Prevalence of bovine cysticercosis based on meat inspection and B158/B60 antigen ELISA in abattoirs in Matabeleland region, Zimbabwe

Le résumé fourni par la source

Taenia saginata is a zoonotic cestode of public health and socioeconomic importance, causing taeniosis in human definitive hosts and cysticercosis in bovine intermediate hosts. Prevalence data are important in disease awareness and control in humans and cattle, yet this remains scarce for Zimbabwe. This study determined the prevalence of bovine cysticercosis in 381 cattle slaughtered at three abattoirs in the Matabeleland Region of Zimbabwe in 2021. All slaughtered cattle were subjected to routine meat inspection. The collected cysticerci were proven using PCR-RFLP and sequencing, while serum samples were tested using the B158/B60 Ag-ELISA. The apparent prevalence by routine meat inspection was 1.8% (7/381, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-3.7) and a total of 37 cysticerci were recovered, of which 28 were viable. Viable cysticerci were mostly located in the masseter muscle. Molecular analyses proved the suspected lesions to be T. saginata cysticerci, with sequences showing 99.6-100% identity and phylogenetic clustering with published T. saginata isolates from China, Iran, South Africa and a sequence from a human Belgian patient. Apparent seroprevalence was 33.9% (129/381, 95% CI: 29.1-38.9) while the Bayesian-estimated true prevalence was 84.7% (95% CI: 73.2-96.2), representing an approximately 18.8-fold superiority compared to meat inspection. The present study revealed a high prevalence of bovine cysticercosis in the study area, which is substantially overlooked by routine meat inspection. Integrated diagnostic strategies combining serology and enhanced meat inspection are essential. Further studies on the prevalence of human taeniosis, alongside community-based interventions addressing open defecation, sanitation, consumption of undercooked beef and cattle management practices are urgently warranted.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.