Purpose of review Human brucellosis is a neglected, underrecognized infection of widespread geographic distribution. It causes acute febrile illness and a potentially debilitating chronic infection in humans, and livestock infection has substantial socioeconomic impact. This review describes new information regarding the epidemiology of brucellosis in the developing world and advances in diagnosis and treatment. Recent findings The highest recorded incidence of human brucellosis occurs in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fever etiology studies demonstrate brucellosis as a cause of undifferentiated febrile illness in the developing world. Brucellosis is a rare cause of fever among returning travelers, but is more common among travelers returning from the Middle East and North Africa. Sensitive and specific rapid diagnostic tests appropriate for resource-limited settings have been validated. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that optimal treatment for human brucellosis consists of doxycycline and an aminoglycoside. Decreasing the burden of human brucellosis requires control of animal brucellosis, but evidence to inform the design of control programs in the developing world is needed. Summary Brucellosis causes substantial morbidity in human and animal populations. While improvements in diagnostic options for resource-limited settings and stronger evidence for optimal therapy should enhance identification and treatment of human brucellosis, prevention of human disease through control in animals remains paramount.

BackgroundQ fever is a common cause of febrile illness and community-acquired pneumonia in resource-limited settings. Coxiella burnetii, the causative pathogen, is transmitted among varied host species, but the epidemiology of the organism in Africa is poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review of C. burnetii epidemiology in Africa from a “One Health” perspective to synthesize the published data and identify knowledge gaps.Methods/Principal FindingsWe searched nine databases to identify articles relevant to four key aspects of C. burnetii epidemiology in human and animal populations in Africa: infection prevalence; disease incidence; transmission risk factors; and infection control efforts. We identified 929 unique articles, 100 of which remained after full-text review. Of these, 41 articles describing 51 studies qualified for data extraction. Animal seroprevalence studies revealed infection by C. burnetii (≤13%) among cattle except for studies in Western and Middle Africa (18–55%). Small ruminant seroprevalence ranged from 11–33%. Human seroprevalence was <8% with the exception of studies among children and in Egypt (10–32%). Close contact with camels and rural residence were associated with increased seropositivity among humans. C. burnetii infection has been associated with livestock abortion. In human cohort studies, Q fever accounted for 2–9% of febrile illness hospitalizations and 1–3% of infective endocarditis cases. We found no studies of disease incidence estimates or disease control efforts.Conclusions/Significance C. burnetii infection is detected in humans and in a wide range of animal species across Africa, but seroprevalence varies widely by species and location. Risk factors underlying this variability are poorly understood as is the role of C. burnetii in livestock abortion. Q fever consistently accounts for a notable proportion of undifferentiated human febrile illness and infective endocarditis in cohort studies, but incidence estimates are lacking. C. burnetii presents a real yet underappreciated threat to human and animal health throughout Africa.

Emerging zoonoses with pandemic potential are a stated priority for the global health security agenda, but endemic zoonoses also have a major societal impact in low-resource settings. Although many endemic zoonoses can be treated, timely diagnosis and appropriate clinical management of human cases is often challenging. Preventive ‘One Health’ interventions, e.g. interventions in animal populations that generate human health benefits, may provide a useful approach to overcoming some of these challenges. Effective strategies, such as animal vaccination, already exist for the prevention, control and elimination of many endemic zoonoses, including rabies, and several livestock zoonoses (e.g. brucellosis, leptospirosis, Q fever) that are important causes of human febrile illness and livestock productivity losses in low- and middle-income countries. We make the case that, for these diseases, One Health interventions have the potential to be more effective and generate more equitable benefits for human health and livelihoods, particularly in rural areas, than approaches that rely exclusively on treatment of human cases. We hypothesize that applying One Health interventions to tackle these health challenges will help to build trust, community engagement and cross-sectoral collaboration, which will in turn strengthen the capacity of fragile health systems to respond to the threat of emerging zoonoses and other future health challenges. One Health interventions thus have the potential to align the ongoing needs of disadvantaged communities with the concerns of the broader global community, providing a pragmatic and equitable approach to meeting the global goals for sustainable development and supporting the global health security agenda.This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

BackgroundCritical illness is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Identifying patients with the highest risk of death could help with resource allocation and clinical decision making. Accordingly, we derived and validated a universal vital assessment (UVA) score for use in SSA.MethodsWe pooled data from hospital-based cohort studies conducted in six countries in SSA spanning the years 2009–2015. We derived and internally validated a UVA score using decision trees and linear regression and compared its performance with the modified early warning score (MEWS) and the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score.ResultsOf 5573 patients included in the analysis, 2829 (50.8%) were female, the median (IQR) age was 36 (27–49) years, 2122 (38.1%) were HIV-infected and 996 (17.3%) died in-hospital. The UVA score included points for temperature, heart and respiratory rates, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, Glasgow Coma Scale score and HIV serostatus, and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.79), which outperformed MEWS (AUC 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.71)) and qSOFA (AUC 0.69 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.72)).ConclusionWe identified predictors of in-hospital mortality irrespective of the underlying condition(s) in a large population of hospitalised patients in SSA and derived and internally validated a UVA score to assist clinicians in risk-stratifying patients for in-hospital mortality. The UVA score could help improve patient triage in resource-limited environments and serve as a standard for mortality risk in future studies.