TITLE:
Performance of Comparative Cervical Tuberculin Test and Serological Methods with Culturing of Nasal Swab in Diagnosis of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cross Breed Cattle Baghdad Iraq: A Comparative Evaluation
AUTHORS:
Waffa A. Ahmed
KEYWORDS:
BTB, Cervical Comparative Tuberculin Test, One Step Bovine TB Antibody Rapid Test, iELISA
JOURNAL NAME:
Advances in Microbiology,
Vol.6 No.11,
September
19,
2016
ABSTRACT: This study was designed to assess the diagnostic
value of Rapid Antigen bovine TB antibody test kit (RAT) and any association with
cervical comparative tuberculin test (CCTT), (iELISA) and nasal swabs culturing, among based
detection of M. bovis infection. A herd of 21
animals aged 1 - 8 years cross bread cattle of
college of veterinary medicine. 19
(90.47%) animals had good body condition
scores, two bulls included, and 2 (9.52%) cows were fair. Serum samples were
collected, analyzed
for anti-bovine TB antibody using RAT and iELISA. Also the herd was screened by CCTT. The tests were carried out
twice, more than ten month interval, and twelve nasal swabs were taken within second
survey. The first survey results revealed prevalence rate: 4 (19.04%) animals
considered positive results (one
positive and 3 suspected results) for CCTT, while the prevalence rate according
to RAT was 10 (47.61%). The difference between the two prevalence rate was
significant (McNemar chi-statistic = 4.50, p-value = 0.03)
Kappa = 0.215 95% confidence interval: from -0.128 to 0.558; the strength of agreement is considered to be “fair”. The study interprets:
sensitivity 30%; specificity 99%. The second survey results revealed prevalence rate according to CCTT was 4
(36.36%), while
prevalence rate according to RAT was 5 (45.45%). The difference between the two prevalence was not
significant (McNemar chi-statistic = 0.33, p-value = 0.56). Kappa = 0.441 95% confidence interval: from -0.087 to 0.968; the strength of agreement is considered to be “moderate”; sensitivity: 60%; specificity: 83%. All serum samples and
nasal swabs gave negative results for iELISA and culturing respectively. The
study concluded that RAT was highly specific, easy, labor and time saving, suggesting its use as screening test in bovine
tuberculosis, and CCTT could be used to confirm positive animals screened by
RAT, while there was no association between RAT, CCTT with body condition scores, iELISA and nasal
swabs culture results.