High Burden of Canine Brucellosis in an urban Setting: Evidence from Multi-Species Surveillance in Abuja, Nigeria (2022-2024)

High Burden of Canine Brucellosis in an urban Setting: Evidence from Multi-Species Surveillance in Abuja, Nigeria (2022-2024) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article High Burden of Canine Brucellosis in an urban Setting: Evidence from Multi-Species Surveillance in Abuja, Nigeria (2022-2024) Elochukwu Victoria Chukwu, Onyedikachi Augustine Adika, Amaka Chisom Onyekanihu, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Brucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease with substantial public health and economic consequences, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where surveillance remains limited. In Nigeria, inadequate epidemiological data continue to hinder effective control efforts. This study assessed the temporal trends, species distribution, and public health implications of brucellosis using veterinary surveillance data from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria, between March 2022 and August 2024. A retrospective analysis of 460 animals screened for brucellosis was conducted, incorporating data on species, sex, infection status, and sampling date. Serological diagnosis was performed using the Rose Bengal Test. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate prevalence, while Chi-square analysis evaluated associations between infection status, sex, and species. Temporal patterns were examined through monthly data aggregation. Results: The overall seroprevalence was 35.0% (161/460). Females exhibited a significantly higher prevalence (42.3%) compared to males (21.3%) (χ² = 20.388, p < 0.001). Dogs showed the highest prevalence (46.3%) and accounted for the largest proportion of positive cases (42.9%). Temporal analysis revealed a progressive increase in cases, with peaks observed in 2024, while livestock maintained lower but persistent infection rates. Conclusion: These findings indicate a rising trend of brucellosis in the FCT, with dogs emerging as key contributors to disease burden. Strengthened surveillance and a One Health approach are essential for effective control. Brucellosis Companion animals One Health Veterinary surveillance Zoonoses Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Brucellosis, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella , is a highly contagious zoonotic disease with a global distribution, impacting both animal health and human well-being (Akinyemi et al ., 2022). This disease is classified by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2023) as a neglected zoonosis. It remains a major public health concern, particularly in developing countries where animal husbandry practices and food handling may be suboptimal (Akinyemi et al ., 2022). The disease in animals is primarily characterized by reproductive disorders, including abortions, infertility, and retained fetal membranes, leading to significant economic losses in livestock production (Oluwadele et al ., 2025). In humans, brucellosis, often referred to as undulant fever, presents with a wide array of nonspecific symptoms, including fever, arthralgia, fatigue, and malaise, and can lead to chronic, debilitating conditions if not promptly diagnosed and treated (Akinyemi et al ., 2022). Transmission to humans typically occurs through direct contact with infected animals or their secretions, consumption of contaminated animal products like unpasteurized milk or undercooked meat, and inhalation of aerosols (Akinyemi et al ., 2022; Feng et al ., 2026). Certain occupational groups, including veterinarians, livestock owners, animal handlers, and butchers, are at a particularly high risk of exposure due to their close contact with potentially infected animals and animal products (Pereira et al ., 2020; Oluwadele et al ., 2025). Nigeria, with its large and diverse livestock population and prevalent free-range animal husbandry practices, faces a significant burden of brucellosis (Akinyemi et al ., 2022). Despite its endemic status, comprehensive national data on the prevalence and distribution of human and animal brucellosis remain fragmented, resulting in underreporting and inadequate control measures (Akinyemi et al ., 2022; Momoh et al ., 2025). Previous studies have shown varying seroprevalence rates across different regions and animal species in Nigeria (Akinyemi et al ., 2022; Oluwadele et al ., 2025). The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), being a rapidly urbanizing area with a mix of livestock and companion animals, represents a critical interface for zoonotic disease transmission. This study aimed to evaluate the monthly and yearly distribution of brucellosis cases, compare screening frequencies and positivity rates across different animal species, identify seasonal patterns, and determine species-specific risk factors using frontline veterinary surveillance data in the FCT, Nigeria, from March 2022 to August 2024. The results are expected to offer valuable insights into the current epidemiology of brucellosis in the FCT, guide targeted surveillance and control efforts, and highlight the public health risks for at-risk populations and the wider community. Materials and methods Study Area and Duration This retrospective study utilized clinical records from routine veterinary surveillance conducted by the Department of Veterinary Services, Agriculture and Rural Development Secretariat, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria. The study period spanned from March 2022 to August 2024. Data Collection Data were extracted from veterinary records documenting brucellosis screening activities. A total of 460 animals were included in the dataset. Variables collected comprised animal species (cattle, dogs, goats, pigs, and sheep), sex, brucellosis infection status (positive or negative), and date of screening (month and year). Only complete and properly documented records were included in the analysis. Laboratory Procedure Serological screening for brucellosis was performed using the Rose Bengal Test (RBT), a rapid slide agglutination assay for detecting antibodies against Brucella spp (Kebede & Fesseha, 2022). Serum samples were equilibrated to room temperature prior to testing. Positive and negative control sera were included for quality assurance. Agglutination indicated a positive result, while the absence of visible clumping was interpreted as negative. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarize animal distribution and estimate prevalence. The prevalence rates were calculated overall and stratified by species and sex. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using the Chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Temporal trends were analyzed using monthly aggregated data. A composite time variable (MONTHYEAR) was generated in SPSS to ensure chronological ordering. Trend patterns were visualized using line graphs, including species-specific plots, to illustrate variations in disease burden. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25. Results Out of 460 animals screened for brucellosis between March 2022 and August 2024, 161 animals were positive, resulting in an overall brucellosis prevalence of 35.0% as summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1 Prevalence of Brucellosis Cases (N = 460) Variable Sum Prevalence No Examined 460 35.0% No Positive 161 Sex Distribution The sex distribution of animals included in the study is presented in Fig. 1 below, showing a higher proportion of females, n = 300 compared to males, n = 160. Table 2 below shows the prevalence of brucellosis across sex. The prevalence of infection was significantly higher in females (42.3%) compared to males (21.3%), with a statistically significant association between sex and infection status (χ² = 20.388, df = 1, p < 0.001). Table 2 Cross tabulation between Sex and Prevalence of Brucellosis Sex Examined Positive Prevalence Female (F) 300 127 42.3% Male (M) 160 34 21.3% χ² = 20.388, df = 1, p < 0.001 Species distribution as shown in Table 3 revealed that Dogs constituted the largest proportion of screened animals (149), followed by Goats (92), Sheep (100), Pigs (65), and Cattle (54). The prevalence varied significantly across animal species ( p < 0.05), with Dogs exhibiting the highest prevalence (46.3%), followed by Goats (38.0%), Cattle (27.8%), Pigs (27.7%), and Sheep (24.0%). In terms of contribution to total positive cases, Dogs accounted for the largest share (42.9%, 69/161), while Cattle contributed the least (9.3%, 15/161). This is shown in Table 4 . Table 3 Prevalence of Brucellosis by Animal Species Animal Examined Positive Prevalence Cattle 54 15 27.8% Dogs 149 69 46.3% Goat 92 35 38.0% Pigs 65 18 27.7% Sheep 100 24 24.0% Statistically significant association between animal species and infection status (χ², p < 0.05) Table 4 Contribution of Animal Species to Total Positive Cases Animal Positive cases % of total cases Dogs 69 42.9% Goat 35 21.7% Sheep 24 14.9% Pigs 18 11.2% Cattle 15 9.3% Monthly Trend of Positive Cases The monthly trend of brucellosis positive cases is illustrated in Fig. 2 , showing a gradual increase in positive cases over time, with more pronounced peaks observed towards the later part of the study period. Species-Specific Monthly Trends To further elucidate the contributions of individual animal species to the overall trend, specie-specific trends in brucellosis cases are presented in Fig. 3 , where dogs consistently contributed the highest number of positive cases across most months. Discussion The overall prevalence of brucellosis of 35.0% observed in this study is comparatively high relative to several reports from Nigeria and other regions. Earlier studies in Nigeria have documented lower and variable prevalence rates across animal species, including 5.6–19.6% (Aworh et al ., 2017) and 15.1–23.3% in slaughtered livestock (Ukwueze et al ., 2020). National estimates further indicate ranges of 3.3–40.9% in cattle and 1.6–19.6% in goats (Akinyemi et al ., 2022), underscoring significant regional variability. Outside Nigeria, lower prevalence values have been reported in cattle (2.9–6%) and goats (1.6–2%) in countries such as Argentina, Costa Rica, and Ethiopia, although higher rates approaching 34.9% have been recorded in parts of the Middle East (Ducrotoy et al ., 2021). The relatively elevated prevalence in the present study may reflect intensified transmission dynamics, closer human–animal interactions within the urban FCT environment, and/or improved case detection through routine surveillance systems. The significantly higher prevalence observed in female animals is consistent with the established pathophysiology of brucellosis. Brucella species exhibit a strong predilection for reproductive tissues, with physiological changes during pregnancy and parturition enhancing susceptibility and bacterial shedding (Corbel, 2006; Akinyemi et al ., 2022). This finding aligns with previous reports in livestock and companion animals (Ukwueze et al ., 2020; Anyaoha et al ., 2020; Momoh et al ., 2014). However, some studies have reported no significant association between sex and infection (Olufemi et al ., 2018), suggesting that sex-related differences may be influenced by management systems, reproductive status, and sampling strategies. Species-specific analysis revealed that dogs exhibited the highest prevalence and contributed the largest proportion of positive cases. This finding is epidemiologically significant and suggests a potentially expanding role of companion animals in the transmission dynamics of brucellosis in urban settings. Previous studies have emphasized the zoonotic importance of canine brucellosis, particularly in environments characterized by close human–animal interaction (Oosthuizen et al ., 2019; Lucero et al ., 2022). More recent evidence from Nigeria also points to increasing detection of brucellosis in dogs, which supports the pattern observed in this study (Momoh et al ., 2014; Anyaoha et al ., 2020; Ayinla et al. , 2025) Notably, this observation contrasts with the conventional understanding that livestock species are the primary reservoirs of brucellosis globally (McDermott et al ., 2020; FAO, 2023). The apparent discrepancy may reflect the urban nature of the study area, increased contact between humans and companion animals, or differences in surveillance intensity across species. It may also indicate a gradual epidemiological shift rather than a complete departure from established patterns. Consequently, the role of dogs as potential reservoirs and amplifiers of infection in urban ecosystems warrants closer attention. In contrast, livestock species (cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep) exhibited lower but persistent infection rates. Given their well-established role as reservoirs of different Brucella species, these findings likely reflect underdiagnosed or reduced surveillance intensity rather than genuinely low prevalence (Ducrotoy et al ., 2021; FAO, 2023). Previous studies in Nigeria have reported moderate prevalence levels in livestock populations (Akinyemi et al ., 2022), supporting their continued epidemiological importance despite lower representation in the present dataset. This underscores the need for balanced surveillance efforts across both livestock and companion animals. Temporal analysis demonstrated a progressive increase in brucellosis cases over the study period, with more pronounced peaks observed toward the later months. This pattern suggests a growing burden of disease within the study population and is consistent with findings from endemic regions where brucellosis persists due to weak control measures and sustained transmission cycles (Dadar et al ., 2021; WHO, 2023). However, it is important to interpret this trend cautiously, as apparent increases may also be attributable to improvements in surveillance coverage, reporting systems, and diagnostic practices (McDermott et al ., 2020). Seasonal variation was also evident; aligning with previous studies that have reported significant differences in prevalence across months, often linked to environmental conditions and management practices (Noudeke et al ., 2017). Factors such as breeding cycles, climatic conditions, and animal movement patterns may contribute to these fluctuations. Importantly, the overall temporal trend appeared to be strongly influenced by patterns observed in the dog population, alongside intermittent contributions from livestock species. This highlights the importance of species-specific dynamics in shaping overall disease trends. The zoonotic nature of brucellosis presents significant public health concerns, particularly for individuals with occupational or domestic exposure to animals. Veterinarians and animal health workers are at elevated risk due to frequent contact with infected tissues, secretions, and aborted materials (Pereira et al ., 2020). The high burden observed in dogs in this study further extends this risk to small animal practitioners, who may not traditionally be considered a primary risk group for brucellosis. Pet owners are also vulnerable, particularly through close contact with infected dogs during breeding, parturition, or exposure to contaminated bodily fluids. This supports previous findings that identify Brucella canis as an under-recognized zoonotic pathogen in household settings (Oosthuizen et al ., 2019). The growing role of companion animals in disease transmission therefore, represents an important public health concern in urban environments. Livestock owners and farmers remain at risk through direct contact with infected animals and exposure to contaminated animal products. Although livestock cases were less frequent in this study, their role in maintaining transmission cycles is well established (FAO, 2023; Akinyemi et al ., 2022). Similarly, butchers and abattoir workers are at increased risk due to occupational exposure during slaughter and carcass processing. Evidence from Nigeria indicates low awareness and inadequate adherence to biosafety practices among these groups, further increasing vulnerability (Adesiyan et al ., 2025). Additional risks associated with the handling and consumption of contaminated animal products has also been reported (Feng et al ., 2026). Overall, the findings of this study highlight a complex and evolving epidemiological landscape of brucellosis in the FCT, characterized by high prevalence, emerging importance of companion animals, and persistent livestock involvement. These results underscore the need for strengthened surveillance systems, improved occupational health practices and the implementation of integrated One Health approaches to effectively control and prevent brucellosis. Conclusion This study reveals an increasing trend of brucellosis in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria, between 2022 and 2024, with a high overall prevalence of 35.0%. Dogs emerged as the primary contributors to the disease burden, exhibiting the highest prevalence and accounting for the largest proportion of positive cases. The higher prevalence observed in females underscores the reproductive tropism of Brucella spp. and its role in sustaining transmission. These findings suggest a potential epidemiological shift toward greater involvement of companion animals in urban transmission dynamics. The zoonotic implications are significant, particularly for veterinarians, pet owners, livestock handlers, and abattoir workers. Strengthening integrated surveillance systems that include both livestock and companion animals, alongside a One Health approach emphasizing targeted control, improved diagnostics, and public awareness, is essential for effective prevention and control of brucellosis in the FCT. Declarations Consent to participate : This study utilised data and samples obtained through routine veterinary surveillance activities at the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. The animals were not sampled specifically for research purposes, and no additional procedures were performed beyond standard diagnostic practices. As the study was based on secondary data derived from routine clinical records, formal ethical approval was not required. All samples were submitted to the laboratory as part of standard veterinary care and were appropriately labeled. Data were handled anonymously, and no identifiable information of animal owners was included in the analysis in accordance with standard veterinary public health practice. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Availability of data : Data generated from this retrospective study will be made available on request. Competing interests: The Authors declare that there is no conflicting interest Funding : No funding for this research Authors' contributions: Elochukwu Victoria Chukwu- Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; data curation; formal analysis; visualization; writing, original draft. Augustin Onyedikachi Adika- writing, review, and editing Chisom Onyekanihu Amaka- visualization Jimada Bello Muhammed- Performed computation Musa Halidu- Analysis, Figures Chidimma Ezekwe Nnabuchi- Writing Adeyinka Olamide Agbato- Investigation, writing, Verification of results All authors reviewed the manuscript Acknowledgements: Special thanks to the Laboratory staff of the Department of Veterinary Services, Agricultural and Rural Development Secretariat, for their unwavering support. References Adesiyan, I. M., Adekeye, J. O., & Umoh, J. U. (2025). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of abattoir workers towards zoonotic diseases in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Public Health, 19(2), 145–156. Adesiyan, I. M., Adewuyi, A. A., & Adebayo, A. O. (2025). Assessment of butchers' knowledge of occupational hazards and hygiene practices at slaughterhouses in Bauchi State. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 982. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-00982-z Akinyemi, K. O., Fakorede, C. O., Amisu, K. O., & Wareth, G. (2022). Human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2001–2021). Veterinary Sciences, 9(8), 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384 Akinyemi, O. O., Adesokan, H. K., & Cadmus, S. I. B. (2022). Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis among livestock in Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 54(3), 1–9. Anyaoha, C. O., Majesty-Alukagberie, L. O., Ugochukwu, I. C., Nwanta, J. A., Anene, B. M., & Oboegbulam, S. I. (2020). Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in dogs in Enugu and Anambra States, Nigeria. Revista de Medicina Veterinaria, 40, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.19052/mv.vol1.iss40.5 Aworh, M. K., Okolocha, E. C., & Awosanya, E. J. (2017). Sero-prevalence and intrinsic factors associated with Brucella infection in food animals slaughtered at abattoirs in Abuja, Nigeria. BMC Research Notes, 10, 499. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2827-y Ayinla AJ, and Opaluwa-Kuzayed IG. (2025). Serological Survey of Canine Brucella Infection With the North-Central, Nigeria. Res Vet Sci Med. 2025;5:8. doi: 10.25259/RVSM_3_2025 Corbel, M. J. (2006). Brucellosis in Humans and Animals. Geneva: World Health Organization, Dadar, M., Fard, M. R. B., & Moradi, M. (2025). Global epidemiology and diagnostic insights into canine brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Advanced Research, 61, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2025.01.001 Dadar, M., Shahali, Y., & Whatmore, A. M. (2021). Human brucellosis caused by raw dairy products: A review of occurrence, risk factors, and prevention. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 292, 39–47. Ducrotoy, M. J., Bertu, W. J., Matope, G., Cadmus, S., Conde-Álvarez, R., Gusi, A. M., Welburn, S. C., Ocholi, R. A., Blasco, J. M., & Moriyón, I. (2021). Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges and future prospects. Veterinary Microbiology, 165(1–2), 179–193. Feng, L., Li, Z., Zhang, L., & Li, S. (2026). Meta-analysis of brucellosis and relative risks. Frontiers in Public Health, 14, 12956228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.12956228 Food and Agriculture Organization. (2023). Brucellosis in livestock systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. Kebede, Isayas & Fesseha, Haben. (2022). Some Serological Analytic Approaches and Test Execution in Determination of Bovine Brucellosis Overview. 13. 22. 10.7176/JNSR/13-12-03. Lucero, N. E., Corazza, R., Almuzara, M. N., & Reynes, E. (2022). Brucella canis : An emerging zoonotic pathogen. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 35(2), e00009-21. McDermott, J., Grace, D., & Zinsstag, J. (2020). Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 32(1), 249–261. Momoh, A. O., Audu, Y., & Bello, A. A. (2025). Brucella exposure in dogs and associated risk factors in Gombe State, Nigeria. Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 1(1), 55–62. Momoh, H. A., Ijale, G. O., Ajogi, I., & Okolocha, E. C. (2014). Seroprevalence of canine brucellosis in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Epidemiology, 7, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.3923/aje.2014.36.42 Olufemi, O. T., Dantala, D. B., Shinggu, P. A., Dike, U. A., Otolorin, G. R., Nwuku, J. A., Baba-Onoja, E. B. T., Jatau, T. D., & Amama, F. I. (2018). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated risk factors among indigenous breeds of goats in Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria. Journal of Pathogens, 2018, 5257926. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5257926 Oluwadele, J. F., Ekeocha, A., & Akinwumi, E. O. (2025). The prevalence, impact, and control measures of brucellosis in Nigeria: An analytical study. Decoding Infection and Transmission, 3, 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2025.100046 Oosthuizen, J., van Heerden, H., & Venter, E. H. (2019). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of Brucella canis in dogs in South Africa. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 5(4), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.190 Pereira, C. R., Silva, P. C., & Costa, P. (2020). Occupational exposure to Brucella spp. and risk behaviors in exposed professions: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103629 Ukwueze, K. O., Ishola, O. O., Dairo, M. D., Awosanya, E. J., & Cadmus, S. I. (2020). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated factors among livestock slaughtered in Oko-Oba abattoir, Lagos State, southwestern Nigeria. The Pan African Medical Journal, 36, 53. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.36.53.21094 World Health Organization. (2023). Neglected zoonotic diseases: Global burden and control strategies. WHO Press. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 08 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 07 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 06 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 05 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 05 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 04 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9319389","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":623042977,"identity":"6134c73a-43b0-4724-8950-faf2fcb33f81","order_by":0,"name":"Elochukwu Victoria Chukwu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dept of Veterinary Services, Agricultural and Rural Development Secretariat","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elochukwu","middleName":"Victoria","lastName":"Chukwu","suffix":""},{"id":623042978,"identity":"0b57ee9c-9eeb-4b58-ac40-b9810255a550","order_by":1,"name":"Onyedikachi Augustine Adika","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Animal Production and Health, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University Oye-Ekiti","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Onyedikachi","middleName":"Augustine","lastName":"Adika","suffix":""},{"id":623042979,"identity":"e70863ef-d32f-4f42-992c-689671af71e6","order_by":2,"name":"Amaka Chisom Onyekanihu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dept. of Parasitology and Entomology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Abuja","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amaka","middleName":"Chisom","lastName":"Onyekanihu","suffix":""},{"id":623042980,"identity":"023d7e2a-0b94-4efe-8684-7355a94dc10e","order_by":3,"name":"Jimada Bello Muhammed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dept of Veterinary Services, Agricultural and Rural Development Secretariat","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jimada","middleName":"Bello","lastName":"Muhammed","suffix":""},{"id":623042981,"identity":"c5cdd73a-43a9-4f8c-8a1e-e7afdc2430d7","order_by":4,"name":"Musa Halidu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dept of Veterinary Services, Agricultural and Rural Development Secretariat","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Musa","middleName":"","lastName":"Halidu","suffix":""},{"id":623042982,"identity":"f3dbdd87-3f12-4f28-9b8a-f35135e74a56","order_by":5,"name":"Chidimma Ezekwe Nnabuchi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dept. of Parasitology and Entomology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Abuja","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chidimma","middleName":"Ezekwe","lastName":"Nnabuchi","suffix":""},{"id":623042983,"identity":"b219d606-9b44-4f4c-9d6a-06cc9bbf337a","order_by":6,"name":"Adeyinka Olamide Agbato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Animal Care Services Konsult (Nig) Limited","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adeyinka","middleName":"Olamide","lastName":"Agbato","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-04 09:40:01","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107241931,"identity":"650d9c67-7484-4cbb-96f6-f7066a007a62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-19 07:18:44","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56894,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSex distribution of animals screened for brucellosis in the FCT, Nigeria (March 2022- August 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319389/v1/24e6cbfade313e9faf524ed8.png"},{"id":107484595,"identity":"4e459aac-9461-4c41-80fc-506b212f0776","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-22 02:32:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":129374,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMonthly Trend of brucellosis Positive Cases across all animal species in the FCT, Nigeria (March 2022- August 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319389/v1/7335bc0fd767edf26444f4db.png"},{"id":107241932,"identity":"67d65fa4-9148-4457-af79-f50ea541bfd3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-19 07:18:44","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":150737,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSpecies-specific monthly trends of brucellosis positive cases among animals in the FCT, Nigeria (March 2022- August 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319389/v1/4c7c51bda5d3d8e0c48d7b4d.png"},{"id":107704989,"identity":"d995445d-2a9f-4c90-9781-7a6f01bda483","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-24 09:05:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":528692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9319389/v1/e7ce5d5e-026d-4fc9-9ed5-928e2bba8844.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"High Burden of Canine Brucellosis in an urban Setting: Evidence from Multi-Species Surveillance in Abuja, Nigeria (2022-2024)","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBrucellosis, caused by bacteria of the genus \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e, is a highly contagious zoonotic disease with a global distribution, impacting both animal health and human well-being (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). This disease is classified by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2023) as a neglected zoonosis. It remains a major public health concern, particularly in developing countries where animal husbandry practices and food handling may be suboptimal (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). The disease in animals is primarily characterized by reproductive disorders, including abortions, infertility, and retained fetal membranes, leading to significant economic losses in livestock production (Oluwadele \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn humans, brucellosis, often referred to as undulant fever, presents with a wide array of nonspecific symptoms, including fever, arthralgia, fatigue, and malaise, and can lead to chronic, debilitating conditions if not promptly diagnosed and treated (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). Transmission to humans typically occurs through direct contact with infected animals or their secretions, consumption of contaminated animal products like unpasteurized milk or undercooked meat, and inhalation of aerosols (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022; Feng \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2026). Certain occupational groups, including veterinarians, livestock owners, animal handlers, and butchers, are at a particularly high risk of exposure due to their close contact with potentially infected animals and animal products (Pereira \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020; Oluwadele \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNigeria, with its large and diverse livestock population and prevalent free-range animal husbandry practices, faces a significant burden of brucellosis (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). Despite its endemic status, comprehensive national data on the prevalence and distribution of human and animal brucellosis remain fragmented, resulting in underreporting and inadequate control measures (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022; Momoh \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025). Previous studies have shown varying seroprevalence rates across different regions and animal species in Nigeria (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022; Oluwadele \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025). The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), being a rapidly urbanizing area with a mix of livestock and companion animals, represents a critical interface for zoonotic disease transmission.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the monthly and yearly distribution of brucellosis cases, compare screening frequencies and positivity rates across different animal species, identify seasonal patterns, and determine species-specific risk factors using frontline veterinary surveillance data in the FCT, Nigeria, from March 2022 to August 2024. The results are expected to offer valuable insights into the current epidemiology of brucellosis in the FCT, guide targeted surveillance and control efforts, and highlight the public health risks for at-risk populations and the wider community.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Area and Duration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis retrospective study utilized clinical records from routine veterinary surveillance conducted by the Department of Veterinary Services, Agriculture and Rural Development Secretariat, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria. The study period spanned from March 2022 to August 2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were extracted from veterinary records documenting brucellosis screening activities. A total of 460 animals were included in the dataset. Variables collected comprised animal species (cattle, dogs, goats, pigs, and sheep), sex, brucellosis infection status (positive or negative), and date of screening (month and year). Only complete and properly documented records were included in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLaboratory Procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSerological screening for brucellosis was performed using the Rose Bengal Test (RBT), a rapid slide agglutination assay for detecting antibodies against \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e spp (Kebede \u0026amp; Fesseha, 2022). Serum samples were equilibrated to room temperature prior to testing. Positive and negative control sera were included for quality assurance. Agglutination indicated a positive result, while the absence of visible clumping was interpreted as negative.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were used to summarize animal distribution and estimate prevalence. The prevalence rates were calculated overall and stratified by species and sex. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using the Chi-square test, with statistical significance set at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05. Temporal trends were analyzed using monthly aggregated data. A composite time variable (MONTHYEAR) was generated in SPSS to ensure chronological ordering. Trend patterns were visualized using line graphs, including species-specific plots, to illustrate variations in disease burden. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOut of 460 animals screened for brucellosis between March 2022 and August 2024, 161 animals were positive, resulting in an overall brucellosis prevalence of 35.0% as summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence of Brucellosis Cases (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;460)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSum\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Examined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e460\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo Positive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e161\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSex Distribution\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sex distribution of animals included in the study is presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below, showing a higher proportion of females, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;300 compared to males, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;160.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below shows the prevalence of brucellosis across sex. The prevalence of infection was significantly higher in females (42.3%) compared to males (21.3%), with a statistically significant association between sex and infection status (χ\u0026sup2; = 20.388, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCross tabulation between\u003c/b\u003e Sex and Prevalence of Brucellosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale (F)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e127\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale (M)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e160\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eχ\u0026sup2; = 20.388, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies distribution as shown in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e revealed that Dogs constituted the largest proportion of screened animals (149), followed by Goats (92), Sheep (100), Pigs (65), and Cattle (54). The prevalence varied significantly across animal species (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), with Dogs exhibiting the highest prevalence (46.3%), followed by Goats (38.0%), Cattle (27.8%), Pigs (27.7%), and Sheep (24.0%). In terms of contribution to total positive cases, Dogs accounted for the largest share (42.9%, 69/161), while Cattle contributed the least (9.3%, 15/161). This is shown in Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence of Brucellosis by Animal Species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamined\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevalence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDogs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e149\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePigs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStatistically significant association between animal species and infection status (χ², p \u003c 0.05)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribution of Animal Species to Total Positive Cases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnimal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositive cases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% of total cases\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDogs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSheep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePigs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMonthly Trend of Positive Cases\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe monthly trend of brucellosis positive cases is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, showing a gradual increase in positive cases over time, with more pronounced peaks observed towards the later part of the study period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpecies-Specific Monthly Trends\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further elucidate the contributions of individual animal species to the overall trend, specie-specific trends in brucellosis cases are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, where dogs consistently contributed the highest number of positive cases across most months.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe overall prevalence of brucellosis of 35.0% observed in this study is comparatively high relative to several reports from Nigeria and other regions. Earlier studies in Nigeria have documented lower and variable prevalence rates across animal species, including 5.6\u0026ndash;19.6% (Aworh \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2017) and 15.1\u0026ndash;23.3% in slaughtered livestock (Ukwueze \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020). National estimates further indicate ranges of 3.3\u0026ndash;40.9% in cattle and 1.6\u0026ndash;19.6% in goats (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022), underscoring significant regional variability. Outside Nigeria, lower prevalence values have been reported in cattle (2.9\u0026ndash;6%) and goats (1.6\u0026ndash;2%) in countries such as Argentina, Costa Rica, and Ethiopia, although higher rates approaching 34.9% have been recorded in parts of the Middle East (Ducrotoy \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021). The relatively elevated prevalence in the present study may reflect intensified transmission dynamics, closer human\u0026ndash;animal interactions within the urban FCT environment, and/or improved case detection through routine surveillance systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significantly higher prevalence observed in female animals is consistent with the established pathophysiology of brucellosis. \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e species exhibit a strong predilection for reproductive tissues, with physiological changes during pregnancy and parturition enhancing susceptibility and bacterial shedding (Corbel, 2006; Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). This finding aligns with previous reports in livestock and companion animals (Ukwueze \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020; Anyaoha \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020; Momoh \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2014). However, some studies have reported no significant association between sex and infection (Olufemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2018), suggesting that sex-related differences may be influenced by management systems, reproductive status, and sampling strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies-specific analysis revealed that dogs exhibited the highest prevalence and contributed the largest proportion of positive cases. This finding is epidemiologically significant and suggests a potentially expanding role of companion animals in the transmission dynamics of brucellosis in urban settings. Previous studies have emphasized the zoonotic importance of canine brucellosis, particularly in environments characterized by close human\u0026ndash;animal interaction (Oosthuizen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2019; Lucero \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). More recent evidence from Nigeria also points to increasing detection of brucellosis in dogs, which supports the pattern observed in this study (Momoh \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2014; Anyaoha \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020; Ayinla \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, this observation contrasts with the conventional understanding that livestock species are the primary reservoirs of brucellosis globally (McDermott \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020; FAO, 2023). The apparent discrepancy may reflect the urban nature of the study area, increased contact between humans and companion animals, or differences in surveillance intensity across species. It may also indicate a gradual epidemiological shift rather than a complete departure from established patterns. Consequently, the role of dogs as potential reservoirs and amplifiers of infection in urban ecosystems warrants closer attention. In contrast, livestock species (cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep) exhibited lower but persistent infection rates. Given their well-established role as reservoirs of different \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e species, these findings likely reflect underdiagnosed or reduced surveillance intensity rather than genuinely low prevalence (Ducrotoy \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021; FAO, 2023). Previous studies in Nigeria have reported moderate prevalence levels in livestock populations (Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022), supporting their continued epidemiological importance despite lower representation in the present dataset. This underscores the need for balanced surveillance efforts across both livestock and companion animals. Temporal analysis demonstrated a progressive increase in brucellosis cases over the study period, with more pronounced peaks observed toward the later months. This pattern suggests a growing burden of disease within the study population and is consistent with findings from endemic regions where brucellosis persists due to weak control measures and sustained transmission cycles (Dadar \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2021; WHO, 2023). However, it is important to interpret this trend cautiously, as apparent increases may also be attributable to improvements in surveillance coverage, reporting systems, and diagnostic practices (McDermott \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeasonal variation was also evident; aligning with previous studies that have reported significant differences in prevalence across months, often linked to environmental conditions and management practices (Noudeke \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2017). Factors such as breeding cycles, climatic conditions, and animal movement patterns may contribute to these fluctuations. Importantly, the overall temporal trend appeared to be strongly influenced by patterns observed in the dog population, alongside intermittent contributions from livestock species. This highlights the importance of species-specific dynamics in shaping overall disease trends.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe zoonotic nature of brucellosis presents significant public health concerns, particularly for individuals with occupational or domestic exposure to animals. Veterinarians and animal health workers are at elevated risk due to frequent contact with infected tissues, secretions, and aborted materials (Pereira \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2020). The high burden observed in dogs in this study further extends this risk to small animal practitioners, who may not traditionally be considered a primary risk group for brucellosis. Pet owners are also vulnerable, particularly through close contact with infected dogs during breeding, parturition, or exposure to contaminated bodily fluids. This supports previous findings that identify \u003cem\u003eBrucella canis\u003c/em\u003e as an under-recognized zoonotic pathogen in household settings (Oosthuizen \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2019). The growing role of companion animals in disease transmission therefore, represents an important public health concern in urban environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock owners and farmers remain at risk through direct contact with infected animals and exposure to contaminated animal products. Although livestock cases were less frequent in this study, their role in maintaining transmission cycles is well established (FAO, 2023; Akinyemi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022). Similarly, butchers and abattoir workers are at increased risk due to occupational exposure during slaughter and carcass processing. Evidence from Nigeria indicates low awareness and inadequate adherence to biosafety practices among these groups, further increasing vulnerability (Adesiyan \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2025). Additional risks associated with the handling and consumption of contaminated animal products has also been reported (Feng \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2026).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings of this study highlight a complex and evolving epidemiological landscape of brucellosis in the FCT, characterized by high prevalence, emerging importance of companion animals, and persistent livestock involvement. These results underscore the need for strengthened surveillance systems, improved occupational health practices and the implementation of integrated One Health approaches to effectively control and prevent brucellosis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study reveals an increasing trend of brucellosis in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria, between 2022 and 2024, with a high overall prevalence of 35.0%. Dogs emerged as the primary contributors to the disease burden, exhibiting the highest prevalence and accounting for the largest proportion of positive cases. The higher prevalence observed in females underscores the reproductive tropism of \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e spp. and its role in sustaining transmission. These findings suggest a potential epidemiological shift toward greater involvement of companion animals in urban transmission dynamics. The zoonotic implications are significant, particularly for veterinarians, pet owners, livestock handlers, and abattoir workers. Strengthening integrated surveillance systems that include both livestock and companion animals, alongside a One Health approach emphasizing targeted control, improved diagnostics, and public awareness, is essential for effective prevention and control of brucellosis in the FCT.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e: This study utilised data and samples obtained through routine veterinary surveillance activities at the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. The animals were not sampled specifically for research purposes, and no additional procedures were performed beyond standard diagnostic practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the study was based on secondary data derived from routine clinical records, formal ethical approval was not required. All samples were submitted to the laboratory as part of standard veterinary care and were appropriately labeled. Data were handled anonymously, and no identifiable information of animal owners was included in the analysis in accordance with standard veterinary public health practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data\u003c/strong\u003e: Data generated from this retrospective study will be made available on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The Authors declare that there is no conflicting interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e: No funding for this research\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e Elochukwu Victoria Chukwu- Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; data curation; formal analysis; visualization; writing, original draft.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAugustin Onyedikachi Adika- writing, review, and editing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChisom Onyekanihu Amaka- visualization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJimada Bello Muhammed- Performed computation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMusa Halidu- Analysis, Figures\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChidimma Ezekwe Nnabuchi- Writing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdeyinka Olamide Agbato- Investigation, writing, Verification of results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors reviewed the manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSpecial thanks to the Laboratory staff of the Department of Veterinary Services, Agricultural and Rural Development Secretariat, for their unwavering support.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdesiyan, I. M., Adekeye, J. O., \u0026amp; Umoh, J. U. (2025). Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of abattoir workers towards zoonotic diseases in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Public Health, 19(2), 145\u0026ndash;156.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdesiyan, I. M., Adewuyi, A. A., \u0026amp; Adebayo, A. O. (2025). Assessment of butchers' knowledge of occupational hazards and hygiene practices at slaughterhouses in Bauchi State. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 982. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-025-00982-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkinyemi, K. O., Fakorede, C. O., Amisu, K. O., \u0026amp; Wareth, G. (2022). Human and animal brucellosis in Nigeria: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2001\u0026ndash;2021). Veterinary Sciences, 9(8), 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080384\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkinyemi, O. O., Adesokan, H. K., \u0026amp; Cadmus, S. I. B. (2022). Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis among livestock in Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 54(3), 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnyaoha, C. O., Majesty-Alukagberie, L. O., Ugochukwu, I. C., Nwanta, J. A., Anene, B. M., \u0026amp; Oboegbulam, S. I. (2020). Seroprevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in dogs in Enugu and Anambra States, Nigeria. Revista de Medicina Veterinaria, 40, 45\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.19052/mv.vol1.iss40.5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAworh, M. K., Okolocha, E. C., \u0026amp; Awosanya, E. J. (2017). Sero-prevalence and intrinsic factors associated with \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e infection in food animals slaughtered at abattoirs in Abuja, Nigeria. BMC Research Notes, 10, 499. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2827-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyinla AJ, and Opaluwa-Kuzayed IG. (2025). Serological Survey of Canine Brucella Infection With the North-Central, Nigeria. Res Vet Sci Med. 2025;5:8. doi: 10.25259/RVSM_3_2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCorbel, M. J. (2006). Brucellosis in Humans and Animals. Geneva: World Health Organization,\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDadar, M., Fard, M. R. B., \u0026amp; Moradi, M. (2025). Global epidemiology and diagnostic insights into canine brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Advanced Research, 61, 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2025.01.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDadar, M., Shahali, Y., \u0026amp; Whatmore, A. M. (2021). Human brucellosis caused by raw dairy products: A review of occurrence, risk factors, and prevention. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 292, 39\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDucrotoy, M. J., Bertu, W. J., Matope, G., Cadmus, S., Conde-\u0026Aacute;lvarez, R., Gusi, A. M., Welburn, S. C., Ocholi, R. A., Blasco, J. M., \u0026amp; Moriy\u0026oacute;n, I. (2021). Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current challenges and future prospects. Veterinary Microbiology, 165(1\u0026ndash;2), 179\u0026ndash;193.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeng, L., Li, Z., Zhang, L., \u0026amp; Li, S. (2026). Meta-analysis of brucellosis and relative risks. Frontiers in Public Health, 14, 12956228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.12956228\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization. (2023). Brucellosis in livestock systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKebede, Isayas \u0026amp; Fesseha, Haben. (2022). Some Serological Analytic Approaches and Test Execution in Determination of Bovine Brucellosis Overview. 13. 22. 10.7176/JNSR/13-12-03.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLucero, N. E., Corazza, R., Almuzara, M. N., \u0026amp; Reynes, E. (2022). \u003cem\u003eBrucella canis\u003c/em\u003e: An emerging zoonotic pathogen. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 35(2), e00009-21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDermott, J., Grace, D., \u0026amp; Zinsstag, J. (2020). Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Scientifique et Technique (OIE), 32(1), 249\u0026ndash;261.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMomoh, A. O., Audu, Y., \u0026amp; Bello, A. A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e exposure in dogs and associated risk factors in Gombe State, Nigeria. Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 1(1), 55\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMomoh, H. A., Ijale, G. O., Ajogi, I., \u0026amp; Okolocha, E. C. (2014). Seroprevalence of canine brucellosis in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Epidemiology, 7, 36\u0026ndash;42. https://doi.org/10.3923/aje.2014.36.42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlufemi, O. T., Dantala, D. B., Shinggu, P. A., Dike, U. A., Otolorin, G. R., Nwuku, J. A., Baba-Onoja, E. B. T., Jatau, T. D., \u0026amp; Amama, F. I. (2018). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated risk factors among indigenous breeds of goats in Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria. Journal of Pathogens, 2018, 5257926. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5257926\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOluwadele, J. F., Ekeocha, A., \u0026amp; Akinwumi, E. O. (2025). The prevalence, impact, and control measures of brucellosis in Nigeria: An analytical study. Decoding Infection and Transmission, 3, 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dit.2025.100046\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOosthuizen, J., van Heerden, H., \u0026amp; Venter, E. H. (2019). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of \u003cem\u003eBrucella canis\u003c/em\u003e in dogs in South Africa. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 5(4), 540\u0026ndash;547. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.190\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira, C. R., Silva, P. C., \u0026amp; Costa, P. (2020). Occupational exposure to \u003cem\u003eBrucella\u003c/em\u003e spp. and risk behaviors in exposed professions: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3629. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103629\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUkwueze, K. O., Ishola, O. O., Dairo, M. D., Awosanya, E. J., \u0026amp; Cadmus, S. I. (2020). Seroprevalence of brucellosis and associated factors among livestock slaughtered in Oko-Oba abattoir, Lagos State, southwestern Nigeria. The Pan African Medical Journal, 36, 53. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.36.53.21094\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2023). Neglected zoonotic diseases: Global burden and control strategies. WHO Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-veterinary-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Veterinary Research](http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"12917","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12917/3?","title":"BMC Veterinary Research","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Brucellosis, Companion animals, One Health, Veterinary surveillance, Zoonoses","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground: \u003c/strong\u003eBrucellosis is a neglected zoonotic disease with substantial public health and economic consequences, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where surveillance remains limited. In Nigeria, inadequate epidemiological data continue to hinder effective control efforts. This study assessed the temporal trends, species distribution, and public health implications of brucellosis using veterinary surveillance data from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nigeria, between March 2022 and August 2024. A retrospective analysis of 460 animals screened for brucellosis was conducted, incorporating data on species, sex, infection status, and sampling date. Serological diagnosis was performed using the Rose Bengal Test. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate prevalence, while Chi-square analysis evaluated associations between infection status, sex, and species. Temporal patterns were examined through monthly data aggregation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eThe overall seroprevalence was 35.0% (161/460). Females exhibited a significantly higher prevalence (42.3%) compared to males (21.3%) (χ² = 20.388, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Dogs showed the highest prevalence (46.3%) and accounted for the largest proportion of positive cases (42.9%). Temporal analysis revealed a progressive increase in cases, with peaks observed in 2024, while livestock maintained lower but persistent infection rates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion: \u003c/strong\u003eThese findings indicate a rising trend of brucellosis in the FCT, with dogs emerging as key contributors to disease burden. Strengthened surveillance and a One Health approach are essential for effective control.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"High Burden of Canine Brucellosis in an urban Setting: Evidence from Multi-Species Surveillance in Abuja, Nigeria (2022-2024)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-19 07:18:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9319389/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"41901756865101717693325889183890290651","date":"2026-05-08T13:59:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-07T23:09:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"164074468980686921002354351892616673688","date":"2026-05-07T23:00:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T03:24:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T15:07:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T00:56:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-06T00:55:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Veterinary Research","date":"2026-04-04T09:26:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-veterinary-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Veterinary Research](http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"12917","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12917/3?","title":"BMC Veterinary Research","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"46322528-1a9d-4564-817b-a73ece44bed0","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"41901756865101717693325889183890290651","date":"2026-05-08T13:59:55+00:00","index":30,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-07T23:09:42+00:00","index":29,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"164074468980686921002354351892616673688","date":"2026-05-07T23:00:26+00:00","index":28,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-19T07:18:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-19 07:18:40","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9319389","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9319389","identity":"rs-9319389","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}