Scenario of porcine cysticercosis and human taeniasis in Maharashtra State, India

Abstract

Cysticercosis/taeniasis is one of the neglected parasitic zoonoses in developing countries like India. A study was conducted for a period of 7 years from 2010 to 2017 during which 13,596 pig and 1238 human samples were screened to learn the exact scenario of cysticercosis/taeniasis in the different regions of Maharashtra State. Prevalence of cysticercosis/taeniasis in pigs and humans was recorded using various diagnostic methods such as meat inspection and serological methods involving ELISA. The overall prevalence of cysticercosis in pigs was found to be 0.88% by postmortem examination and 0.9% by PCR assay, whereas prevalence of taeniasis in humans was 3.15% by ELISA and 2.04% by PCR. As compared to the previous reports from the state, the findings of the present study revealed a lowered prevalence of the disease in both the human and the pig population. It was concluded that the declining trend of cysticercosis in Maharashtra State was the outcome of the implementation of appropriate and sustainable public health interventions achieved through demonstrations and the distribution of booklets in the vernacular language.

Animal disease surveillance: Its importance & present status in India

“…The seroprevalence of porcine cysticercosis was reported to be 11.6 per cent in Tamil Nadu 65 . The reported overall prevalence of cysticercosis in pigs was 0.88 per cent by post-mortem examination and 0.9 per cent by PCR assay, whereas the prevalence of taeniasis in humans was reported as 3.15 per cent by ELISA and 2.04 per cent by PCR 66 . In humans, the prevalence of neurocysticercosis (NCC) as a cause of active epilepsy was estimated to be one per 1000 population in India 67 .…”

Economic Implications of Porcine Cysticercosis Based on Meta-Analysis Estimates of its Prevalence in India

“…The economic loss accruing to organ condemnation and body weight loss due to cysticercosis was estimated on the basis of estimate given by Vaidya et al (2014). The average economic loss reported in the study was calculated as ` 1726.31 per cysticercosis affected pig carcass which was adjusted to the value of Rupees during in 2019 as per dynamics of Consumer price Index (RBI).…”

“…Sub-group analysis according to the sample size of studies shows no major deviation in heterogeneity and indicates that as the sample size increases prevalence rates decreases. The studies under this meta-analysis mostly cover the urban or city areas where slaughtering is practiced under the aegis of regulations of municipal corporations (Prasad et al, 2008, Sarma et al, 2000Prasad et al, 2002Hafeez et al, 2004An Hafeez et al, 2004An a Hafeez et al, 2004An b Hafeez et al, 2004KI Hafeez et al, 2004KI a Hafeez et al, 2004KI b Hafeez et al, 2004Kn Hafeez et al, 2004Kn a Hafeez et al, 2004Kn b Hafeez et al, 2004TN Hafeez et al, 2004TN a Hafeez et al, 2004TN b Selvam et al, 2004Sharma et al, 2005a Sharma et al, 2005Prakash et al, 2007Borkataki et al, 2012Mohan et al, 2013Sreedevi et al, 2012Rout and Saikumar 2012Kalai et al, 2012Saravanan et al, 2014Bhadrige et al, 2014Koushik and Islam 2014Vaidya et al, 2014Pg Chawhan et al, 2015Sahoo et al, 2016Sreedevi et al, 2016Sharma et al, 2017Shende et al, 2016Abirami et al, 2018Satyaprakash et al, 2018Singh et al, 2018Vaidya et al, 2018ELISA V...…”

“…Recently Vaidya et al (2014) approximated economic losses due to PCC to ` 1726.30/-per infected carcass in an abattoir based survey at Mumbai. This estimate was taken a baseline value for calculation of economic costs of PCC under current study.…”

“…The economic impact of porcine cysticercosis due to the rejection of meat and edible offal has been reported throughout the globe (Rashid et al, 2018). In India, perhaps very few primary studies were attempted to estimate the losses suffered to pork industry due to porcine cysticercosis (Vaidya et al, 2014, Barua et al, 2019. The present study is an estimation of approximate losses to Indian meat industry due to porcine cysticercosis however it relies on data obtained from the meta-analysis of published prevalence reports.…”