Epidemiology of Brucellosis and Q Fever in Linked Human and Animal Populations in Northern Togo

BACKGROUND: Although brucellosis (Brucella spp.) and Q Fever (Coxiella burnetii) are zoonoses of global importance, very little high quality data are available from West Africa. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A serosurvey was conducted in Togo's main livestock-raising zone in 2011 in 25 randomly selected villages, including 683 people, 596 cattle, 465 sheep and 221 goats. Additionally, 464 transhumant cattle from Burkina Faso were sampled in 2012. The serological analyses performed were the Rose Bengal Test and ELISA for brucellosis and ELISA and the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for Q Fever Brucellosis did not appear to pose a major human health problem in the study zone, with only 7 seropositive participants. B. abortus was isolated from 3 bovine hygroma samples, and is likely to be the predominant circulating strain. This may explain the observed seropositivity amongst village cattle (9.2%, 95%CI:4.3-18.6%) and transhumant cattle (7.3%, 95%CI:3.5-14.7%), with an absence of seropositive small ruminants. Exposure of livestock and people to C. burnetii was common, potentially influenced by cultural factors. People of Fulani ethnicity had greater livestock contact and a significantly higher seroprevalence than other ethnic groups (Fulani: 45.5%, 95%CI:37.7-53.6%; non-Fulani: 27.1%, 95%CI:20.6-34.7%). Appropriate diagnostic test cut-off values in endemic settings requires further investigation. Both brucellosis and Q Fever appeared to impact on livestock production. Seropositive cows were more likely to have aborted a foetus during the previous year than seronegative cows, when adjusted for age. This odds was 3.8 times higher (95%CI: 1.2-12.1) for brucellosis and 6.7 times higher (95%CI: 1.3-34.8) for Q Fever. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first epidemiological study of zoonoses in Togo in linked human and animal populations, providing much needed data for West Africa. Exposure to Brucella and C. burnetii is common but further research is needed into the clinical and economic impact.

Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated. OBJECTIVE Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q. DESIGN A prospective, randomised controlled trial with institutional review board (IRB) approval and written informed consent. SETTING University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014. PATIENTS Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg. INTERVENTIONS Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events. RESULTS Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal. CONCLUSION Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522.