Accès libre

Seroprevalence of antibodies against Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi in horses (Equus caballus) from northern Algeria

Abdelouahab Laamari
Abdelouahab Laamari
, 
Naouelle Azzag
Naouelle Azzag
, 
Safia Tennah
Safia Tennah
, 
Salima-Yamina Derdour
Salima-Yamina Derdour
, 
Bernard China
Bernard China
, 
Ryhan Bouabdallah
Ryhan Bouabdallah
 et 
Farida Ghalmi
Farida Ghalmi
   | 14 juil. 2020
Journal of Veterinary Research's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Publié en ligne: 14 juil. 2020
Pages: 413 - 419
Reçu: 27 déc. 2019
Accepté: 25 juin 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2020-0045
Mots clés
© 2020 A. Laamari et al. published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum regarding breed, sex, age, and health status

A. phagocytophilum B. burgdorferi
Variable IFAT + (%; 95% CI) ELISA + (%; 95% CI) IFAT + (%; 95% CI) ELISA + (%; 95% CI)
  Age (years)
    1–11 (n = 54) 22 (40.7; 28.7–54.0) 26 (48.1; 35.4–61.2) 22 (40.7; 28.7–54.0) 10 (18.5; 10.4–30.9)
    12–16 (n = 33) 3 (9.1; 3.1–23.6) 4 (12.1; 4.8–27.3) 3 (9.1; 3.1–23.6) 6 (18.2; 8.6–34.4)
    17–25 (n = 21) 0 (0) 3 (14.3; 5.0–34.6) 3 (14.3; 5.0–34.6) 3 (14.3; 5.0–34.6)
P value <0.01 SS <0.01 SS <0.01 SS 0.9 NS
  Gender
    Male (n = 62) 12 (19.4; 11.4–30.8) 9 (14.5; 7.8–25.4) 15 (24.2; 15.2–36.2) 14 (22.6; 13.9–34.4)
    Female (n = 46) 13 (28.3; 17.3–42.6) 24 (52.2; 38.1–65.9) 13 (28.3; 17.3–42.6) 5 (10.9; 4.7–23.0)
P value 0.3 NS <0.01 SS 0.6 NS 0.1 NS
  Breed
    Arabian (n = 85) 20 (23.5; 15.8–33.6) 22 (25.9; 17.8–36.1) 20 (23.5; 15.8–33.6) 14 (16.5; 10.1–25.8)
    Barb (n = 13) 1(7.7; 1.4–33.3) 5 (38.5; 17.7–64.5) 1 (7.7; 1.4–33.3) 1 (7.7; 1.4–33.3)
    Arab–Barb (n = 10) P value 4 (40; 16.8–68.7) 0.2 NS 6 (60; 31.2–83.2) 0.07 NS 7 (70; 39.7–89.2) <0.01 SS 4 (40; 16.8–68.7) 0.1 NS
P value 0.2 NS 0.07 NS <0.01 SS 0.1 NS
  Clinical signs
    Yes (n = 20) 9 (45; 25.8–65.8) 10 (50; 29.9–70.1) 11 (55; 34.2–74.2) 7 (35; 18.1–56.7)
    No (n = 108) 16 (14.8; 9.3–22.7) 23 (21.3; 14.6–29.9) 17 (15.7; 10.1–23.8) 12 (11.1; 6.5–18.4)
P value <0.01 SS <0.05 S <0.01 SS <0.05 S

Seroprevalence of A. phagocytophilum around the world

Country Year Technique n Positive Prevalence (%) Lower limit Upper limit Reference
Algeria 2018 IFAT 128 25 19.53 12.66 26.40 this study
Bulgaria 2018 ELISA 155 31 20.00 13.70 26.30 37
Canada 2015 SNAP 4Dx 376 2 5.31 0 1.27 33
Czech Republic 2011 IFAT 92 67 72.8 63.74 81.91 30
Denmark 2010 SNAP 4Dx 390 87 22.31 18.18 26.44 30
France 2005 ELISA 424 48 11.32 8.30 14.33 30
France 2009 ELISA 408 55 13.48 10,17 16.79 30
Guatemala 2005 IFAT 74 10 13.51 5.72 21.30 30
Italy 2003 IFAT 561 2 3.56 0 8.50 30
Italy 2008 IFAT 793 134 16.90 14.29 19.51 30
Italy 2008 IFAT 154 12 7.79 3.56 12.03 30
Italy 2010 IFAT 135 23 17.04 10.69 23.38 30
Italy 2019 IFAT 479 109 22.76 19.00 26.51 12
Mongolia 2018 IFAT 216 91 42.13 35.54 48.71 39
Tunisia 2014 IFAT 343 56 16.33 12.41 20.24 3

Characteristics of the study group considering gender, age, and breed of sampled horses

Variable Healthy group (n = 108) Affected group (n = 20)
Gender
  Male 62 14
  Female 46 6
Age (years)
  1–11 54 14
  12–16 33 3
  17–25 21 3
Breed
  Arabian 85 15
  Barb 13 2
  Arab–Barb 10 3

Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum by ELISA and IFAT

Pathogen IFAT (n = 128) ELISA (n = 128)
Positive Seroprevalence (%) (95% CI) Positive Seroprevalence (%) (95% CI)
B. burgdorferi only 18 14.1 (9.1–21.1)

The prevalence was significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P < 0.05)

 6 4.7 (2.2–9.9)

The prevalence was significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P < 0.05)
A. phagocytophilum only 15 11.7 (7.2–18.4)

The prevalence was not significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P > 0.05)

 20 15.6 (10.4–22.9)

The prevalence was not significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P > 0.05)
A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi (co-infection) 10 7.8 (4.3–13.8)

The prevalence was not significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P > 0.05)

 13 10.2 (6.0–16.7)

The prevalence was not significantly different by IFAT and ELISA (P > 0.05)
B. burgdorferi (total) 28 21.87 (13.79–28.20)

The prevalence was not significantly different between methods (P > 0.05)

 19 14.84 (7.86–20.13)

The prevalence was not significantly different between methods (P > 0.05)
A. phagocytophilum (total) 25 19.53 (12.06–25.93)

The prevalence was not significantly different between methods (P > 0.05)

 33 25.87 (17.34–32.65)

The prevalence was not significantly different between methods (P > 0.05)

Agreement analysis between IFAT and ELISA tests

B. burgdorferi IFAT Statistics
ELISA Sera Positive Negative Total κ = 0.56 McNemar P < 0.01 SS
Positive 15 4 19 % agreement = 86.7
Negative 13 96 109 Relative sensitivity = 53.6%
Total 28 100 128 Relative specificity = 96%
A. phagocytophilum IFAT Statistics
ELISA Sera Positive Negative Total κ = 0.61 McNemar P < 0.01 SS
Positive 20 13 33 % agreement = 85.9
Negative 5 90 95 Relative sensitivity = 80%
Total 25 103 128 Relative specificity = 87.4%

Seroprevalence of B. burgforferi in the world

Country Year Method n Positive Prevalence (%) Lower limit Upper limit Reference
Algeria 2019 IFAT 128 28 21.88 14.71 29.04 this study
Brazil 2018 ELISA 367 214 58.31 53.27 63.36 34
Canada 2015 SNAP 4Dx 376 6 1.60 0.033 2.86 33
France 2010 SNAP 4Dx 408 134 32.84 28.29 37.40 25
FrenchGuiana 2010 SNAP 4Dx 49 0 0 0 0 25
Italy 2013 IFAT 300 21 7.00 4.11 9.89 20
Italy 2012 SNAP 4Dx 98 15 15.31 8.18 22.43 38
Italy 2012 IFAT 386 94 24.35 20.07 28.63 11
Korea 2016 ELISA 727 40 5.50 3.84 7.16 22
Mexico 2001 IFAT 100 34 34.00 24.72 43.28 31
Poland 2008 ELISA 395 101 25.57 21.27 29.87 35
Romania 2011 ELISA 260 31 11.92 7.98 15.86 18
Sub-SaharanAfrica 2010 SNAP 4Dx 113 0 0 0 0 25
Turkey 2008 ELISA 300 18 6.00 3.31 8.69 5
USA 2012 ELISA WB and 2100 175 8.33 7.15 9.52 40
eISSN:
2450-8608
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Molecular Biology, Microbiology and Virology, other, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine
RSS Feed de la revue