Moreover, a 5% (1/200) prevalence was recorded in aborted fetuses, and a prevalence of 29% (50/170) was recorded in lymph nodes. The highest occurrence of Brucella infection was observed in hygroma fluid, with a 50% (7/14) prevalence (Table 3).

3.5. Diagnostic Methods Used in the Detection of Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria

The Rose Bengal rapid test (RBPT) was used by the majority of the authors as the preferred diagnostic method and was reported by 11 of the 14 publications on the detection of brucellosis from human samples, while 74/99 publications reported RBPT as the detection method in animal samples. Other diagnostic tools used across the country were the serum agglutination test (SAT), which was used in 2 publications on humans and 28 from animals, the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA), which was used in 22 publications on animals, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA), which was used in 2 publications on humans and 10 on animals, immunoglobulin M (IgM), which was used in 2 publications each on humans and animal, and immunoglobulin G (IgG), which was used in 3 publications on humans. On the other hand, 1 publication applied the immunocomb, 10 applied the milk ring test (MRT), 1 used the complement fixation test (CFT), 2 used the micro-titre serum agglutination test (MSAT), 1 used the Wright agglutination rest (WAT), 6 used the lateral flow assay (LFA), 2 used the micro-agglutination test (MAT), and 2 applied the rapid slide assay (RSA with variation in disease prevalence, based on the different diagnostic methods employed (Figure 2)).

3.6. Prevalence and Diversity of Brucella Species from Humans and Animals within the Six Geopolitical Zones of Nigeria

A total of 9101 brucellae were reported from 68,238 human and animal samples investigated. The study revealed that only four Brucella species have been documented in Nigeria. These Brucella spp. are B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. suis, and B. canis. This study has also demonstrated that only two Brucella species were studied nationwide. B. abortus represents 2.4% national prevalence, and B. melitensis represents 12.6% national prevalence and has been reported so far in human Brucella infection, while 85% of the brucellae were un-typed. Of the two Brucella spp. detected in humans, two regions (NE and NW) reported B. abortus while SS reported B. melitensis (Table S1 and Table 1). In animals, of the 5197 positive cattle samples, 4197, representing 80.8%, were un-typed Brucella species. B. abortus is the most common Brucella biotype reported, representing 19.1% (995) of the total brucellae recorded, while 29 of the brucellae, representing 0.6%, were observed as B. melitensis. Others include camel, where 508/514, representing 98.8%, were un-typed Brucella spp., while the remaining 1.2% were observed to be Brucella abortus. All the Brucella spp. detected in donkey (215/215) and chicken (47/47) were un-typed. The majority (79.2%) of the Brucella spp. detected in horses were un-typed, while 22 of the 106 positive samples representing 20.8% were B. abortus. Un-typed Brucella species is also common in goats (78.5%), sheep (70.9%), pigs (31.9%), and dogs (60.8%). The highest occurrence of B. abortus was observed in dogs, with a prevalence of 31.3%. Among goats, the occurrence of B. abortus was 10% (84), B. melitensis was 8.1% (68), and B. suis was 3.4%. In sheep, the occurrence of B. abortus was 9% (82), B. melitensis was 15.7% (143), and B. suis was 4.4% (40). The detection of B. abortus in pigs was 15.6% (43), while the detection of B. melitensis was 18.5% (51) and B. suis was 34.1% (94). However, dogs recorded a 31.3% (139) prevalence of B. abortus and a 7.9% (35) prevalence of B. canis (Figure 3).
There was diversity in the occurrence of Brucella biotype in the six regions of Nigeria. The majority of the brucellae detected across the six zones were un-typed. In the NC, un-typed Brucella spp. was 1.4% (1234), while the NE was 87.4% (887), the NW was 89% (3460), the SE was 43.2% (125), and the SW was 53.1% (621). The NC region also reported other Brucella spp., which included B. abortus 18.7% (243), B. melitensis 48.7% (175), and B. suis 41.5% (39). The NE region reported B. abortus 12.4% (110), and B. melitensis 2.5% (22). In the NW, B. abortus was 8% (314), and B. melitensis was 2.8% (111). In Southern Nigeria, SE recorded B. abortus at 29.6% (37) and B. canis at 27.2% (34). In SS, B. abortus represented 29.8% (45), while rates of B. melitensis of 33.6% (51) and of B. suis of 36.4% (55) were observed. The SW region recorded 46.8% (547) B. abortus and 0.1% B. canis from 1199 positive samples (Figure 4).

3.7. The Trend of Reported Human and Animal Brucella Infection in Nigeria (2001 to 2021)

As seen in this review, the trend of brucellosis in Nigeria revealed the earliest report of human Brucella infection within the year under review was 2001 in NE Nigeria [45] (Table 1 and Figure 5). There was a general decline in human brucellosis from 2001 to 2012. However, some level of fluctuation was observed in the trend of the disease between 2013 and 2020, with a decline in 2021. The peak of human Brucella infection in Nigeria was observed in 2016 from SE Nigeria [92] (Table 1 and Figure 5). The earliest report of brucellosis in animals was in 2003 in NW Nigeria. Generally, there were fluctuations in the trend of the disease. However, there was a remarkable increase in the trend of the disease in animals from 2008 to 2019 and a sharp decline by 2020. The peak of the disease in animals was observed in 2012.

4. Discussion

The economic burden in the livestock industry arising from brucellosis and its morbidity in humans has made this zoonotic disease a global public health challenge [111]. The main objective of this study was to systematically review the literature reporting brucellosis and perform a meta-analysis to estimate the national prevalence of brucellosis in Nigeria. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first exhaustive systemic review on human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria. Of the 99 publications accessed, 14 publications reported Brucella infection in humans from 11 states of the 36 states in Nigeria, including the federal capital territory. The remaining 25 states either do not have reports because of the lack of interest in brucellosis, or the reported cases do not meet the inclusion criteria of this review. Most of the studies on human brucellosis were from high-risk occupational groups, especially abattoir workers. The national prevalence of human brucellosis in Nigeria for all methods revealed in this review was 17.6%. However, based on the Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT), as reported by about 80% of the publications accessed for human brucellosis, the seroprevalence of the disease in Nigeria was 15.7% (493/3144). This is similar to the 15.8% recorded in Cameroon [112], but lower when compared to the sub-national study in other sub-Saharan African countries, such as the 44% prevalence recorded in Kenya [113], 31.5% prevalence in Ethiopia [114] and 17% in Uganda [115]. Similarly, the prevalence of human brucellosis is also higher in northern African countries such as Egypt, with a prevalence of 23.9% [116]. The prevalence is higher in Nigeria compared to the prevalence of 1.41% reported in Tanzania [117] and the 3.0% national prevalence in Kenya [118]. The high prevalence of human brucellosis from this review has demonstrated the fact that brucellosis is endemic with a high burden in Nigeria and requires the attention of policymakers and stakeholders in the health sector. The high burden of human brucellosis in Nigeria, as seen in this study, can be attributed to several factors, which include nomadic pastoralists who run open grazing, abattoir workers, especially those slaughtering animals who are in constant contact with animal blood without personal protective equipment (PPE) (Figure 6), and the love of Nigerians for the consumption of animals’ intestinal parts, which are the most likely source of zoonotic transmission of the disease in Nigeria. Unfortunately, the animals that are ready for slaughter in Nigeria’s abattoirs are sometimes not screened for brucellosis. The spectrum of clinical presentation of human brucellosis, which mimics several other febrile illnesses such as rheumatic fever, typhoid, and malaria, has resulted in several misdiagnoses of this disease since malaria and typhoid fever are also endemic in Nigeria. Additionally, brucellosis is not routinely screened in private and public health care facilities, which obscures the detection and true prevalence of the disease.
Although the prevalence of the brucellosis reported in this review was based on serological investigation, no publication reported human brucellosis based on culture and molecular methods. Nevertheless, the overall prevalence of brucellosis was higher at 15.6% (7178/46,022) in Northern Nigeria than in the Southern part at 8.7% (1902/21,740). The differences in the prevalence rate may be due to the number of research articles reporting brucellosis in Northern Nigeria being higher when compared to the reportage in the Southern part of Nigeria. Moreover, easy access to and frequency of contact of abattoir workers with animals, e.g., cattle, donkeys, horses, goats, and sheep and animal products, as well as consumption of raw and untreated fermented animal products, especially milk (nono), a habit that is very common in northern Nigeria, contribute to the prevalence rates. Furthermore, the uncontrolled movement of nomadic Fulani (herdsmen) from northern Nigeria has contributed significantly to the spread of the disease to other parts of the country, a fact that has long been documented by other authors [119,120].
The burden of brucellosis in animals, as observed in this review, was highest in pigs, at 28.3%, compared to in other animals such as sheep, at 23.3% and camels, at 20.9%. The lowest prevalence was among chickens, with an 8.4% prevalence recorded. The higher prevalence of the disease in pigs could be attributed to multiple Brucella spp. detected from the samples investigated in the SS as reported by Bello-Onaghise et al. [95] based on the culture method. From 30 blood samples, 81 Brucella isolates were documented (24 B. abortus, 27 B. melitensis, and 30 B. suis), as well as 68 isolates (19 B. abortus, 24 B. melitensis, and 25 B. suis) from 25 vaginal swabs, giving an overall prevalence of 100% (55/55) as reported in that study. Although the report of co-infection among different Brucella species is very rare in literature, only Bello-Onaghise et al. [95] have been able to document this in Nigeria to the best of our knowledge. In this review, the occurrence of brucellosis in animals varied from region to region and animal to animal. Interestingly, despite the higher occurrence of the disease in Northern Nigeria, the SS geopolitical zone of Nigeria reported the highest prevalence of brucellosis at 48.6% (206/424) in animals from four publications. The lowest occurrence was observed in the SE, with a prevalence of 3.9%, while the SW was 7%. Other studies included the NC at 16.6%, the NE at 18%, and the NW at 14.2%. This study also showed evidence of geographical variations in the prevalence of brucellosis not only in the sources of samples but also in the types of samples evaluated. Investigation of brucellosis from different samples across the country revealed the prevalence of the disease estimated to range from 5% in the aborted foetus to 50% in hygroma fluid. Bloodstream infection with brucellosis was estimated at 13.5%, and its prevalence in milk was estimated at 10.2%. The prevalence of brucellosis from vaginal swabs obtained from different animals was 12.4%, while a prevalence of 29.4% was observed in the lymph node of cattle from NW Nigeria. Thus far, only 7 out of the 104 publications reported culture detection methods [15,21,33,36,42,95,97], while a single publication reported molecular methods [78]. The Rose Bengal rapid test is the most popular diagnostic method reported by 11/14 publications on the detection of human brucellosis, while 95/107 publications reported RBPT as the detection method in animal samples. Several publications also reported other diagnostic methods across the country. Although in this review, it was observed that several publications reported funding from donors, grants, and/or direct receipt of diagnostic kits from some laboratories for their studies, unfortunately, we were unable to determine if the donors or the providers of those kits have any influence on the outcomes of their studies.
Four different Brucella species were recorded from the systemic review of the literature, including B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. suis, and B. canis. However, B. abortus biovar 1 has been documented as the most frequently encountered brucellosis in cattle globally [121,122] , while biovar 3 has been reported to be a common biovar in Côte d’Ivoire [123] and Nigeria [33]. B. melitensis was mostly reported in humans, and B. abortus with biovars 1 and 3 was frequently detected in animals from Nigeria [33,36]. B. melitensis was mostly encountered in sheep, goats, and pigs, with few reports in cattle. This agreed with a study conducted in China by Liu et al. [124] in which B. melitensis infection was common in sheep and goats. Meanwhile, B. suis was observed only in sheep, goats, and pigs. This study also revealed the detection of B. canis only in dogs in Nigeria. In Nigeria, a similar distribution pattern of the biodiversity of brucellosis in the different regions occurred. From the Northern to the Southern region, B. abortus is the most encountered species in animals, followed by B. melitensis. Only the NC and the SS reported B. suis, while 99% of the B canis detected in dogs were observed in the SE, with only 1% from SW Nigeria. Brucellosis in Nigeria, as seen in this study, is spread across the country and has been responsible for reproductive disease in animals associated with abortion, stillbirth, death of young animals, placenta previa, the birth of immature calves, delayed calving, male infertility, and heavy reductions in milk output.
Most phenotypic detection methods of Brucella consist of bacteriological isolation and biochemical identification, which solely relies on a combination of some investigating parameters to characterize suspicious colonies [125]. Unfortunately, this typing method often fails to correctly differentiate some strains, which was seen in the case of the strains reported in Plateau State by Bertu et al. [33]. Thus, there is a need for other combined identification methods, such as the use of molecular tools to characterize Brucella species with good discriminatory capacity and the potential to evaluate relationships between species, such as the multiple-locus variable of tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) [126,127]. Future studies on brucellosis should also focus more on the proper use and interpretation of diagnostic testing for animals as recommended by the WHO, FAO, and OIE [1,128,129]. There was stability in the trend of human brucellosis from 2001 to 2012. The trend began to fluctuate from 2013 to 2020, with a decline in 2021. The observed decline in human Brucella infection may be connected to the improved abattoir environment in some states in Nigeria when compared to previous years. The peak of human Brucella infection in Nigeria was observed in 2016 from SE Nigeria [91] (Table 1 and Figure 5). There was a fluctuation in the trend of the disease in animals from 2003 to 2021, with a remarkable increase in the trend of the disease from 2008 to 2019 and a sharp decline by 2020. The peak of the disease in animals was observed in 2012, though there was no report on the outbreak of the disease in Nigeria in 2012. Furthermore, the number of articles reporting Brucella infection in 2012 was also lower than in some of the years under review, while the number of animals screened for brucellosis in 2012 was also lower than the number of samples screened for some years under review. Hence, the increase cannot be attributed to sampling size. Despite the problem of antibiotic resistance being on the rise in brucellae [8], unfortunately, there was no single report on antimicrobial susceptibility testing on the Brucella species isolated from both humans and animals, thus making it difficult to determine the pattern of resistance of Brucella spp. in Nigeria. The use of quality molecular tools in detecting Brucella infection in Nigeria is also lacking and has contributed to many reported un-typed Brucella species. There is a need to focus more on culture and molecular methods to determine the epidemiological link between Brucella species and its biodiversity from humans and animals, to know the prevailing biovars, and for prompt interventions. The findings from this systemic review would serve as baseline information on the national prevalence of Brucella infection in Nigeria. The generated data would help estimate the true burden of Brucella infections in Nigeria. As it is today, national data on human and animal Brucella infection are lacking in both State and Federal Ministries.

5. Limitations

Our inability to determine the prevalence of the disease based on certain variables such as age, sex, cattle herds, breeds of animals, and mortality rate both in humans and animals are part of the limitations of this review. The use of serological methods, as seen in this review, is of national importance because of their usefulness in detecting antibodies against Brucella species. However, the results are only reliable when the diagnostic methods and procedures are properly conducted and the outcomes are well interpreted. Interestingly, serological methods have several shortcomings, including the antiseraÁs ability to cross-react with other bacterial pathogens such as Escherichia coli 0157, Salmonella Urbana group N, Francisella tularensis, and Yersinia enterocolitica 0:9 [130].

6. Conclusions

This systemic review revealed a national prevalence of 19.2% of human Brucella infection and 13.1% prevalence of Brucella infection in common domestic animals, respectively, from 2001 to 2021. This study also indicated that only 27 states, including the FCT, reported brucellosis in Nigeria across the six geopolitical zones. Our study also revealed the highest occurrence of brucellosis is in Northern Nigeria. Four Brucella species, B. abortus, B. melitensis, B. suis, and B. canis, have been reported in Nigeria. Culture and molecular methods of detection of brucellosis and reports of antimicrobial susceptibility testing remain a conjecture. This review will help researchers redirect their research focus and serve as a guide for policymakers on measures for managing brucellosis in Nigeria and other sub-Saharan countries.
The need for improved sanitary conditions of the abattoirs, the use of personal protective equipment by animal handlers, vaccination of animals against bovine brucellosis, and ranching of animals to curb the spread of the disease should be paramount to all the stakeholders.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vetsci9080384/s1, Table S1: Published report on human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria (2001–2021) arranged according to zone, state, authors, year of study, type of samples, number of samples, number of positive samples, the methods used and identified Brucella spp.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi); methodology, C.O.F. K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi) and K.O.A. (Kehinde O. Amisu); software, C.O.F.; validation, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi), C.O.F. and G.W.; formal analysis, C.O.F.; investigation, C.O.F.; resources, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi), C.O.F. and G.W.; data curation, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi) and C.O.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.O.F.; writing review and editing, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi) and G.W.; visualization, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi), G.W., K.O.A. (Kehinde O. Amisu) and C.O.F.; supervision, K.O.A. (Kabiru O. Akinyemi); co-supervision, K.O.A. (Kehinde O. Amisu); project administration, Lagos State University funding acquisition, None. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Corbel, M.J. Brucellosis in Humans and Animals; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ducrotoya, M.; Bertub, W.J.; Matopec, G.; Cadmusd, S.; Conde-Álvareze, R.; Gusib, A.M.; Welburna, S.; Ocholib, R.; Blascof, J.M.; Moriyón, I. Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges for management, diagnosis and control. Acta Tropica. 2017, 165, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bennett, N.J.; Bronze, M.S. Brucellosis. Available online: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/213430-print (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  4. World Health Organization. Home/Newsroom/Fact sheets/Detail/Brucellosis; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rossetti, C.A.; Arenas-Gamboa, A.M.; Maurizio, E. Caprine brucellosis: A historically neglected disease with significant impact on public health. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bosilkovski, M.; Keramat, F.; Arapovic, J. The current therapeutic strategies in human brucellosis. Infection 2021, 49, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cadmus, S.I.; Akporube, K.A.; Ola-Daniel, F.; Adelakun, O.D.; Akinseye, V.O. Seroprevalence and associated factors of brucellosis and Q-fever in cattle from Ibarapa area, Oyo state, south-western Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2020, 36, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wareth, G.; Dadar, M.; Ali, H.; Hamdy, M.E.R.; Al-Talhy, A.M.; Elkharsawi, A.R.; El Tawab, A.A.A.; Neubauer, H. The perspective of antibiotic therapeutic challenges of brucellosis in the Middle East and North African countries: Current situation and therapeutic management. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2022, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. El-Diasty, M.; El-Said, R.; Abdelkhalek, A. Seroprevalence and molecular diagnosis of sheep brucellosis in Dakahlia governorate, Egypt. Ger. J. Vet. Res. 2021, 1, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McDermott, J.J.; Arimi, S. Brucellosis in sub-Saharan Africa: Epidemiology, control and impact. Vet. Microbiol. 2002, 90, 111–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; ST/ESA/SER.A/423; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. Adamu, N.N.; Ajogi, I. Serological investigations of camels (Camelus dromedarius) slaughtered at Kano municipal abattoir for evidence of brucellosis. Trop. Vet. 1999, 18, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ducrotoy, M.J.; Bertu, W.J.; Ocholi, R.A.; Gusi, A.M.; Bryssinckx, W.; Welburn, S.; Moriyón, I. Brucellosis as an Emerging Threat in Developing Economies: Lessons from Nigeria. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Aworh, M.K.; Okolocha, E.C.; Awosanya, E.J.; Fasina, F.O. Sero-prevalence and intrinsic factors associated with Brucella infection in food animals slaughtered at abattoirs in Abuja, Nigeria. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ogugua, A.; Akinseye, V.; Ayoola, M.; Oyesola, O.; Shima, F.; Tijjani, A.; Musa, A.N.A.; Adesokan, H.; Perrett, L.; Taylor, A.; et al. Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in goats in selected states in Nigeria and the public health implications. Afr. J. Med. Med Sci. 2014, 43 (Suppl. 1), 121–129. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Ehizibolo, D.O.; Gusi, A.M.; Ehizibolo, P.O.; Mbuk, E.U.; Ocholi, R.A. Serologic Prevalence of Brucellosis in Horse Stables in Two Northern States of Nigeria. J. Equine Sci. 2011, 22, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Alhaji, N.B.; Wungak, Y.S.; Bertu, W.J. Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in Fulani nomadic cattle breeds (Bos indicus) of North-central Nigeria: Potential risk factors and zoonotic implications. Acta Trop. 2016, 153, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bertu, W.J.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J.O.O.; Kwaga, J.K.P.; Ocholi, R.A. Sero-epidemiology of brucellosis in small ruminants in Plateau State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2010, 4, 1935–1938. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bamidele, F.; Gidado, S.; Edukugho, A.; Cadmus, S. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in abattoir workers and slaughtered cattle in Ilorin metropolis Kwara State Nigeria. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 101, 532–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baba, A.Y.; Ameen, S.A.; Ambali, H.M.; Adah, A.D.; Abdulmajeed, I.; Furo, N.A.; Kadir, R.A.; Olajide, E.O. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in horses in Ilorin metropolis, Kwara State, Nigeria. J. Vet. Biomed. Sci. 2019, 2, 210–217. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bertu, W.; Ocholi, R.; Gusi, A.; Ngulukun, S.; Ducrotoy, M.; Moriyon, I. Isolation of brucella strains in cattle from sedentary and nomadic communities and its public health implication. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 101, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ndumari, W.; Se-ember, A.D.; Oluwatosin, A.; Terzugwe, T. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Nigerian Breed of Dog in North Bank Area of Makurdi, Benue State Nigeria. Int. J. Intern. Med. Geriatr. 2020, 2, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bertu, W.J.; Dapar, M.; Gusi, A.M.; Ngulukun, S.S.; Leo, S.; Jw, L.D. Prevalence of Brucella antibodies in marketed milk in Jos and environs. Afr. J. Food. Sci. 2010, 4, 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wungak, Y.S.; Aworh, M.K.F.; Maurice, N.; Balami, A.G.; Danmarwa, A.; Danthe, H.D. Serological survey of antibodies against Brucella abortus in cattle in Jos south local government area. Vom. J. Vet. Sci. 2011, 8, 39–43. [Google Scholar]
  25. Momoh, H.A.; Ijale, G.O.; Ajogi, I.; Okolocha, E.C. Risk factors and level of awareness of canine brucellosis in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2015, 7, 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  26. Agada, C.A.; Goden, C.P.; Ogugua, J.O. Prevalence of bovine brucellosis and analysis of risk factors in resident cattle herds of Kanke Local Government Area, Plateau State, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2017, 38, 104–116. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dawang, N.D.; Danahap, L.S.; Nash, K.N.; Oluseye, E.; Kalejaye, O. Occurrence of Brucella spp. in slaughtered sheep and goats in Jos main abattoir, Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Nat. Sci. AJNS 2016, 17, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  28. Alhaji, N.B.; Wungak, Y. Epizootiological survey of bovine brucellosis in nomadic pastoral camps in Niger state, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2013, 34, 795–800. [Google Scholar]
  29. Agada, C.; Ogugua, A.; Anzaku, E. Occurrence of brucellosis in small ruminants slaughtered in Lafia central abattoir, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2018, 16, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Aworh, M.; Okolocha, E.; Kwaga, J.; Fasina, F.; Lazarus, D.; Suleman, I.; Poggensee, G.; Nguku, P.; Nsubuga, P. Human brucellosis: Seroprevalence and associated exposure factors among abattoir workers in Abuja, Nigeria—2011. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2013, 16, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Agada, C.; Mohammed, J.; Okoh, A.E.J.; Ogugua, J.A. Prevalence and risk factors associated with brucellosis among high-risk individuals in Lafia, Nasarawa state, Nigeria. Int. J. One Health 2018, 4, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ngbede, E.O.; Momoh, A.H.; Bala, R.S.; Madaki, B.D.; Maurice, N.A. An abattoir-based study on sero-diagnosis of swine brucellosis in Makurdi, Benue State, North-Central Nigeria. J. Adv. Vet. Res. 2013, 3, 57–59. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bertu, W.J.; Ocholi, R.A.; Gusi, A.M.; Abdullahi, S.; Zwandor, N.J.; Durbi, I.A.A.; Opara, J.; Okewole, P.A. Brucella abortus infection in a multispecies livestock farm in Nigeria. Int. J. Biotec. Food Sci. 2015, 3, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ior, D.D.; Chukwu, C.C. Prevalence of Brucella antibodies in marketed cow milk in Benue State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2015, 9, 1752–1757. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cadmus, S.; Adesokan, H.; Oluwayelu, D.; Idris, A.; Stack, J. Short Communication: Brucella Abortus Antibodies in The Sera of Indigenous and Exotic Avian Species In Nigeria. Bull. Anim. Health Prod. Afr. 2011, 58, 382–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ocholi, R.; Kwaga, J.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J. Phenotypic characterization of Brucella strains isolated from livestock in Nigeria. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 103, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gusi, A.M.; Bertu, W.J.; De Miguel, M.J.; Dieste-Pérez, L.; Smits, H.L.; Ocholi, R.A.; Blasco, J.M.; Moriyon, I.; Muñoz, P.M. Comparative performance of lateral flow immunochromatography, iELISA and Rose Bengal tests for the diagnosis of cattle, sheep, goat and swine brucellosis. PLOS Neglected Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tijjani, A.O.; Junaidu, A.U.; Salihu, M.D.; Farouq, A.A.; Faleke, O.O.; Adamu, S.G.; Musa, H.I.; Hambali, I.U. Serological survey for Brucella antibodies in donkeys of north-eastern Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 1211–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Adamu, S.G.; Hassan, M.; Ardo, M.B. Seroprevalence of Brucella antibodies in Donkeys (Equus asinus) in Yobe south senatorial zone, Northeastern Nigeria. J. Equine Sci. 2020, 31, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Mai, H.M.; Irons, P.C.; Kabir, J.; Thompson, P.N. A large seroprevalence survey of brucellosis in cattle herds under diverse production systems in northern Nigeria. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Adamu, N.B.; Adamu, S.G.; Jajere, M.S.; Atsanda, N.N.; Mustapha, F.B.; Mama, M. Serological survey of brucellosis in slaughtered local chicken, guinea fowl, duck and turkey in North eastern Nigeria. Inter. J. Poultry Sci. 2014, 13, 340–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Ocholi, R.A.; Kwaga, J.K.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J.O. Abortion due to Brucella abortus in sheep in Nigeria. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2005, 24, 973–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Olufemi, O.T.; Dantala, D.B.; Shinggu, P.; Dike, U.A.; Otolorin, G.R.; Nwuku, J.A.; Baba-Onoja, E.B.T.; Jatau, T.D.; Amama, F.I. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis and Associated Risk Factors among Indigenous Breeds of Goats in Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria. J. Pathog. 2008, 1, 5257926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Jajere, S.M.; Atsanda, N.N.; Bitrus, A.A.; Hamisu, T.M.; Ayo, A.O. Seroprevalence of brucellosis among cattle slaughtered in three municipal abattoirs of Gombe state, Northeastern Nigeria. Vet. World 2016, 9, 1082–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Baba, M.M.; Sarkindared, S.E.; Brisibe, F. Serological evidence of brucellosis among predisposed patients with pyrexia of unknown origin in the north eastern Nigeria. Central Eur. J. Public Health 2001, 9, 158–161. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ardo, M.B.; Abubakar, D.M. Seroprevalence of horse (Equus caballus) brucellosis on the Mambilla plateau of Taraba State, Nigeria. J. Equine Sci. 2016, 27, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Sadiq, M.A.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J.O.O.; Mosimabale, F.B.; Tijjani, A.N.; Auwal, M.S.; Mustapha, A.R.; Kudi, A.C. Epidemiological investigation of brucellosis in one humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Lake Chad area of Borno state, Nigeria. J. Camel Pract. Res. 2010, 17, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mai, H.M.; Irons, P.C.; Thompson, P.N. Brucellosis, genital campylobacteriosis and other factors affecting calving rate of cattle in three states of Northern Nigeria. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 20, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Ibrahim, Y.; Mai, H.M.; Kalla, D.J.U.; Kabir, J.; Nathaniel, J. Seroprevalence and potential risk factors of bovine brucellosis at the livestock-wildlife interface area of Yankari game reserve, Bauchi State, Nigeria. Niger. J. Anim. Prod. 2019, 46, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Atsanda, N.; Liba, J.; Francis, M.; Malgwi, H. Serological survey of brucellosis among internally displaced persons in Maiduguri, North eastern Nigeria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2018, 16, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sadiq, M.A.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J.O.O.; Mosimabale, F.B.; Tijjani, A.N.; Kaikabo, A.A. Serological survey of antibodies against Brucella organism in one-humped camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Lake Chad area of Borno state, North-eastern Nigeria. Nig. Vet. J. 2011, 32, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Audu, Y.; Maikai, B.V.; Okolocha, E.C. Survey for Brucella antibodies in dogs in Billiri local government area of Gombe State, Nigeria. Sci. Res. J. 2018, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Adamu, S.G.; Atsanda, N.N.; Tijjani, A.O.; Usur, A.M.; Sule, A.G.; Gulani, I.A. Epidemiological study of bovine brucellosis in three senatorial zones of Bauchi State, Nigeria. Vet. World 2016, 9, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Adamu, S.; Tijjani, A.; Adamu, N.; Atsanda, N.; Ali, S.; Gashua, M.; Simon, C. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in one-humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) herds in Yobe State, Nigeria. Int. J. Livest. Res. 2014, 4, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sadiq, M.A.; Tijjani, A.-N.; Auwal, M.S.; Mustapha, A.R.; Gulani, I. Serological Prevalence of Brucellosis among Donkeys (Equus asinus) in Some Local Government Areas of Yobe State, Nigeria. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adamu, N.B.; Adeniyi, S.O.; Adamu, S.G.; Bale, J.O.O.; Okoh, A.E.J.; Umaru, G.A.; Umar, Y.A. Seroprevalence of brucellosis among livestock workers at Maiduguri cattle market, Borno State, North-Eastern, Nigeria. J. Public Health Epidemiol. 2015, 7, 253–257. [Google Scholar]
  57. Igawe, P.B.; Okolocha, E.; Kia, G.S.; Irmiya, I.B.; Balogun, M.S.; Nguku, P.; Bugun, I.I. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated exposure factors among in Bauchi state, Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2020, 35, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gusi, A.M.; Ocholi, R.A.; Bertu, W.J.; Moses, H.; Ibrahim, L.; Mwankon, E.; Wungak, Y.; Woma, T.Y.; Wularamu, H.G.; Madu, G.A.; et al. Sero-prevalence of camel brucellosis in three abbatoirs of Nothern Nigeria. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2016, 8, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Adamu, M.; Mshelia, G.D.; Adamu, N.; Ouda, L.; Egwu, G.O. Studies on farmer awareness on caprine abortion and the presence of Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis in selected flocks in an arid zone of Nigeria. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2012, 4, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  60. Junaidu, A.U.; Oboegbulem, S.I.; Salihu, M.D. Serological survey of Brucella antibodies in breeding herds. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Res. 2011, 11, 60–65. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nathaniel, J.; Kalla, D.J.U.; Mai, H.M.; Ibrahim, Y.; Mujitaba, M.A.; Amaduruonye, W.; Akinsola, K.L.; Obasi, E.N.; Suleiman, Y. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in donkeys (Equus asinus) and assessment of donkey management practices in Gamawa local government area, Bauchi state, Nigeria. Niger. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 21, 134–144. [Google Scholar]
  62. Akinseye, V.O.; Adesokan, H.K.; Ogugua, A.J.; Adedoyin, F.J.; Otu, P.I.; Kwaghe, A.V.; Kolawole, N.O.; Okoro, O.J.; Agada, C.; Tade, A.O.; et al. Sero-epidemiological survey and risk factors associated with bovine brucellosis among slaughtered cattle in Nigeria. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2016, 83, 1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Salisu, U.; Kudi, C.; Bale, J.; Babashani, M.; Kaltungo, B.; Saidu, S.; Asambe, A.; Baba, A. Seroprevalence of Brucella antibodies in camels in Katsina State, Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 1041–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adamu, S.G.; Kabir, J.; Umoh, J.U.; Raji, M.A. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and Q fever (Coxiellosis) in cattle herds in Maigana and Birnin Gwari agro-ecological zone of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 1583–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kaltungo, B.Y.; Saidu, S.N.A.; Sackey, A.K.B.; Kazeem, H.M. Serological Evidence of Brucellosis in Goats in Kaduna North Senatorial District of Kaduna State, Nigeria. ISRN Vet. Sci. 2013, 2013, 963673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Obiako, O.R.; Ogoina, D.; Danbauchi, S.S.; Kwaifa, S.I.; Chom, N.D.; Nwokorie, E. Neurobrucellosis—a case report and review of literature. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2010, 13, 347–350. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Mohammed, F.U.; Ibrahim, S.; Ajogi, I.; Olaniyi, B.J.O. Prevalence of Bovine Brucellosis and Risk Factors Assessment in Cattle Herds in Jigawa State. ISRN Vet. Sci. 2011, 27, 132897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Junaidu, A.U.; Salihu, M.D.; Gulumbe, M.L. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in sheep in Sokoto city abattoir. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 9, 2696–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Buhari, H.U.; Sn, A.S.; Mohammed, G.; Raji, M.A. Serological evaluation of bovine brucellosis in the North Senatorial District of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2016, 5, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  70. Onoja, I.I.; Mshelia, W.P.; Andrew, A.; Usman, B.; Sambo, K.W. A Case of Brucellosis in a One and Half-year-old Uda Sheep in Zaria. Sahel J. Vet. Sci. 2012, 11, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  71. Junaidu, A.U.; Garba, B. Seroprevalence of Brucella antibodies in horses in Sokoto metropolis, Nigeria. J. Anim. Sci. Vet. Med. 2019, 4, 173–177. [Google Scholar]
  72. Adesiyun, A.G.; Folagbade, O.B.; Olayinka, A.T.; Randawa, A.; Bawa, U. Seroprevalence of brucellosis among women with miscarriage at Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital, Zaria. Trop. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2017, 34, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shu’Aibu, G.; Kabir, J.; Umoh, J.; Raji, M.; Tijjani, A.; Umaru, G. Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in sheep in Maigana and Birnin Gwari agro-ecological zones of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2018, 39, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mohammed, F.; Ibrahim, S.; Musa, G.; Kaltungo, B.; Danbirni, S.; Kwaga, J. Brucella infection in migratory cattle herds in Jigawa State Nigeria: A cross sectional study. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2020, 14, 191–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Onoja, I.I.; Ajani, A.J.; Mshelia, W.P.; Andrew, A.; Ogunkoya, A.B.; Achi, C.R.; Sambo, K.W. Brucellosis outbreak in a flock of seventeen sheep in Zaria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2008, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
  76. Cadmus, S.; Salam, S.P.; Adesokan, H.K.; Akporube, K.; Ola-Daniel, F.; Awosanya, E.J. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and Q fever infections amongst pastoralists and their cattle herds in Sokoto State, Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kaltungo, B.; Saidu, S.; Kudi, C.; Isma’Il, M.; Jacob, R.; Salisu, U.; Baba, Y.; Buhari, H. Geo-spatial distribution of Brucella melitensis infection in selected local government areas of Katsina and Sokoto States, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2019, 40, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Yusuf, Y.; Abdulrasheed, A. Survey on Bovine Brucellosis in Sokoto Metropolitan Abattoir, Nigeria. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2019, 18, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Junaidu, A.U.; Garba, H.S. Application of competitive ELISA (cELISA) Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT) and serum agglutination test (SAT) for detection of antibodies to Brucella infection in slaughter cattle in Sokoto, Nigeria. Sahel J. Vet. Sci. 2006, 5, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  80. Buhari, H.; Saidu, S.; Kudi, C.; Okolocha, E.; Kaltungo, B. Seroprevalence of Brucella infection in small ruminants from two institutional farms and a slaughter slab in Zaria, Nigeria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2020, 18, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dogo, R.; Maikai, B.V.; Musa, J.A.; Tizhe, J.Q. Brucella Prevalence in Goats and Farmers’ Awareness and Practices towards Brucella Infection in Giwa Area of Kaduna State Nigeria. Br. Microbiol. Res. J. 2016, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zubairu, A.; Ardo, M.; Mai, H. Seroprevalence of ruminant brucellosis in three selected local government areas of Taraba state. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2014, 12, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Farouk, U.M.; Bale, J.O.O.; Kwaga, J.K.P.; Abdullahi, U.S.; Ibrahim, S.; Madobi, I.S. Preliminary study on brucellosis in cattle in Jigawa state Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Congress of the Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association, Kaduna State, Nigeria, 7 November 2017; Nigerian Veterinary Association: Kano, Nigeria, 2017; pp. 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lawal, N.; Egwu, G.O.; Tambuwal, F.M.; Junaidu, A.U.; Abubakar, M.B.; Magaji, A.A.; Rabi’u, M.A.; Saulawa, M.A.; Mamuda, A.; Jibrin, M.S.; et al. Prevalence of Brucella abortus antibodies in bovine serum from gusau modern abattoir, Zamfara state, Nigeria. Sci. J. Microbiol. 2012, 1, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  85. Kaltungo, B.Y.; Saidu, S.N.A.; Sackey, A.K.B.; Kazeem, H.M. Sero-prevalence of brucellosis in sheep in North Senatorial District of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis. 2015, 5, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bale, J.O.O.; Nuru, S.; Addo, P.B.; Adeyinka, I.A. Bacteriological investigation of sheep and goats milk for brucellosis in government farms in Northern Nigeria. Niger. J. Anim. Prod. 2013, 30, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mbuk, E.U.; Ajogi, I.; Bale, J.; Umoh, J.U. Prevalence of Brucella Antibodies in Migratory Fulani Cattle Herds in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2011, 32, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Osinubi, M.; Ajogi, I.; Ehizibol, O. Brucella abortus agglutinins in dogs in Zaria, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2004, 25, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Ekere, S.O.; Njoga, E.O.; Onunkwo, J.I.; Njoga, U.J. Brucella seropositivity in slaughter food animals and role of slaughterhouse workers in spread of Brucella infection in Southeast Nigeria. Vet. World 2018, 11, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Anyaoha, C.O.; Majesty-Alukagberie, L.O.; Ugochukwu, I.C.I.; Nwanta, J.A.; Anene, B.M.; Oboegbulam, S.I. Seroprevalencia y factores de riesgo de la brucelosis en perros de los Estados Enugu y Anambra, Nigeria. Rev. Med. Vet. 2020, 1, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ogbodo, S.O.; Isiofia, O.P.; Uzodinma, B.A. Co-existence and seroprevalence of brucellosis in a malaria-endemic metropolis of south-eastern Nigeria. J. Exp. Res. 2016, 4, 2. [Google Scholar]
  92. Onunkwo, J.I.; Njoga, E.O.; Njoga, U.J.; Ezeokafor, E.; Ekere, S.O. Brucella seropositivity in chicken and risk factors for Brucella infection at the animal-human interface in Anambra State, Nigeria. Int. J. One Health 2018, 4, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Onunkwo, J.; Njoga, E.; Nwanta, J.; Shoyinka, S.; Onyenwe, I.; Eze, J. Serological Survey of Porcine Brucella Infection in SouthEast, Nigeria. Niger. Vet. J. 2011, 32, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Njoga, E.O.; Onunkwo, J.I.; Ekere, S.O.; Njoga, U.J.; Okoro, W.N. Seroepidemiology of Equine Brucellosis and Role of Horse Carcass Processors in Spread of Brucella Infection in Enugu State, Nigeria. Int. J. Curr. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bello-Onaghise, G.; Vaikosen, S.E.; Evivie, S.E. Abortion cases in pig farms in Benin city and some surrounding communities in Edo State, Nigeria. Niger. J. Agri. Food Env. 2012, 8, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  96. Owowo, E.E.; Antia, U.E.; Christopher, M.A.; Okon, I.E. Sero-Prevalence of Brucellosis among Nomadic Herdsmen, Abattoir and Livestock Workers in Niger-Delta Region, Nigeria. J. Biosci. Med. 2019, 7, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Maurice, N.A. Bacteriological and serological studies of bovine brucellosis in Obudu cattle ranch, Cross River State. Nigeria. Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 3, 484–488. [Google Scholar]
  98. Cadmus, S.I.B.; Adesokan, H.K.; Ajala, O.O.; Odetokun, W.O.; Perrett, L.L.; Stack, J.A. Seroprevalence of Brucella abortus and B. canis in household dogs in southwestern Nigeria: A preliminary report. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2011, 82, 56–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Ayoola, M.C.; Akinseye, V.O.; Cadmus, E.; Awosanya, E.; Popoola, O.A.; Akinyemi, O.O.; Perrett, L.; Taylor, A.; Stack, J.; Moriyon, I.; et al. Prevalence of bovine brucellosis in slaughtered cattle and barriers to better protection of abattoir workers in Ibadan, South-Western Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2017, 28, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Ukwueze, K.O.; Ishola, O.O.; Dairo, M.D.; Awosanya, E.J.; Cadmus, S.I. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated factors among livestock slaughtered in Oko-Oba abattoir, Lagos State, southwestern Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2020, 36, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Cadmus, S.I.; Alabi, P.I.; Adesokan, H.K.; Dale, E.J.; Stack, J.A. Serological investigation of bovine brucellosis in three cattle production systems in Yewa Division, south-western Nigeria. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2013, 84, E1–E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Ayinmode, A.; Akinseye, V.; Schares, G.; Cadmus, S. Serological survey of toxoplasmosis, neosporosis, and brucellosis among cattle herds in Oyo State, south-western Nigeria. Afr. J. Infect. Dis. 2017, 11, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Cadmus, S.; Adesokan, H.; Stack, J. The use of the milk ring test and rose bengal test in brucellosis control and eradication in Nigeria. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2008, 79, 113–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cadmus, S.I.; Adesokan, H.K.; Adedokun, B.O.; Stack, J.A. Seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in trade cattle slaughtered in Ibadan, Nigeria, from 2004–2006. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2010, 81, 50–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Adeyemi, A.K. Survey of Brucellosis among People at Risk in Lagos, Nigeria. Master’s Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  106. Cadmus, S.; Osikoya, I.; Adesokan, H. Brucellosis in trade cattle in Lagos state: An investigation of two Abattoirs. Niger. Vet. J. 2008, 29, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bwala, D.G.; McCrindle, C.; Fasina, F.O.; Ijagbone, I. Abattoir characteristics and seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in cattle slaughtered at Bodija Municipal Abattoir, Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2015, 7, 164–168. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ogugua, A.J.; Akinseye, V.O.; Cadmus, E.O.; Awosanya, E.A.J.; Alabi, P.I.; Idowu, O.S.; Akinade, S.A.; Dale, E.J.; Perrett, L.; Taylor, A.; et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with bovine brucellosis in herds under extensive production system in southwestern Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 1573–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Comfort, A.M.; Joseph, O.A.; Oluwatoyin, A.V.; Joshua, T.O.; Folusho, B.M.; Julianah, A.F.; Kehinde, A.H.; Olutayo, O.T.; Olusoji, A.J.; Ihuaku, O.P.; et al. Sero-epidemiological survey and risk factors associated with brucellosis in dogs in south-western Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2016, 23, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Cadmus, S.; Ijagbone, I.; Oputa, H.; Adesokan, H.; Stack, J. Serological survey of Brucellosis in livestock animals and workers in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr. J. Biomed. Res. 2009, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Dean, A.S.; Crump, L.; Greter, H.; Hattendorf, J.; Schelling, E.; Zinsstag, J. Clinical Manifestations of Human Brucellosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Laine, C.G.; Wade, A.; Scott, H.M.; Krecek, R.C.; Arenas-Gamboa, A.M. Scoping review of brucellosis in Cameroon: Where do we stand, and where are we going? PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Kahariri, S.M.; Kitala, P.M.; Muchemi, G.M.; Njenga, K.; Nanyingi, M. Sero-prevalence and risk factors for human brucellosis in Marsabit county, Kenya (2014). PAMJ One Health 2021, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mehari, S.; Zerfu, B.; Desta, K. Prevalence and risk factors of human brucellosis and malaria among patients with fever in malaria-endemic areas, attending health institutes in Awra and Gulina district, Afar Region, Ethiopia. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tumwine, G.; Matovu, E.; Kabasa, J.D.; Owiny, D.O.; Majalija, S. Human brucellosis: Sero-prevalence and associated risk factors in agro-pastoral communities of Kiboga District, Central Uganda. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Diab, M.S.; Zidan, S.A.A.; Hassan, N.A.A.; Elaadli, H.; Bayoumi, A.M. Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Brucellosis in Livestock and Residents of New Valley Governorate, Egypt. World’s Vet. J. 2020, 10, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sagamiko, F.D.; Mfune, R.L.; Hang’Ombe, B.M.; Karimuribo, E.D.; Mwanza, A.M.; Sindato, C.; Muma, J.B. Seroprevalence of human Brucellosis and associated risk factors among high-risk occupations in Mbeya Region of Tanzania. J. Epidemiol. Res. 2020, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Njeru, J.; Wareth, G.; Melzer, F.; Henning, K.; Pletz, M.W.; Heller, R.; Neubauer, H. Systematic review of brucellosis in Kenya: Disease frequency in humans and animals and risk factors for human infection. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Bale, J.O.; Kumi-Diaka, J. Serological and bacteriological study of bovine Brucellae from livestock investigation and breeding centers in Nigeria. Br. Vet. J. 1981, 37, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gameel, S.E.A.M.; Mohamed, S.O.; Mustafa, A.A.; Azwai, S.M. Prevalence of camel brucellosis in Libya. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 1993, 25, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lucero, N.E.; Ayala, S.M.; Escobar, G.I.; Jacob, N.R. Brucella isolated in humans and animals in Latin America from 1968 to 2006. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008, 136, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Minharro, S.; Mol, J.P.S.; Dorneles, E.M.S.; Pauletti, R.B.; Neubauer, H.; Melzer, F.; Poester, F.P.; Dasso, M.G.; Pinheiro, E.S.; Filho, P.M.S.; et al. Biotyping and Genotyping (MLVA16) of Brucella abortus Isolated from Cattle in Brazil, 1977 to 2008. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e81152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Sanogo, M.; Thys, E.; Achi, Y.L.; Fretin, D.; Michel, P.; Abatih, E.; Berkvens, D.; Saegerman, C. Bayesian estimation of the true prevalence, sensitivity and specificity of the Rose Bengal and indirect ELISA tests in the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet. J. 2013, 195, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Liu, F.; Li, J.-M.; Zeng, F.-L.; Zong, Y.; Leng, X.; Shi, K.; Diao, N.-C.; Li, D.; Li, B.-Y.; Zhao, Q.; et al. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Brucellosis, Chlamydiosis, and Bluetongue Among Sika Deer in Jilin Province in China. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2018, 18, 226–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Alton, G.G.; Jones, L.M.; Angus, R.D.; Verger, J.M. Techniques for the Brucellosis Laboratory; INRA: Paris, France, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  126. Bricker, B.J.; Ewalt, D.R.; Halling, S.M. Brucella ‘HOOF-Prints’: Strain typing by multi-locus analysis of variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs). BMC Microbiol. 2003, 3, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Le Flèche, P.; Jacques, I.; Grayon, M.; Al Dahouk, S.; Bouchon, P.; Denoeud, F.; Nöckler, K.; Neubauer, H.; Guilloteau, L.A.; Vergnaud, G. Evaluation and selection of tandem repeat loci for a Brucella MLVA typing assay. BMC Microbiol. 2006, 6, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Robinson, R. Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases. In Guidelines for Coordinated Human and Animal Brucellosis Surveillance; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  129. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Bovine Brucellosis. In Manual of Diagnostic Test and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals; OIE: Paris, France, 2009; Chapter 2.4.3.; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  130. Khan, M.Z.; Zahoor, M. An Overview of Brucellosis in Cattle and Humans, and its Serological and Molecular Diagnosis in Control Strategies. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2018, 3, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Vetsci 09 00384 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of systemic review of human and animal brucellosis for selection of eligible articles.
Figure 1. Flowchart of systemic review of human and animal brucellosis for selection of eligible articles.
Vetsci 09 00384 g001
Vetsci 09 00384 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagnostic methods used in the detection of human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria.
Figure 2. Diagnostic methods used in the detection of human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria.
Vetsci 09 00384 g002
Vetsci 09 00384 g003 550
Figure 3. Reported Brucella serotypes from different domestic animals studied in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Figure 3. Reported Brucella serotypes from different domestic animals studied in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Vetsci 09 00384 g003
Vetsci 09 00384 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of prevailing Brucella serotypes from domestic animals reported from the six regions of Nigeria (2001–2021).
Figure 4. Distribution of prevailing Brucella serotypes from domestic animals reported from the six regions of Nigeria (2001–2021).
Vetsci 09 00384 g004
Vetsci 09 00384 g005 550
Figure 5. Trend of human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria from 2001 to 2021.
Figure 5. Trend of human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria from 2001 to 2021.
Vetsci 09 00384 g005
Vetsci 09 00384 g006 550
Figure 6. Typical abattoir in Nigeria showing butcher slaughtering animals without personal protective equipment.
Figure 6. Typical abattoir in Nigeria showing butcher slaughtering animals without personal protective equipment.
Vetsci 09 00384 g006
Table
Table 1. Seroprevalence of reported human brucellosis in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Table 1. Seroprevalence of reported human brucellosis in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Region State No of Samples TestedNo of Positive SampleSeroprevalence
% 		Detection MethodsBrucella TypeReference
RBPTSATcELISAiELISAIgMIgGIgG/IgM
ELISA		Brucella spp.Brucella abortusBrucella
melitensis
NCKwara 1894222.2%420000004200[19]
Abuja 2244017.9%40000221804000[30]
Nasarawa 1601610%160000001600[31]
Total5739817.1%98000221809800
NEBauchi 2859533.3%9500061809500[57]
Not indicated500265.2%260000002600[45]
Borno 10643.8%4000000400[50]
Borno 1001111%110000000110[56]
Total99013613.7%1360006180125110
NWKaduna11100%0100000010[66]
Kaduna 1001919%000190001900[72]
Sokoto 13710.7%1000000010[76]
Total238218.8%110190001920
SEEnugu 68219528.6%19500000019500[91]
Total68219528.6%19500000019500
SSAkwa Ibom2287030.7%2900004100070[96]
Total2287030.7%2900004100070
SWLagos 422276.4%270030002700[105]
Oyo 11763.6%7000000700[110]
Total433347.9%340030003400
Grand Total314455417.6%4931022287704711370
NC: North-Central, NE: North-East, NW: North-West, SE: South-East, SS: South-South, SW: South-West, RBPT: Rose Bengal plate test, SAT: serum agglutination test, cELISA: competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, iELISA: indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, IgM: immunoglobulin M, IgG: immunoglobulin.
Table
Table 2. National prevalence of brucellosis for different domestic animals in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Table 2. National prevalence of brucellosis for different domestic animals in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Animal Variable The Six Geopolitical Zones in Nigeria Total NationwideNational Prevalence %Odd Ratio95% CLZ Statisticsp-ValueNumber of Publications
NCNENWSESSSW
Cattle Sample screened3213525319,648156736912,45842,50812.2%0.13900.1346
to 0.1435		120.853<0.000143
+ ve samples27711542617511519375187
Regional prevalence8.6%22%13.3%3.3%40.9%7.5%
Donkey Sample screened021010000210110.2%0.24270.2046 to 0.287916.247<0.00014
+ ve samples02150000215
Regional prevalence0%10.2%0%0%0%0%
Camel Sample screened012671192000245920.9%0.20240.1796 to 0.228126.196<0.00015
+ ve samples0398116000514
Regional prevalence0%31.4%9.7%0%0%0%
Horse Sample screened861004004020098810.7%0.09410.0729 to 0.121418.190<0.00018
+ ve samples2416541200106
Regional prevalence27.9%16%13.5%3%0%0%
Goat Sample screened2134831219134002813830910.2%0.10130.0931 to 0.110253.357<0.000120
+ ve samples4107530312046846
Regional prevalence19.2%9%13.8%3.5%0%1.6%
Sheep Sample screened13085724490094390823.3%0.28310.2569 to 0.311925.465<0.000122
+ ve samples322145620014912
Regional prevalence24.6%24.6%22.9%0%0%14.9%
Pig Sample screened369003515520097518.7%0.17310.1420 to 0.211017.371<0.00015
+ ve samples125002550182
Regional prevalence34%0%0%0.6%100%0%
Chicken Sample screened2757300410014015558.4%0.02980.0213 to 0.041720.498<0.00013
+ ve samples10180140547
Regional prevalence3.6%2.5%0%3.4%0%3.6%
Dog Sample screened49237420012301102229119.4%0.23370.2037 to 0.268020.767<0.00018
+ ve samples1157643340176444
Regional prevalence23.4%20.3%21.5%27.6%0%16%
NC: North-Central, NE: North-East, NW: North-West, SE: South-East, SS: South-South, SW: South-West.
Table
Table 3. Regional distribution of reported cases of Brucella infection in different samples obtained from common domestic animals in Nigeria (2001–2021).
Table 3. Regional distribution of reported cases of Brucella infection in different samples obtained from common domestic animals in Nigeria (2001–2021).
RegionTypes of AnimalsTypes of Samples Investigated
BloodMilkVaginal SwabHygroma FluidAborted FoetusLymph Node
No Tested+ve SampleNot Tested+ve SampleNo Tested+ve SampleNo Tested+ve SampleNo Tested+ve SampleNo Tested+ve Sample
NCCattle 239721242852374114110100
Donkey 000000000000
Camel 000000000000
Horse 77200083110000
Goat 2099410180170000000
Sheep 1242322200440002000
Pig3661250000003000
Chicken *275100000000000
Dog4831154000005000
Total6939121447052443145220100
NECattle 5047112014427563640000
Donkey 21012150000000000
Camel 12673980000000000
Horse 100160000000000
Goat 831750000000000
Sheep 28487213000000
Pig000000000000
Chicken *730180000000000
Dog374760000000000
Total10,478192215234776640000
NWCattle 16,008245633071111610200017050
Donkey 000000000000
Camel 11921160000000000
Horse 400540000000000
Goat 193721425489000 0000
Sheep 22485222014000000000
Pig000000000000
Chicken *000000000000
Dog200430000000000
Total21,985340537622401610200017050
SECattle 1566510000100000
Donkey 000000000000
Camel 000000000000
Horse 402120000000000
Goat 340120000000000
Sheep 000000000000
Pig35120000000000
Chicken *410140000000000
Dog123340000000000
Total31921250000100000
SSCattle 35414900141110000
Donkey 000000000000
Camel 000000000000
Horse 000000000000
Goat 000000000000
Sheep 000000000000
Pig3081002568000000
Chicken *000000000000
Dog000000000000
Total384230003969110000
SWCattle 11,234689122424800000000
Donkey 000000000000
Camel 000000000000
Horse 000000000000
Goat 2813460000000000
Sheep 94140000000000
Pig20000000000000
Chicken *14050000000000
Dog11021760000000000
Total15,583930122424800000000
Grand Total58,561782656085747208914720117050
* Chicken (Avian, Duck, Turkey, Guinea fowl), NC: North-Central, NE: North-East, NW: North-West, SE: South-East, SS: South-South, SW: South-West.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akinyemi, K.O.; Fakorede, C.O.; Amisu, K.O.; Wareth, G. Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Last Twenty-One Years (2001–2021). Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384

AMA Style

Akinyemi KO, Fakorede CO, Amisu KO, Wareth G. Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Last Twenty-One Years (2001–2021). Veterinary Sciences. 2022; 9(8):384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akinyemi, Kabiru O., Christopher O. Fakorede, Kehinde O. Amisu, and Gamal Wareth. 2022. "Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Last Twenty-One Years (2001–2021)" Veterinary Sciences 9, no. 8: 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384

APA Style

Akinyemi, K. O., Fakorede, C. O., Amisu, K. O., & Wareth, G. (2022). Human and Animal Brucellosis in Nigeria: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis in the Last Twenty-One Years (2001–2021). Veterinary Sciences, 9(8), 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop