| Autor: |
Cossu CA; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.; Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Padova, Legnaro, 35020 Padova, Italy., Collins NE; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., Oosthuizen MC; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., Menandro ML; Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Padova, Legnaro, 35020 Padova, Italy., Bhoora RV; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., Vorster I; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., Cassini R; Department of Animal Medicine, Production and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Padova, Legnaro, 35020 Padova, Italy., Stoltsz H; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., Quan M; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa., van Heerden H; Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa. |
| Abstrakt: |
In Africa, ticks continue to be a major hindrance to the improvement of the livestock industry due to tick-borne pathogens that include Anaplasma , Ehrlichia, Rickettsia and Coxiella species. A systemic review and meta-analysis were conducted here and highlighted the distribution and prevalence of these tick-borne pathogens in African ticks. Relevant publications were searched in five electronic databases and selected using inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 138 and 78 papers included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis, respectively. Most of the studies focused on Rickettsia africae (38 studies), followed by Ehrlichia ruminantium (27 studies), Coxiella burnetii (20 studies) and Anaplasma marginale (17 studies). A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using the random-effects model. The highest prevalence was obtained for Rickettsia spp. (18.39%; 95% CI: 14.23-22.85%), R. africae (13.47%; 95% CI: 2.76-28.69%), R. conorii (11.28%; 95% CI: 1.77-25.89%), A. marginale (12.75%; 95% CI: 4.06-24.35%), E. ruminantium (6.37%; 95% CI: 3.97-9.16%) and E. canis (4.3%; 95% CI: 0.04-12.66%). The prevalence of C. burnetii was low (0%; 95% CI: 0-0.25%), with higher prevalence for Coxiella spp. (27.02%; 95% CI: 10.83-46.03%) and Coxiella -like endosymbionts (70.47%; 95% CI: 27-99.82%). The effect of the tick genera, tick species, country and other variables were identified and highlighted the epidemiology of Rhipicephalus ticks in the heartwater; affinity of each Rickettsia species for different tick genera; dominant distribution of A. marginale , R. africae and Coxiella -like endosymbionts in ticks and a low distribution of C. burnetii in African hard ticks. |
