Search

IntroductionUnderstanding multi-pathogen infections/exposures in livestock is critical to inform prevention and control measures against infectious diseases. We investigated the co-exposure of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), Brucella spp., Leptospira spp., and Coxiella burnetii in cattle in three zones stratified by land use change and with different wildlife-livestock interactions in Narok county, Kenya. We also assessed potential risk factors associated with the transmission of these pathogens in cattle.MethodsWe identified five villages purposively, two each for areas with intensive (zone 1) and moderate wildlife-livestock interactions (zone 2) and one for locations with low wildlife-livestock interactions (zone 3). We sampled 1,170 cattle from 390 herds through a cross-sectional study and tested the serum samples for antibodies against the focal pathogens using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits. A questionnaire was administered to gather epidemiological data on the putative risk factors associated with cattle’s exposure to the investigated pathogens. Data were analyzed using the Bayesian hierarchical models with herd number as a random effect to adjust for the within-herd clustering of the various co-exposures among cattle.ResultsOverall, 88.0% (95% CI: 85.0–90.5) of the cattle tested positive for at least one of the targeted pathogens, while 41.7% (95% CI: 37.7–45.8) were seropositive to at least two pathogens. FMDV and Brucella spp. had the highest co-exposure at 33.7% (95% CI: 30.9–36.5), followed by FMDV and Leptospira spp. (21.8%, 95% CI: 19.5–24.4), Leptospira spp. and Brucella spp. (8.8%, 95% CI: 7.2–10.6), FMDV and C. burnetii (1.5%, 95% CI: 0.7–2.8), Brucella spp. and C. burnetii (1.0%, 95% CI: 0.3–2.2), and lowest for Leptospira spp. and C. burnetii (0.3%, 95% CI: 0.0–1.2). Cattle with FMDV and Brucella spp., and Brucella spp. and Leptospira spp. co-exposures and those simultaneously exposed to FMDV, Brucella spp. and Leptospira spp. were significantly higher in zone 1 than in zones 2 and 3. However, FMDV and Leptospira spp. co-exposure was higher in zones 1 and 2 than zone 3.Discussion/conclusionWe recommend the establishment of a One Health surveillance system in the study area to reduce the morbidity of the targeted zoonotic pathogens in cattle and the risks of transmission to humans.

IntroductionAnimal health surveillance systems in Kenya have undergone significant changes and faced various challenges throughout the years.MethodsIn this article, we present a comprehensive overview of the Kenya animal health surveillance system (1944 to 2024), based on a review of archived documents, a scoping literature review, and an examination of past surveillance assessments and evaluation reports.ResultsThe review of archived documents revealed key historical events that have shaped the surveillance system. These include the establishment of the Directorate of Veterinary Services in 1895, advancements in livestock farming, the implementation of mandatory disease control interventions in 1944, the growth of veterinary services from a section to a ministry in 1954, the disruption caused by the Mau Mau insurrection from 1952 to 1954, which led to the temporary halt of agriculture in certain regions until 1955, the transition of veterinary clinical services from public to private, and the progressive privatization plan for veterinary services starting in 1976. Additionally, we highlight the development of electronic surveillance from 2003 to 2024. The scoping literature review, assessments and evaluation reports uncovered several strengths and weaknesses of the surveillance system. Among the strengths are a robust legislative framework, the adoption of technology in surveillance practices, the existence of a formal intersectoral coordination platform, the implementation of syndromic, sentinel, and community-based surveillance methods, and the presence of a feedback mechanism. On the other hand, the system’s weaknesses include the inadequate implementation of strategies and enforcement of laws, the lack of standard case definitions for priority diseases, underutilization of laboratory services, the absence of formal mechanisms for data sharing across sectors, insufficient resources for surveillance and response, limited integration of surveillance and laboratory systems, inadequate involvement of private actors and communities in disease surveillance, and the absence of a direct supervisory role between the national and county veterinary services.Discussion and recommendationsTo establish an effective early warning system, we propose the integration of surveillance systems and the establishment of formal data sharing mechanisms. Furthermore, we recommend enhancing technological advancements and adopting artificial intelligence in surveillance practices, as well as implementing risk-based surveillance to optimize the allocation of surveillance resources.

BackgroundIn Africa, rabies causes an estimated 24,000 human deaths annually. Mass dog vaccinations coupled with timely post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for dog-bite patients are the main interventions to eliminate human rabies deaths. A well-informed healthcare workforce and the availability and accessibility of rabies biologicals at health facilities are critical in reducing rabies deaths. We assessed awareness and knowledge regarding rabies and the management of rabies among healthcare workers, and PEP availability in rural eastern Kenya.MethodologyWe interviewed 73 healthcare workers from 42 healthcare units in 13 wards in Makueni and Kibwezi West sub-counties, Makueni County, Kenya in November 2018. Data on demographics, years of work experience, knowledge of rabies, management of bite and rabies patients, and availability of rabies biologicals were collected and analyzed.ResultsRabies PEP vaccines were available in only 5 (12%) of 42 health facilities. None of the health facilities had rabies immunoglobulins in stock at the time of the study. PEP was primarily administered intramuscularly, with only 11% (n = 8) of the healthcare workers and 17% (7/42) healthcare facilities aware of the dose-sparing intradermal route. Less than a quarter of the healthcare workers were aware of the World Health Organization categorization of bite wounds that guides the use of PEP. Eighteen percent (n = 13) of healthcare workers reported they would administer PEP for category I exposures even though PEP is not recommended for this category of exposure. Only one of six respondents with acute encephalitis consultation considered rabies as a differential diagnosis highlighting the low index of suspicion for rabies.ConclusionThe availability and use of PEP for rabies was sub-optimal. We identified two urgent needs to support rabies elimination programmes: improving availability and access to PEP; and targeted training of the healthcare workers to improve awareness on bite wound management, judicious use of PEP including appropriate risk assessment following bites and the use of the dose-sparing intradermal route in facilities seeing multiple bite patients. Global and domestic funding plan that address these gaps in the human health sector is needed for efficient rabies elimination in Africa.