Occupational Health Hazards Among Veterinarians in Saudi Arabia

Introduction Veterinarians and other professionals who interact with animals on a daily basis encounter an elevated risk of exposure to both known and as-yet-undiscovered microbial agents. Additionally, they are also exposed to physical, chemical, and environmental hazards. Enhancing occupational health and safety in this context carries significant global significance. Methods This study aimed to comprehensively identify and outline the various biological, physical, chemical, and environmental health threats that were encountered by veterinarians in Saudi Arabia. To achieve this, we designed a self-completed questionnaire for 529 participants. The survey encompassed potential occupational hazards such as microbial diseases, injuries resulting from animal bites and scratches, allergies, and environmental risks like sunstroke and dust storms. Results Among the 529 participating veterinarians, 45.9% (243 individuals) reported instances of zoonotic diseases within the past five years. Notably, potential viral agents included Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, avian influenza, and foot-and-mouth disease virus. Bacterial diseases were also frequently documented, with brucellosis (18.7%) and salmonellosis (7.9%) being notable pathogens. Protozoal infections were led by Leishmaniosis, constituting the most commonly detected protozoa (29 /529, 5.5%). Interestingly, 345 (65.2%) of the individuals reported that they have experienced animal bites and scratches. Needle stick injuries were also a common occupational hazard, with an incidence rate of 19.1%. Additionally, chemical exposure was prevalent, particularly to disinfectants (57.5%) and veterinary drugs (23.4%). The study participants also reported their exposure to various environmental hazards, including sunstroke, dust, sandstorms, and heavy rains. Conclusion The findings of this study draw attention to a concerning trend among veterinarians in Saudi Arabia. Their personal health and safety appear to receive inadequate attention, potentially heightening the risk of occupationally related health hazards. These outcomes highlight the need for a reevaluation of safety protocols and infection control practices within the veterinary profession. The implications of this study can potentially inform the development of policies and initiatives aimed at mitigating occupationally related health hazards among veterinarians in Saudi Arabia.

Human Brucellosis: An Observational Study From a Tertiary Care Centre in North India

AIM

The main aim/objective of this study was to detect and characterize the Brucella species from patients having complaints of joint pain and also to know the potential causes of human brucellosis. In our study, we focused on joint pain symptoms that may be due to arthralgia or arthritis.  Introduction: Brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease that affects both humans and animals. In humans, brucellosis begins with chronic illness leading to great financial losses from not being able to work well and continued treatment costs, but few such studies have come from northern India. Joint pain is the common presentation of brucellosis and there are several risk factors associated with brucellosis.

METHODS

A total of 200 blood samples were collected from the participants having joints pain from September 2019 to September 2021 at Gandhi Memorial & Associated Hospitals of King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India, and tested by serology for anti-Brucella IgM and IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), molecular tests byreverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and automated blood culture system. The anti-Brucella IgM and IgG ELISA were performed using the kit from NovaTec Immundiagnostica GmbH (Dietzenbach, Germany). Isolation of DNA was carried out using the QIAamp DNA Mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), and the primers and probes specific for targeted regions (BCSP31 and IS711 gene) in the Brucella genome were procured from Eurofins Scientific SE (Luxembourg, France), and for internal control from CDC.

RESULT

The study showed 19 (9.5%) and 23 (11.5%) positive results by anti-Brucella IgM ELISA and anti-Brucella IgG, respectively, and of these, one (0.5%) was positive for both anti-Brucella IgM and anti-Brucella IgG ELISA. Out of 19 anti-Brucella IgM ELISA positive, eight (4%) samples were positive for PCR/RT-PCR and that was negative for anti-Brucella IgG ELISA. All blood culture reports of all patients were negative.  Conclusion: Anti-Brucella IgM ELISA was more accurate than anti-Brucella IgG ELISA in detecting human brucellosis. Consumption of animal products (i.e. milk, a dairy product of cow, buffalo, goat, and meat of goat) and contact with animals were the main risk factors that were identified for Brucella disease.