Tuberculosis (TB) is a chronic, zoonotic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis that infects not only humans but also animals such as pigs, cows, buffaloes, sheep, and goats. Among them, pigs are one of the main food animals in the world. If pigs are infected with M. tuberculosis, meat products will be negatively affected, causing economic losses to the livestock industry. There is currently no systematic epidemiological assessment of swine TB in the world, so it is important to know the prevalence of swine, and these data are currently lacking, so we performed a statistical analysis.
Results:
We searched 6791 articles and finally included data from 35,303 pigs from 15 countries or territories, showing a combined prevalence of TB in pigs of 12.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2 to 15.9). Among them, the prevalence rate of swine TB in Europe was 15.2% (95% CI: 11.1 to 20.7, 2491/25,050), which was higher compared with other continents, and the difference was significant; the positive rate of PCR method was higher in the detection method subgroup, which was 15.7% (95% CI: 8.0 to 31.0, 376/2261); Mycobacterium bovis was detected in pigs in the M. tuberculosis typing group (9.5%, 95% CI: 6.7 to 13.5, 1364/21,430). The positive rate is higher compared with Mycobacterium capris.
Conclusion:
This systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to determine the global prevalence of TB in swine herds. Although the seroprevalence of swine TB in this article is very low, the harm of TB cannot be ignored. It is important to take effective control and preventive measures to stop the spread of TB to reduce the impact of diseased pigs on animal husbandry and human health.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbduS, GashawA. Production system dynamism and parasitic interaction of swine in and around Holetta, Ethiopia. Ethiop Vet J, 2011; 14:609–625; doi: 10.4314/evj.v14i1.63870
2.
AcevedoP, Quiros-FernandezF, CasalJ, et al.Spatial distribution of wild boar population abundance: Basic information for spatial epidemiology and wildlife management. Ecol Indic, 2014; 36:594–600; doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.019
3.
AgdesteinA, JohansenTB, PolačekV, et al.Investigation of an outbreak of mycobacteriosis in pigs. BMC Vet Res, 2011; 7:63; doi 10.1186/1746-6148-7-63
4.
AmatoB, CapucchioTM, BiasibettiE, et al.Pathology and genetic findings in a rare case of Mycobacterium caprae infection in a sow. Vet Microbiol, 2017; 205:71–74; doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.05.010
5.
AranazA, CousinsD, MateosA, et al.Elevation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis subsp. caprae Aranaz et al. 1999 to species rank as Mycobacterium caprae comb. nov., sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol, 2003; 53:1785–1789; doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.02532-0
6.
AregaSM, ConrathsFJ, AmeniG. Prevalence of tuberculosis in pigs slaughtered at two abattoirs in Ethiopia and molecular characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolated from tuberculous-like lesions in pigs. BMC Vet Res, 2013; 9:97; doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-97
7.
AssefaA, BihonA. Bovine cysticercosis in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence from abattoir-based surveys. Prev Vet Med, 2019; 169:104707; doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104707
8.
BarandiaranS, MarfilMJ, CapobiancoG, et al.Epidemiology of pig tuberculosis in Argentina. Front Vet Sci, 2021; 8:693082; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.693082
9.
BarandiaranS, Martínez VivotM, PérezAM, et al.Bovine tuberculosis in domestic pigs: Genotyping and distribution of isolates in Argentina. Res Vet Sci, 2015a;103:44–50; doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.09.013
10.
BarandiaranS, PérezAM, GioffréAK, et al.Tuberculosis in swine co-infected with Mycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuis and Mycobacterium bovis in a cluster from Argentina. Epidemiol Infect, 2015b;143:966–974; doi: 10.1017/S095026881400332X
11.
BarandiaranS, Pérez AguirreburualdeMS, MarfilMJ, et al.Bayesian assessment of the accuracy of a PCR-based rapid diagnostic test for bovine tuberculosis in swine. Front Vet Sci, 2019; 6:204; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00204
12.
BarendregtJJ, DoiSA, LeeYY, et al.Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2013; 67:974–978; doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-203104
13.
BeerliO, BlatterS, BoadellaM, et al.Towards harmonised procedures in wildlife epidemiological investigations: A serosurvey of infection with Mycobacterium bovis and closely related agents in wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Switzerland. Vet J, 2015; 203:131–133; doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.10.023
14.
BolloE, FerroglioE, DiniV, et al.Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in lymph nodes of wild boar (Sus scrofa) by a target-amplified test system. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health, 2000; 47:337–342; doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0450.2000.00354.x
15.
BrownVR, BowenRA, Bosco-LauthAM. Zoonotic pathogens from feral swine that pose a significant threat to public health. Transbound Emerg Dis, 2018; 65:649–659; doi: 10.1111/tbed.12820
16.
ChambersMA. Review of the diagnosis of tuberculosis in non-bovid wildlife species using immunological methods—An update of published work since 2009. Transbound Emerg Dis, 2013; 60(Suppl 1):14–27; doi: 10.1111/tbed.12094
17.
Che’ AmatA, González-BarrioD, OrtizJA, et al.Testing Eurasian wild boar piglets for serum antibodies against Mycobacterium bovis. Prev Vet Med, 2015; 121:93–98; doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.05.011
18.
ClausiMT, CiambroneL, ZanoniM, et al.Evaluation of the presence and viability of Mycobacterium bovis in wild boar meat and meat-based preparations. Foods, 2021; 10:2410; doi: 10.3390/foods10102410
19.
CoburnHL, SnaryEL, KellyLA, et al.Qualitative risk assessment of the hazards and risks from wild game. Vet Rec, 2005; 157:321–322; doi: 10.1136/vr.157.11.321
20.
DelahayRJ, De LeeuwAN, BarlowAM, et al.The status of Mycobacterium bovis infection in UK wild mammals: A review. Vet J, 2002; 164:90–105; doi: 10.1053/tvjl.2001.0667
21.
Di MarcoV, MazzoneP, CapucchioMT, et al.Epidemiological significance of the domestic black pig (Sus scrofa) in maintenance of bovine tuberculosis in Sicily. J Clin Microbiol, 2012; 50:1209–1218; doi: 10.1128/JCM.06544-11
22.
Díez-DelgadoI, SevillaIA, GarridoJM, et al.Tuberculosis vaccination sequence effect on protection in wild boar. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis, 2019; 66:101329; doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2019.101329
23.
DirlikovE, RaviglioneM, ScanoF. Global tuberculosis control: Toward the 2015 targets and beyond. Ann Intern Med, 2015; 163:52–58; doi: 10.7326/M14-2210
24.
ErlerW, MartinG, SachseK, et al.Molecular fingerprinting of Mycobacterium bovis subsp. caprae isolates from central Europe. J Clin Microbiol, 2004; 42:2234–2238; doi: 10.1128/JCM.42.5.2234-2238.2004
25.
Fredriksson-AhomaaM, LondonL, SkrzypczakT, et al.Foodborne zoonoses common in hunted wild boars. Ecohealth, 2020; 17:512–522; doi: 10.1007/s10393-020-01509-5
26.
García-JiménezWL, Benítez-MedinaJM, Fernández-LlarioP, et al.Comparative pathology of the natural infections by Mycobacterium bovis and by Mycobacterium caprae in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Transbound Emerg Dis, 2013a;60:102–109; doi: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2012.01321.x
27.
García-JiménezWL, Fernández-LlarioP, Benítez-MedinaJM, et al.Reducing Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) population density as a measure for bovine tuberculosis control: Effects in wild boar and a sympatric fallow deer (Dama dama) population in Central Spain. Prev Vet Med, 2013b;110:435–446; doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.02.017
28.
García-JiménezWL, SalgueroFJ, Fernández-LlarioP, et al.Immunopathology of granulomas produced by Mycobacterium bovis in naturally infected wild boar. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 2013c;156:54–63; doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2013.09.008
29.
GarridoJM, SevillaIA, Beltrán-BeckB, et al.Protection against tuberculosis in Eurasian wild boar vaccinated with heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis. PLoS One, 2011; 6:e24905; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024905
30.
GarridoJM, VicenteJ, Carrasco-GarcíaR, et al.Experimental infection of Eurasian wild boar with Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium. Vet Microbiol, 2010; 144:240–245; doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2009.12.041
31.
GhielmettiG, HilbeM, FriedelU, et al.Mycobacterial infections in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from Southern Switzerland: Diagnostic improvements, epidemiological situation and zoonotic potential. Transbound Emerg Dis, 2021; 68:573–586; doi: 10.1111/tbed.13717
32.
GortazarC, CowanP. Introduction to this issue: Dealing with TB in wildlife. Epidemiol Infect, 2013; 141:1339–1341; doi: 10.1017/s0950268813000599
33.
GortazarC, VicenteJ, BoadellaM, et al.Progress in the control of bovine tuberculosis in Spanish wildlife. Vet Microbiol, 2011; 151:170–178; doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.02.041
34.
HamboluD, FreemanJ, TaddeseHB. Predictors of bovine TB risk behaviour amongst meat handlers in Nigeria: A cross-sectional study guided by the health belief model. PLoS One, 2013; 8:e56091; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056091
35.
HardstaffJL, MarionG, HutchingsMR, et al.Evaluating the tuberculosis hazard posed to cattle from wildlife across Europe. Res Vet Sci, 2014; 97(Suppl):S86–S93; doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.12.002
36.
HuangL, NazarovaEV, RussellDG. Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Bacterial fitness within the host macrophage. Microbiol Spectr, 2019; 7:(2); doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.BAI-0001-2019
37.
Infantes-LorenzoJA, MorenoI, RoyA, et al.Specificity of serological test for detection of tuberculosis in cattle, goats, sheep and pigs under different epidemiological situations. BMC Vet Res, 2019; 15:70; doi: 10.1186/s12917-019-1814-z
38.
KhanMK, IslamMN, FerdousJ, et al.An overview on epidemiology of tuberculosis. Mymensingh Med J, 2019; 28:259–266.
39.
KockR, MichelAL, Yeboah-ManuD, et al.Zoonotic tuberculosis—The changing landscape. Int J Infect Dis, 2021; 113:S68–S72; doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.091
40.
LekkoYM, Che-AmatA, OoiPT, et al.Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex antibodies in free-ranged wild boar and wild macaques in selected districts in Selangor and reevaluation of tuberculosis serodetection in captive Asian elephants in Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia. J Vet Med Sci, 2021; 83:1702–1707; doi: 10.1292/jvms.21-0144
41.
LiX, NiHB, RenWX, et al.Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in horses: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Trop, 2020; 201:105222; doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105222
42.
MaS, HuangY, XieF, et al.Transport mechanism of Mycobacterium tuberculosis MmpL/S family proteins and implications in pharmaceutical targeting. Biol Chem, 2020; 401:331–348; doi: 10.1515/hsz-2019-0326
43.
MarianelliC, AmatoB, BoniottiMB, et al. Genotype diversity and distribution of Mycobacterium bovis. from livestock in a small, high-risk area in northeastern Sicily, Italy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2019;13: e0007546; doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.000, 7546
44.
MentaberreG, RomeroB, de JuanL, et al.Long-term assessment of wild boar harvesting and cattle removal for bovine tuberculosis control in free ranging populations. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e88824; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088824
45.
MohamedAM, Abou El-EllaGA, NasrEA. Phenotypic and molecular typing of tuberculous and nontuberculous Mycobacterium species from slaughtered pigs in Egypt. J Vet Diagn Invest, 2009; 21:48–52; doi: 10.1177/104063870902100107
46.
MüllerB, DürrS, AlonsoS, et al.Zoonotic Mycobacterium bovis-induced tuberculosis in humans. Emerg Infect Dis, 2013; 19:899–908; doi: 10.3201/eid1906.120543
47.
NaranjoV, GortazarC, VicenteJ, et al.Evidence of the role of European wild boar as a reservoir of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Vet Microbiol, 2008; 127:1–9; doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.10.002
48.
NeifferD, HewlettJ, BussP, et al.Antibody prevalence to African swine fever virus, Mycobacterium bovis, foot-and-mouth disease virus, Rift Valley Fever virus, influenza A virus, and Brucella AND Leptospira spp. in free-ranging warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) populations in South Africa. J Wildl Dis, 2021; 57:60–70; doi: 10.7589/JWD-D-20-00011
49.
NiHB, GongQL, ZhaoQ, et al.Prevalence of Haemophilus parasuis “Glaesserella parasuis” in pigs in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Vet Med, 2020; 182:105083; doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105083
50.
NiemiJ, BennettR, ClarkB, et al.A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector. PLoS One, 2020; 15:e0231338; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231338
51.
NugentG, WhitfordJ, YoungN. Use of released pigs as sentinels for Mycobacterium bovis. J Wildl Dis, 2002; 38:665–677; doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-38.4.665
52.
Orcau À, CaylàJA, MartínezJA. Present epidemiology of tuberculosis. Prevention and control programs. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin, 2011; 29(Suppl 1):2–7; doi: 10.1016/S0213-005X(11)70011-8
53.
OrgeurM, BroschR. Evolution of virulence in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Curr Opin Microbiol, 2018; 41:68–75; doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2017.11.021
54.
ParraA, Fernández-LlarioP, TatoA, et al.Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis infections of pigs and wild boars using a molecular approach. Vet Microbiol, 2003; 97:123–133; doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2003.08.007
55.
PeisoOO, BronsvoortBM, HandelIG, et al.A review of exotic animal disease in Great Britain and in Scotland specifically between 1938 and 2007. PLoS One, 2011; 6:e22066; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022066
56.
PesciaroliM, AlvarezJ, BoniottiMB, et al.Tuberculosis in domestic animal species. Res Vet Sci, 2014; 97(Suppl):S78–S85; doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.05.015
57.
PesciaroliM, RussoM, MazzoneP, et al.Evaluation of the interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) assay to diagnose Mycobacterium bovis infection in pigs. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 2012; 148:369–372; doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.06.020
58.
PoonsukK, ZimmermanJ. Historical and contemporary aspects of maternal immunity in swine. Anim Health Res Rev, 2018; 19:31–45; doi: 10.1017/S1466252317000123
59.
RichommeC, CourcoulA, MoyenJL, et al.Tuberculosis in the wild boar: Frequentist and Bayesian estimations of diagnostic test parameters when Mycobacterium bovis is present in wild boars but at low prevalence. PLoS One, 2019; 14:e0222661; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222661
60.
SantosN, Correia-NevesM, GhebremichaelS, et al.Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis infection in wild boar (Sus scrofa) from Portugal. J Wildl Dis, 2009; 45:1048–1061; doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-45.4.1048
61.
SiposW. Shifts in porcine PBMC populations from adolescence to adulthood. Vet Immunol Immunopathol, 2019; 211:35–37; doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2019.04.002
62.
ThomasJ, Infantes-LorenzoJA, MorenoI, et al.Validation of a new serological assay for the identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex-specific antibodies in pigs and wild boar. Prev Vet Med, 2019; 162:11–17; doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.11.004
63.
TurnerRD, BothamleyGH. Cough and the transmission of tuberculosis. J Infect Dis, 2015; 211:1367–1372; doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu625
64.
Varela-CastroL, AlvarezV, SevillaIA, et al.Risk factors associated to a high Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex seroprevalence in wild boar (Sus scrofa) from a low bovine tuberculosis prevalence area. PLoS One, 2020; 15:e0231559; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231559
65.
VicenteJ, HöfleU, GarridoJM, et al.Risk factors associated with the prevalence of tuberculosis-like lesions in fenced wild boar and red deer in south central Spain. Vet Res, 2007; 38:451–464; doi: 10.1051/vetres:2007002
66.
YockneyIJ, NugentG, LathamMC, et al.Comparison of ranging behaviour in a multi-species complex of free-ranging hosts of bovine tuberculosis in relation to their use as disease sentinels. Epidemiol Infect, 2013; 141:1407–1416; doi: 10.1017/S0950268813000289
67.
ZhangS, GuoYJ, SunSH, et al.DNA vaccination using bacillus Calmette-Guerin-DNA as an adjuvant to enhance immune response to three kinds of swine diseases. Scand J Immunol, 2005; 62:371–377; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3083.2005.01674.x
68.
ZhongY, HuangZ, WuL. Identifying critical factors influencing the safety and quality related behaviors of pig farmers in China. Food Control, 2017; 73:1532–1540; doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.11.016
69.
ZumlaA, GeorgeA, SharmaV, et al.The WHO 2014 global tuberculosis report—Further to go. Lancet Glob Health, 2015; 3:e10–e12; doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70361-4
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
