Materials and Methods: The study utilized abattoir records spanning a period of 10 years (2004-2013). The records indicated that a total of 1,08,638 heads of cattle comprising n = 56,070 males and n = 52,570 females were slaughtered at the municipal abattoir during the study period.
Result: Of these heads, n = 1230 (1.13%) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07, 1.19) had tuberculous lesions. The annual occurrence during the study period varied significantly (p<0.001) from 0.53% (95% CI: 0.40, 0.67) to 1.87% (95% CI: 1.66, 2.10) in 2010 and 2012, respectively. Females had a significantly higher (p<0.001) prevalence of 2.10% (95% CI: 1.98, 2.23) compared with the males 0.23% (95% CI: 0.19, 0.27). The distribution of suspected gross bTB lesions in different organs showed 11.87% in the lungs, 5.93% in the liver, 1.14% in the heart, and 0.49% accounted for generalized bTB. However, none was observed on the lymph nodes and intestines.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that bTB persists in Bauchi State with annual variations during the study period. This study highlights the importance of meat inspection as an important tool for detecting the presence of bTB lesions.
Aim: The objectives of this study were to determine the leptospirosis seroprevalence and to identify the predominant infecting serovars among cattle.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 420 cattle from six randomly selected districts in Kelantan was conducted. A serological test using the microscopic agglutination test was conducted in the Institute of Medical Research with a cutoff titer for seropositivity of ≥1:100.
Results: The overall prevalence of leptospirosis seropositivity among cattle in this study was 81.7% (95% confidence interval: 63.5, 80.1). The most common reaction obtained with the sera tested was from the serovar Sarawak with 78.8%.
Conclusion: A high seroprevalence of leptospiral antibodies was found among cattle in Northeastern Malaysia. These findings urge that more studies are required to determine the reasons for the high seroprevalence among the cattle along with its transmission and pathogenicity of the local serovar Sarawak.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the seroprevalence of leptospirosis among cattle farmers, prevalence of pathogenic Leptospira, and the workplace environmental risk factors for leptospirosis among cattle farmers in northeastern Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 120 cattle farmers was conducted. The participants answered an interviewer-guided questionnaire that consisted of sociodemographic and workplace environment characteristics questionnaire, before having their blood sample taken for microscopic agglutination test (MAT). Seropositivity was determined using a cut-off titer of ≥1:100. 248 environmental samples were also collected from the cattle farms for polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
RESULTS: The overall seroprevalence of leptospiral antibodies was 72.5% (95% CI 63.5% to 80.1%) and the prevalence of pathogenic Leptospira in the cattle farms environment was 12.1% (95% CI 8.4% to 17.0%). The independent factors associated with seropositivity of leptospirosis among cattle farmers were positive pathogenic Leptospira in the environment (Adj OR 5.90, 95% CI 1.34 to 26.01) and presence of garbage dumping in the farm (Adj OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.65).
CONCLUSION: Preventing leptospirosis incidence among cattle farmers necessitates changes in work environment. Identifying modifiable factors may also contribute to the reduction of infection.
METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.