Determination of Epidemiological Factors Associated With Erysipelas Disease in Pigs in Ekiti
Chapter One
Objectives
General objective
To determine the prevalence and factors associated with E.rhusiopathiae infection among pigs in Ekiti state.
Specific objectives
- To determine the prevalence of rhusiopathiae infection among pigs in Ekiti state.
- To determine the factors associated with rhusiopathiae infection among pigs in Ekiti state.
- To explore the socio-cultural factors associated with rhusiopathiae infection among pigs in Ekiti state.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae is a bacterium characterized by its non-spore-forming, gram-positive, rod-shaped nature. It was initially identified as the causative agent of swine erysipelas over a century ago (Reboli and Farrar, 1992). Since then, it has been discovered to be responsible for infections in a wide range of mammals and various other animals. Humans can contract this bacterium through contact with infected animals or their products (Kichloo et al., 2013b).
Around 50 cases of endocarditis caused by Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae have been reported. With the exception of one recent case, all of them involved native heart valves. The bacterium can be isolated from biopsy or blood samples using standard culture media (Brooke et al., 1999). Identification is typically based on its morphological characteristics, lack of motility, and specific biochemical traits. Confirmation of its identity can be achieved through methods like the mouse protection test (Bender et al., 2010).
In terms of treatment, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae is susceptible to antibiotics such as penicillin, cephalosporins, erythromycin, and clindamycin. However, it often displays resistance to several other antibiotics, including vancomycin, which is commonly used as empirical therapy for infections caused by gram-positive bacteria (Reboli and Ferrar, 1989). This antibiotic resistance can complicate the management of infections associated with Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae.
Etiology of rhusiopathiae infection in humans (erysipeloid)
Erysipeloid is an acute, occupational bacterial infection of traumatized skin and other organs, (Bernard, 2008). Direct contact between meat infected with E. rhusiopathiae and traumatized human skin may result in erysipeloid (Krasagakis et al., 2006). Humans acquire erysipeloid after direct contact with infected animals or animal products. Erysipeloid is more common among farmers, butchers, cooks, homemakers, and veterinarians (Bonnetblanc and Bedane, 2003), all groups of people who are more exposed due to their occupation. The risk of infection in humans is based more on opportunistic exposure, and factors such as age, sex, vehicles, race and socio-economic status relate only to this opportunity (Reboli and Ferrar, 1989) (McGinnes et al., 1934). Individuals with close contact to animals, animal products or animal wastes are at greatest risk. Thus, E.rhusiopathiae infection is said to be occupationally related (Kichloo et al., 2013b).
Prevalence of rhusiopathiae infection humans
Globally 829 cases of Erysipelas disease per 100,000 have been reported. However research in humans has not been done for more than a decade without research due to the difficult in diagnosis of the bacteria (Reboli and Farrar, 1992). In sub Saharan Africa there is limited research on the disease with only reports from Kenya and Nigeria that reported Erysipelas disease pigs (Friendship and Bilkei, 2007). However the prevalence of E.rhusiopathiae infection in humans varies from region to region.
A study conducted in Czech Republic on the occupational infectious diseases reported a prevalence of 29% of erysipeloid among agriculturalists, game managers and forestry workers. Among the zoonoses was erysipeloid infection (Brhel and Bartnicka, 2003). Another study conducted by (Amal et al., 2004) on the epidemiology, clinical features, and evolution of erysipeloid in the Marrakech region reported the relapse of E.rhusiopathiae infection in 12 % of the cases studied (Amal et al., 2004).
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
A cross-sectional community based study was done which employed quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection between January to March 2023.
Population
Target population
Adult pigs in Ekiti state, Nigeria.
Accessible population
Abattoir workers, butchers, farmers, veterinarians and cooks in eating places and homes, resident in the three selected sub counties.
Study population
Adult healthy pigs (abattoir workers, butchers, and cooks who buy raw pork from the butcheries) in Ekiti.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS FOR THE QUANTITATIVE STUDY
Description of study population
The study was conducted between January and March 2023 in Ekiti state, Nigeria. A total of 302 participants were enrolled into the study to determine the prevalence and factors associated with E. rhusiopathiae infection among pigs in Ekiti state. Three KII were done, (a nursing officer, veterinarian and a health assistant each). Six FGD were conducted with 18 butchers/ abattoir workers and 26 consumers.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The overall prevalence of E. rhusiopathiae infection was low compared to those from previous studies. Abattoir worker and butchers were highly infected with E. rhusiopathiae.
Alcohol consumption, working in the abattoir and being male increased the risk of acquiring the infection.
Recommendations
Abattoir workers, butchers and consumers/pork buyers should be sensitized on the risk of being infected with E.rhusiopathiae infection and how to prevent it while carrying on with their duties.
Pigs should avoid working under the influence of alcohol as this would impair their sense for judgment and increase their exposure to E. rhusiopathiae infection.
We recommend for further studies to help determine causation since cross sectional studies do not determine causal relationships.
Increased awareness of the infection among high risk groups, animal and human practitioners. This will enable appropriate diagnosis and provision of treatment to those who are infected.
Proper hygiene, regular pork inspection, use of protective wear among people working/ in contact with animals should be promoted.
REFERENCES
- Amal, S., Houass, S., Laissaoui, K., Moufid, K., & Trabelsi, M. (2004). [Epidemiology, clinical features, and evolution of Erysipelas in the Marrakech region (100 cases)]. Med Mal Infect, 34(4), 171- 176.
- Bender, J. S., Shen, H. G., Irwin, C. K., Schwartz, K. J., & Opriessnig, T. (2010). Characterization of Erysipelothrix species isolates from clinically affected pigs, environmental samples, and vaccine strains from six recent swine erysipelas outbreaks in the United States. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 17(10), 1605-1611. doi: 10.1128/cvi.00206-10
- Bernard, P. (2008). Management of common bacterial infections of the skin. Curr Opin Infect Dis, 21(2), 122-128. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e3282f44c63
- Betty A. Forbes, Daniel F. Sahm, & Alice S. Weissfeld. (2007). Bailey & Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology,
- Bonnetblanc, J. M., & Bedane, C. (2003). Erysipelas: recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol, 4(3), 157-163.
- Brhel, P., & Bartnicka, M. (2003). [Occupational infectious diseases in the Czech Republic]. Med Pr, 54(6), 529-533.
- Brooke, C. Josephine, & Riley, Thomas V. (1999). Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae: bacteriology, epidemiology and clinical manifestations of an occupational pathogen. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 48(9), 789-799. doi: doi:10.1099/00222615-48-9-789
- Conklin, R.H., Steele, J.H.,. (1979). Erysipelothrix infections. Steele, J.H.(Ed.), CRC Handbook. Series in Zoonoses,, vol 1,(SECTION A)(CRC Press,
- Boca Raton, FL,), pp. 327–337.
- Damstra RJ, van Steensel MA, Boomsma JH, Nelemans P, Veraart JC. 2008 Jun. 158(6):1210-5. (2008). Erysipelas as a sign of subclinical primary lymphoedema: a prospective quantitative scintigraphic study of 40 patients with unilateral erysipelas of the leg. Br J Dermatol., 158(6):1210-5.
- Ewald, F. W. (1970). [New serotypes of Erysipelothrix insidiosa and their position in group N]. Arb Paul Ehrlich Inst Georg Speyer Haus Ferdinand Blum Inst Frankf A M, 67, 40-47.
