Next Article in Journal
Lipid Metabolism Disorders as Diagnostic Biosignatures in Sepsis
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Epidemiological and Clinical Outcomes on COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Hospitalized Patients during 2023
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Retrospective Study: Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Inflammatory Markers in Hospitalized Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Infectious Disease Reports
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/idr16050061
idr-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

First Insight into the Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii Infection among Veterinary Medicine Students in Bulgaria

by
Petia Genova-Kalou
1,
Yordan Hodzhev
2,*,
Ilia Tsachev
3,
Roman Pepovich
4,
Stefan Panaiotov
2,
Veselin Dobrinov
1,
Stefka Krumova
1,
Betina Boneva-Marutsova
3,
Borislava Chakarova
5,
Keytlin Todorova
6,
Konstantin Simeonov
6,
Magdalena Baymakova
7,* and
Pierre-Edouard Fournier
8
1
Department of Virology, National Center of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, 1233 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Department of Microbiology, National Center of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria
3
Department of Microbiology, Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Trakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
4
Department of Infectious Pathology, Hygiene, Technology and Control of Foods from Animal Origin, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Forestry, 1797 Sofia, Bulgaria
5
Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology, Parasitology and Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Trakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
6
National Diagnostic and Research Veterinary Medical Institute “Prof. Dr. G. Pavlov”, Bulgarian Food Safety Agency, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria
7
Department of Infectious Diseases, Military Medical Academy, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria
8
French Reference Center for Rickettsioses, Q Fever and Bartonelloses, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, 13005 Marseille, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Infect. Dis. Rep. 2024, 16(5), 794-805; https://doi.org/10.3390/idr16050061
Submission received: 21 June 2024 / Revised: 12 August 2024 / Accepted: 21 August 2024 / Published: 26 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Infections: Epidemiology, Diagnostics, Clinics and Evolution)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of Coxiella burnetii infection among veterinary medicine students from two Bulgarian Universities, located in Sofia and Stara Zagora. Blood samples were collected from a total of 185 veterinary students for the detection of C. burnetii phase II antibodies and presence of DNA using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and end-point PCR test. Out of all samples, 29.7% were positive for at least one C. burnetii phase II antibody marker or by the result of the PCR test. Veterinary students from Stara Zagora showed a significantly high seropositivity for Q fever (33.6%), as compared to the students in Sofia (23%; p < 0.05). Evidence of recent exposure with detection of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM (+) antibodies was observed in 14.6% of the students under study. Seroprevalence among students in Stara Zagora was higher (15.3%). Anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG antibodies were detected in 21.6% of examined samples. Our study revealed a higher seropositivity among the male students (32.8%) as compared to females (16.0%; p < 0.05). The end-point PCR assay detected 5.9% blood samples as positive. The relative risk (RR) of Q fever exposure for male students was 40.7%, whereas it was 24.6% in females (p < 0.05). The findings from this study indicate that the C. burnetii infection is widely distributed amongst veterinary students in Bulgaria. This study emphasizes the need for improved safety protocols and infection control measures in veterinary training programs.

1. Introduction

Q fever is an endemic zoonosis of global distribution, caused by the intracellular bacterium Coxiella burnetii, which is of particular significance to human and animal health [1,2,3]. Over the last few years, the highest numbers of confirmed cases of Q fever in Europe have been reported in Spain, France, Germany, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria [4,5,6,7,8,9]. The primary sources of human infection are domestic ruminants, such as goats, cattle and sheep, and pets, in which the infection is usually asymptomatic, but may also be associated with infertility, abortions and premature birth [10,11,12,13]. The clinical manifestations of Q fever in humans varies greatly, from a nonspecific, self-limiting disease to an acute form (fever of unknown origin, atypical pneumonia, granulomatous hepatitis) [14,15,16] or may have chronic presentation (endocarditis, vascular infection, osteomyelitis, etc.) [17,18]. The laboratory diagnosis of Q fever is based on (i) isolation and cultivation, which requires BSL3 facilities for tissue cultures [19]; (ii) serological tests, such as indirect immunofluorescence (IFA), which is considered to be the gold standard and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [20,21]; (iii) antigen detection assays, such as immunohistochemical staining (IHC) [22]; and (iv) molecular detection of C. burnetii DNA by different PCR techniques for early diagnosis of the acute phase [23,24]. In acute Q fever, the anti-C. burnetii antibody response is detectable in the 2–3 weeks following infection. The level of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM antibodies increases rapidly after infection, and they are detectable for several months as a marker of a current infection. The presence of specific phase II IgG antibodies provides evidence of a recent C. burnetii infection or a past exposure to the pathogen, which can remain detectable for years [25,26].
Due to the fact that C. burnetii is environmentally stable and can be transmitted from animal hosts to humans mainly via the inhalation of contaminated aerosols or dust particles [27,28], the most vulnerable people are professionals who have daily contact with farm animals and pets and are therefore at a higher occupational risk of exposure [29,30,31]. Veterinary medicine students remain at high risk during their six-year veterinary curriculum, since their training includes animal handling and the treatment of a wide variety of species [32]. According to the scientific literature, few serological studies have focused on C. burnetii seroprevalence among veterinary medicine students [33,34,35]. So far, only a few studies have assessed the zoonotic risks for veterinary medicine students [36,37,38].
Q fever is considered endemic for Bulgaria; however, due to its nonspecific and pleomorphic clinical presentation, Q fever often remains neglected and underdiagnosed. Thus, little is known of Q fever seroprevalence among various professional groups occupationally exposed to C. burnetii infection, including veterinary medicine students, because of their close contact with infected livestock and pets during their curricular trainings.
Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of C. burnetii infection among veterinary medicine students at two Veterinary Medicine Faculties (in Sofia and Stara Zagora), located in the Western and Central parts of the country. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first evidence of C. burnetii infection in veterinary medicine students in Bulgaria.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Target Population and Sample Collection

In this study, blood samples were taken from a total of 185 veterinary medicine students in their 5th year of study during the 2022–2023 academic year at the two Veterinary Faculties of the University of Forestry in Sofia and Trakia University in Stara Zagora, Bulgaria. The participants in the present research were selected on the basis of case definition, as well as inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 1).
The students, included in this study had to meet the following criteria: (a) age > 18 years; (b) students in the 5th year of study and majoring in “Veterinary Medicine”; (c) participants at the end of their cursus who were in close contact with farm animals and pets during practical training; (d) participants who gave a submission of a written informed consent for participation in the research survey; (e) female participants who did not report a possible pregnancy at the moment of the survey. The exclusion criteria for the present research included the following: (a) individuals younger than 18 years; (b) persons from other university specialties, such as mathematics, engineering, finance and economics, law, and human sciences; (c) individuals with contraindications for venipuncture; (d) persons who refused to give written informed consent; (e) participants with a Q fever vaccination history; (f) persons with a severe clinical form of an acute or chronic disease; (g) students who were pregnant.
The samples from the students were obtained during routine diagnostic tests following a standard procedure. After obtaining a written consent and completing a questionnaire, students were invited to donate a blood sample of 10 mL by venipuncture for testing. The blood samples were delivered to the National Reference Laboratory (NRL) “Rickettsia and cell cultures”, Department of Virology, National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia (Bulgaria). The sera were separated by centrifugation at 1500 rpm for 10 min, transferred into sterile vacuum tubes and stored at −20 °C until processing. Whole blood samples (200 µL), collected in EDTA tubes, were used for DNA extraction.

2.2. Case Definition

The presence of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG antibodies was assumed to indicate an acute C. burnetii infection or a history of a past one, i.e., a previous encounter with this pathogen. C. burnetii infection was defined as acute when one of the following criteria was present: (a) a 4-fold increase in anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG antibody titers specific to C. burnetii between paired serum samples, as evidenced by an ELISA; (b) a positive ELISA result for anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM antibodies; (c) the presence of C. burnetii DNA detected in EDTA blood specimens via the amplification of a specific target by PCR assay, <21 days following the onset of the disease; (d) a negative blood PCR result but a positive ELISA result for IgM and IgG antibodies against phase II antigens of C. burnetii. Paired sera samples taken 3 to 6 weeks and demonstrating a 4-fold or greater rise in C. burnetii phase II IgG antibody titers between the acute and convalescent phase confirmed the diagnosis of acute Q fever.

2.3. Serological Tests

The serum samples were examined for the presence of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM and IgG antibodies using a commercial ELISA kit (EUROIMMUN, Lübeck, Germany) according to the manufacture’s recommendations. The absorbance values were determined at 450 nm (reference wavelength of 620–690 nm) using an Epoch ELISA reader (Agilent BioTek Epoch Microplate Spectrophotometer, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), on the Gen5 version 2.06 analysis software (BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT, USA). The optical density (OD), cut-off values and controls were recorded, respectively. The results were evaluated semi-quantitatively by calculating the ratio (R) of the extinction value of the patient’s sample over the extinction value of the calibrator. The results were categorized as follows: R ≥ 1.1 was accepted as positive indicating a possible acute infection or evidence of past one; R < 0.8 was considered negative; and R ≥ 0.8 to <1.1 indicated a borderline result [39].

2.4. PCR Assay

Whole blood samples were tested for the presence/absence of C. burnetii DNA using end-point PCR and specific primers. Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (cat. No 51304, Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instruction. DNA was eluted with forty microliters of elution buffer and stored at 4 °C until use. The primers were designed to amplify a 687 bp fragment of the transposon-like repetitive region of the bacterial genome (IS1111) of C. burnetii, using the Trans-1 and Trans-2 primers with the following sequence: Trans-1 (5′-TAT GTA TCC ACC GTA GCCAGT C-3′) and Tans-2 (5′-CCC AAC AACACC TCC TTATTC-3′) (Metabion, Planegg, Germany) [40]. The Trans-PCR was carried out as described [41]. The resulting amplicons underwent electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gel and visualization under UV light [42].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using the SPSS Statistics 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Excel 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) software platforms. The data were entered and arranged in MS Excel. The risk exposure to C. burnetii of the different groups of veterinary students was calculated, as categorized by sex and location. The statistical analysis compared the relative risks (RRs) as the proportion of the exposed over unexposed students. A Chi square test was utilized for this comparison, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The final results obtained from the statistical analysis were confirmed by all scientists involved in this study.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

All veterinary medicine students signed a written informed consent for participation in the research. Participants gave written informed consent for the invasive procedures conducted on them (venipuncture). Students had individual access to his/her laboratory result. The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (adopted in June 1964, last revision October 2013). The present survey was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria (NCIPD-02/7 February 2023), who confirmed that the research was in full accordance with all ethical principles and practices. The authors have not used artificial intelligence (AI) to create this manuscript.

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of the Study Population

A two-step approach was used to distinguish between a present acute C. burnetii infection from a past one. First of all, all serum samples were screened by a commercial ELISA kit for the presence of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM and IgG antibodies. Then, the positive samples were analyzed by an end-point PCR assay, targeting IS1111 transposable element, which is routinely used as a marker in the epidemiological investigation of C. burnetii infections.

3.2. Serology and PCR Analysis

Table 1 shows the distribution of participants according to their serological result, PCR results, university and gender. The categories include combinations of IgM, IgG and PCR results, indicating different stages and types of exposure to or infection with C. burnetii. Among the 185 serum samples studied, 55 (29.7%) were positive for at least one marker of the anti-C. burnetii phase II antibody or for the presence of C. burnetii DNA (Chi square (1) = 27.88; p < 0.001). Veterinary medicine students from Stara Zagora showed significantly more seropositivity against C. burnetii as compared to those from the capital city of Sofia (42 out of 125 (33.6%) vs. 14 out of 61 (23%), respectively, Chi square (1) = 2.22; p < 0.05) Stratified by gender, 24 of 59 (40.7%) male samples were positive, versus 31 of 126 (24.6%) female samples (Chi square (1) = 4.00, p < 0.05).
Among all veterinary students tested who provided a serum sample, 28 (14.6%) had evidence of recent exposure (presence of IgM to phase II C. burnetii). Of those, 4 samples (14.8%) were obtained from males and 23 (85.2%) were obtained from females (Chi square (1) = 3.98, p < 0.05). Overall, 8 of 61 serum samples (13.1%) from veterinary students in Sofia were positive for phase II IgM antibodies. The seroprevalence among students in Stara Zagora was 15.3% (19/126) (Chi square (1) = 0.14, p = 0.71).
Anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG antibodies were detected in 40 of the 185 (21.6%) serum samples examined. The seroprevalence for phase II IgG antibodies observed in our study population was 14.8% and 25% for University of Forestry and Trakia University, respectively; however, the result obtained was not significant (Chi square (1) = 2.44, p > 0.1). It should be noted that the frequency of positive serum titers for Q fever (phase II) was greater in males than in females (Chi square (1) = 6.84, p < 0.01). Moreover, the incidence of seropositivity for IgG was almost twice in males (39%) than in females (13.5%) (Chi square (1) = 6.84, p < 0.01). Out of the 10 patients with suspected acute Q fever infection (presence of anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM/IgG (+) antibodies), the proportion in females was higher than that in males.

3.3. Molecular Analysis

EDTA blood samples were further screened in this study by end-point PCR assay for the detection of C. burnetii DNA. The end-point PCR detected 11 out of 185 (5.9%) blood samples as positive at 687 bp by Trans-1 and Trans-2 primers. In general, 7.1% of the females and 3.4% of the males tested positive.

3.4. Relative Risk Assessment of Q Fever Exposure

The relative risk (RR) of Q fever exposure among veterinary students was assessed by comparing the prevalence of anti-C. burnetii antibodies between the different groups, specifically focusing on sex and university affiliation (Table 2). For clarity, all cases that showed at least one positive marker (IgG, IgM or PCR) were pooled together and designated as “exposed” and were compared to the number of negative cases (“unexposed”). The relative risk of Q fever exposure for the students in Stara Zagora and Sofia was 33.1% and 23%, respectively. The relative risk (RR) of Q fever exposure for male students was 40.7% and 24.6%, respectively. A location-by-sex RR analysis showed that the relative risk of Q fever exposure for male students in Stara Zagora was 50%, followed by female students in Stara Zagora (25.6%). Male and female veterinary students in Sofia had an RR of 23.8% and 22.5%, respectively.

4. Discussion

Q fever is among the most common zoonotic diseases, and even in countries with limited information, the available data show a high prevalence of infection in people who are professionally involved in animal husbandry [43]. The results of our study are in agreement with similar data reported by other authors in Europe. In 2000, Valencia et al. reported a 11.02% C. burnetii seroprevalence in veterinary students from Zaragoza, Spain [38]. In Turkey, seroprevalences of anti-C. burnetii antibodies of 7.0% and 8.0% were detected among 83 veterinarians from two distinct geographic regions [44]. German scientists detected 38.0% positive sera for IgG to phase II C. burnetii among 424 veterinarians [45]. In 2012, de Rooij et al. reported anti-C. burnetii IgG in Dutch veterinary medicine students [36]. One year later, another Dutch scientific team found antibodies against C. burnetii among 65.1% of 189 livestock veterinarians [46]. Similar reports have been publish by other authors as well [47,48,49]. In short, our results and data from other authors throughout Europe show a moderate to high level of C. burnetii seropositivity among risk groups (persons in contact with animals; predominantly veterinarians).
To assess the importance of C. burnetii infection among risk groups (veterinarians, hunters, etc.), it is recommended to make a comparison with the seropositivity in the general population. In Tuscany, Tiscione et al. reported lower levels of C. burnetii antibodies among an urban group with no potential animal contact (6.1%) compared to the higher levels, detected in a rural group with higher potential exposure to animals (49.1%) [50]. A few years later, Pascual Velasco et al. identified 3.0% of seropositive individuals in the healthy population from Lanzarote, Canary Islands [51]. In Northern Ireland, McCaughey et al. detected a 12.8% seropositivity among 2394 randomly selected subjects [52]. By testing plasma samples obtained over time in Southern Netherlands, Brandwagt et al. [53] reported significant dynamics in Q fever seroprevalence levels, ranging from 62.5% in 1983 to 14.4% in 1987, and decreasing to 1% in 2008, with a slight increase in 2.3% in 2010. Similar data were also reported by other authors [54,55,56,57]. These data clearly demonstrated a lower seropositivity for C. burnetii in the general population compared to the risk groups. This confirms the role of this bacterium as an occupational disease pathogen and highlights the need for more detailed epidemiological investigations in exposed population.
In our survey, high seroprevalence rates against C. burnetii (30.8%) were found among veterinary medicine students. The potential reasons for this situation may be multiple and of different natures. Q fever is endemic in Bulgaria, and high environmental contamination can be expected due to the wide prevalence of C. burnetii infection found amongst ruminant herds/flocks in the country (Simeonov K, unpublished data). In addition, C. burnetii infection is easily acquired by inhalation of contaminated aerosols, which facilitates the transmission to people and the spread of the bacterium [58,59]. Coxiella burnetii can withstand long periods in harsh environments [60] and the infected dust is contagious and can blow far from the initial point [61]. An animal’s hair, fleece and hide can be contaminated [62,63]. The lack of protection skills in veterinary medicine students also increases the risk when working with animals. So the direct or indirect exposure to contaminated aerosols is the main transmission route to humans [64]. But it is known that the ingestion of unpasteurized or raw milk from infected animals can be a mechanism of transmission [65,66]. Therefore, the consumption of raw milk or milk products could be a potential reason for the high seropositivity among our participants. But this is a hypothesis that should be analyzed in a future project. Transmission by tick bites is uncommon, but not impossible [67,68]. So a potentially higher tick exposure and bites among veterinarian students could partly explain the high seroprevalence.
The elevated prevalence of anti-C. burnetii IgM phase II (+) antibodies among students in the Trakia University suggests a direct correlation with their frequent contact with ruminants. The practical training involving hands-on livestock handling and farming activities contributes to the higher risk of exposure to C. burnetii. This cohort of students exhibited the highest seropositivity for anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG (+) antibodies. The cursus at Trakia University includes a number of practical classes involving farm animals (sheep, goats, cattle, horses, etc., including pregnant animals and animals that give birth), leading to an increased exposure to C. burnetii and a higher risk of infection. In contrast, the practical training at the University of Forestry is focused on domestic pets (mainly dogs and cats), which represents a lower epidemiological risk and may explain to some extent the lower seroprevalence in students from this university.
Our study revealed a higher seropositivity rate among male students as compared to females, with 32.8% of males testing positive for anti-C. burnetii phase II IgG antibodies versus 16.0% of females. The disparity by sex is in agreement with previous observations of ours [9] and suggests that male students might have had more intense exposure to risk factors during their practical training. For example, in the two Bulgarian veterinary medicine faculties, males more often participate in the birth of large animals such as cows, sheep and goats, whereas females commonly work with smaller animals such as dogs and cats. Consequently, males have an increased risk of direct exposure to infected materials. The detection of C. burnetii DNA in some blood samples implies that some students were experiencing early-phase infections. These findings are critical for early diagnosis and prompt treatment to prevent the progression towards chronic Q fever. The laboratory diagnosis of acute Q fever is based on detection via a PCR assay and serology methods [69]. Positive PCR results have identified patients with suspected early acute Q fever, since DNA is detectable within the 2 weeks after the start of symptoms, before or just as an anti-C. burnetii phase II IgM antibody response has been mounted [70]. Since the C. burnetii DNA detection time is always short for the diagnosis of acute Q fever, especially in regions of endemicity, this must be confirmed with a significant rise in titers specific to C. burnetii phase II antibodies in paired serum samples [71].
This study emphasizes the need for improved safety protocols and infection control measures in veterinary medicine training programs. Educating students about the risks and implementing strategies to reduce exposure to C. burnetii are essential steps in safeguarding their health. In this regard, the following protection measures against C. burnetii infection in veterinary medicine students can be mentioned in several respects [72,73,74]:
  • Experimental animals in veterinary laboratories/farms must be placed in separate rooms;
  • Pregnant infected animals (sheep, goats, cows, etc.) should not be used for practical student work;
  • Mandatory biosafety procedures must be strictly followed in the microbiological and biomedical laboratories of Faculties of Veterinary Medicine;
  • Placentas, aborted fetuses, other birth products and waste must be buried deeply using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE); also, do not permit the eating of placenta by animals;
  • Infectious waste must be sterilized and disposed at a specialized facility;
  • All working surfaces must be disinfected against bodily fluids and animal dust;
  • Wearing respiratory protective equipment and gloves is essential while handling animals when giving birth or in case of miscarriage.
This study has some limitations that need to be mentioned. First, the research involved a small number of participants. Second, we present results from the serological and PCR assays but we did not have access to data on the associated risk factors. Third, the participants under study did not present with clinical signs and symptoms of Q fever; i.e., all students were clinically healthy, so laboratory tests and imaging investigations were not performed. Despite these limitations, this research has several merits. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to presents serological evidence of C. burnetii infection among veterinary medicine students in Bulgaria. In addition, we performed a PCR analysis of the serum samples studied. These are important contributions to the overall knowledge of this infection in Bulgaria and the region of Southeastern Europe (the Balkan Peninsula).

5. Conclusions

In this study, we present data on the prevalence of C. burnetii infection among an at risk group (veterinary medicine students) in Bulgaria. We found high seroprevalence rates of this pathogen (30.8%) in the participants under study. This demonstrates that veterinarians in our country are exposed to an increased risk of Q fever, which can occur as an acute disease or a chronic infection. These findings require national health authorities to take adequate measures for the control and surveillance of this disease among groups at risk. In this direction, an important step is to increase the awareness of the veterinary community in Bulgaria regarding the measures that can be taken for Q fever prevention.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.G.-K., I.T. and M.B.; methodology, P.G.-K. and M.B.; formal analysis, P.G.-K. and M.B.; investigation, P.G.-K., I.T., R.P., B.B.-M., M.B. and P.-E.F.; resources, I.T., R.P., B.B.-M. and B.C.; data curation, P.G.-K., V.D., Y.H., K.T., S.K., K.S. and M.B.; statistical analysis, Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, P.G.-K. and M.B.; writing—review and editing, P.G.-K., I.T., M.B., S.P. and P.-E.F.; visualization, P.G.-K., Y.H. and M.B.; supervision, P.G.-K., I.T., M.B. and P.-E.F.; project administration, P.G.-K. and I.T.; funding acquisition, I.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund under Grant No. KP-06-N33/3, from 13 December 2019, entitled: “Molecular-genetic identification and creation of an archive genomic bank of the circulating human and animal C. burnetii genotypes and determination of their role as particularly dangerous infectious agents causing epidemiological outbreaks on the territory of Bulgaria”. The article processing charge (APC) was funded by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science in the frame of the Bulgarian National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Component “Innovative Bulgaria”, Project No. BG-RRP-2.004-0006-C02 “Development of Research and Innovation at Trakia University in Service of Health and Sustainable Well-Being”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria (NCIPD-02/7 February 2023). The authors have not used artificial intelligence (AI) to create this manuscript.

Informed Consent Statement

A written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

Part of the research involved in this article was supported by the Bulgarian National Science Fund under Grant number KP-06-N33/3, from 13 December 2019. We are grateful to all veterinary medicine students who participated in this study. Furthermore, we thank our families for providing us with the time and support required to complete this survey in a timely manner.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Eldin, C.; Melenotte, C.; Mediannikov, O.; Ghigo, E.; Million, M.; Edouard, S.; Mege, J.L.; Maurin, M.; Raoult, D. From Q fever to Coxiella burnetii infection: A paradigm change. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 30, 115–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Angelakis, E.; Raoult, D. Q fever. Vet. Microbiol. 2010, 140, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ullah, Q.; Jamil, T.; Saqib, M.; Iqbal, M.; Neubauer, H. Q fever—A neglected zoonosis. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hurtado, A.; Zendoia, I.I.; Alonso, E.; Beraza, X.; Bidaurrazaga, J.; Ocabo, B.; Arrazola, I.; Cevidanes, A.; Barandika, J.F.; Garcia-Perez, A.L. A Q fever outbreak among visitors to a natural cave, Bizkaia, Spain, December 2020 to October 2021. Euro Surveill. 2023, 28, 2200824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Melenotte, C.; Protopopescu, C.; Million, M.; Edouard, S.; Carrieri, M.P.; Eldin, C.; Angelakis, E.; Djossou, F.; Bardin, N.; Fournier, P.E.; et al. Clinical features and complications of Coxiella burnetii infections from the French national reference center for Q Fever. JAMA Netw. Open. 2018, 1, e181580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Winter, F.; Campe, A. Q fever expertise among human and veterinary health professionals in Germany—A stakeholder analysis of knowledge gaps. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Negru, A.R.; Popescu, C.; Radulescu, M.; Lobodan, A.; Lapadat, I.; Gliga, S.; Dulama, R.; Cristea, D.; Arama, V. Coxiella burnetii endocarditis–A real threat in the context of Q fever re-emergence. BMC Infect. Dis. 2014, 14 (Suppl. S7), P32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sulyok, K.M.; Kreizinger, Z.; Hornstra, H.M.; Pearson, T.; Szigeti, A.; Dan, A.; Balla, E.; Keim, P.S.; Gyuranecz, M. Genotyping of Coxiella burnetii from domestic ruminants and human in Hungary: Indication of various genotypes. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Genova-Kalou, P.; Vladimirova, N.; Stoitsova, S.; Krumova, S.; Kurchatova, A.; Kantardjiev, T. Q fever in Bulgaria: Laboratory and epidemiological findings on human cases and outbreaks, 2011 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2019, 24, 1900119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Guatteo, R.; Seegers, H.; Taurel, A.F.; Joly, A.; Beaudeau, F. Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii infection in domestic ruminants: A critical review. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 149, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rodolakis, A. Q fever, state of art: Epidemiology, diagnosis and prophylaxis. Small Rumin. Res. 2006, 62, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abdel-Moein, K.A.; Zaher, H.M. Parturient cat as a potential reservoir for Coxiella burnetii: A hidden threat to pet owners. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2021, 21, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Agerholm, J.S. Coxiella burnetii associated reproductive disorders in domestic animals—A critical review. Acta Vet. Scand. 2013, 55, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Parker, N.R.; Barralet, J.H.; Bell, A.M. Q fever. Lancet 2006, 367, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Marrie, T.J. Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) pneumonia. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1995, 21 (Suppl. S3), S253–S264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Maurin, M.; Raoult, D. Q fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999, 12, 518–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fenollar, F.; Fournier, P.E.; Carrieri, M.P.; Habib, G.; Messana, T.; Raoult, D. Risks factors and prevention of Q fever endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001, 33, 312–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bernit, E.; Pouget, J.; Janbon, F.; Dutronc, H.; Martinez, P.; Brouqui, P.; Raoult, D. Neurological involvement in acute Q fever: A report of 29 cases and review of the literature. Arch. Intern. Med. 2002, 162, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mori, M.; Mertens, K.; Cutler, S.J.; Santos, A.S. Critical aspects for detection of Coxiella burnetii. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2017, 17, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Meekelenkamp, J.C.; Schneeberger, P.M.; Wever, P.C.; Leenders, A.C. Comparison of ELISA and indirect immunofluorescent antibody assay detecting Coxiella burnetii IgM phase II for the diagnosis of acute Q fever. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 31, 1267–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mertens, K.; Gerlach, C.; Neubauer, H.; Henning, K. Q fever–An update. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2017, 4, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lepidi, H.; Houpikian, P.; Liang, Z.; Raoult, D. Cardiac valves in patients with Q fever endocarditis: Microbiological, molecular, and histologic studies. J. Infect. Dis. 2003, 187, 1097–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sahu, R.; Rawool, D.B.; Vinod, V.K.; Malik, S.V.S.; Barbuddhe, S.B. Current approaches for the detection of Coxiella burnetii infection in humans and animals. J. Microbiol. Methods 2020, 179, 106087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Anderson, A.; Bijlmer, H.; Fournier, P.E.; Graves, S.; Hartzell, J.; Kersh, G.J.; Limonard, G.; Marrie, T.J.; Massung, R.F.; McQuiston, J.H.; et al. Diagnosis and management of Q fever–United States, 2013: Recommendations from CDC and the Q fever working group. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2013, 62, 1–30, Erratum in MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2013, 62, 730. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Dupuis, G.; Peter, O.; Peacock, M.; Burgdorfer, W.; Haller, E. Immunoglobulin responses in acute Q fever. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1985, 22, 484–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sukocheva, O.A.; Marmion, B.P.; Storm, P.A.; Lockhart, M.; Turra, M.; Graves, S. Long-term persistence after acute Q fever of non-infective Coxiella burnetii cell components, including antigens. QJM 2010, 103, 847–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Raoult, D.; Marrie, T.; Mege, J. Natural history and pathophysiology of Q fever. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2005, 5, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. McQuiston, J.H.; Childs, J.E. Q fever in humans and animals in the United States. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002, 2, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Groten, T.; Kuenzer, K.; Moog, U.; Hermann, B.; Maier, K.; Boden, K. Who is at risk of occupational Q fever: New insights from a multi-profession cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e030088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Whitney, E.A.; Massung, R.F.; Candee, A.J.; Ailes, E.C.; Myers, L.M.; Patterson, N.E.; Berkelman, R.L. Seroepidemiologic and occupational risk survey for Coxiella burnetii antibodies among US veterinarians. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Palkhade, R.; Mishra, S.; Barbuddhe, S. Occupation-related biological health hazards and infection control practices among Indian veterinarians. Vet. Med. Int. 2022, 2022, 2503399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Conan, A.; Gallagher, C.A.; Erskine, N.; Howland, M.; Smith-Anthony, M.; Marchi, S.; Magouras, I.; Muller, A.; Becker, A.A.M.J. Is there a higher risk of exposure to Coxiella burnetii for pre-clinical veterinary students? One Health 2023, 16, 100485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Riemann, H.P.; Brant, P.C.; Franti, C.E.; Reis, R.; Buchanan, A.M.; Stormont, C.; Behymer, D.E. Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and Coxiella burnetii among students and other personnel in veterinary colleges in California and Brazil. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1974, 100, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Dorko, E.; Kalinova, Z.; Pilipcinec, E. Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii antibodies among students of the Faculty of Medicine in Kosice (Slovakia). Folia Microbiol. (Praha) 2008, 53, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Lange, M.M.A.; van der Hoek, W.; Schneeberger, P.M.; Swart, A.; Heederik, D.J.J.; Schimmer, B.; Wouters, I.M. High Coxiella burnetii seroconversion rate in veterinary students, the Netherlands, 2006–2010. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 3086–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. de Rooij, M.M.; Schimmer, B.; Versteeg, B.; Schneeberger, P.; Berends, B.R.; Heederik, D.; van der Hoek, W.; Wouters, I.M. Risk factors of Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) seropositivity in veterinary medicine students. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Khalili, M.; Qorbani, A.; Sharifi, H.; Golchin, M. Prevalence and risk factor of Q fever among veterinary students in Iran. Trop. Biomed. 2015, 32, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Valencia, M.C.; Rodriguez, C.O.; Punet, O.G.; de Blas Giral, I. Q fever seroprevalence and associated risk factors among students from the Veterinary School of Zaragoza, Spain. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2000, 16, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gutierrez-Bautista, J.F.; Tarrino, M.; Gonzalez, A.; Olivares Duran, M.J.; Cobo, F.; Reguera, J.A.; Rodriguez-Granger, J.; Sampedro, A. Comparison of an enzyme linked-immunosorbent assay and a chemiluminescent immunoassay with an immunofluorescence assay for detection of phase II IgM and IgG antibodies to Coxiella burnetii. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hoover, T.A.; Vodkin, M.H.; Williams, J.C. A Coxiella burnetii repeated DNA element resembling a bacterial insertion sequence. J. Bacteriol. 1992, 174, 5540–5548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Berri, M.; Laroucau, K.; Rodolakis, A. The detection of Coxiella burnetii from ovine genital swabs, milk and fecal samples by the use of a single touchdown polymerase chain reaction. Vet. Microbiol. 2000, 72, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Khalili, M.; Naderi, H.R.; Salehnia, N.; Abiri, Z. Detection of Coxiella burnetii in acute undifferentiated febrile illnesses (AUFIs) in Iran. Trop. Doct. 2016, 46, 221–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lobato, L.; Bethony, J.M.; Pereira, F.B.; Grahek, S.L.; Diemert, D.; Gazzinelli, M.F. Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ergonul, O.; Zeller, H.; Kilic, S.; Kutlu, S.; Kutlu, M.; Cavusoglu, S.; Esen, B.; Dokuzoguz, B. Zoonotic infections among veterinarians in Turkey: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and beyond. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2006, 10, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bernard, H.; Brockmann, S.O.; Kleinkauf, N.; Klinc, C.; Wagner-Wiening, C.; Stark, K.; Jansen, A. High seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii antibodies in veterinarians associated with cattle obstetrics, Bavaria, 2009. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Van den Brom, R.; Schimmer, B.; Schneeberger, P.M.; Swart, W.A.; van der Hoek, W.; Vellema, P. Seroepidemiological survey for Coxiella burnetii antibodies and associated risk factors in Dutch livestock veterinarians. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Fenga, C.; Gangemi, S.; De Luca, A.; Calimeri, S.; Lo Giudice, D.; Pugliese, M.; Licitra, F.; Alibrandi, A.; Costa, C. Seroprevalence and occupational risk survey for Coxiella burnetii among exposed workers in Sicily, Southern Italy. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2015, 28, 901–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Verso, M.G.; Vesco, G.; Villari, S.; Galluzzo, P.; Gargano, V.; Matranga, D.; De Marchis, P.; Picciotto, D. Analysis of seroprevalence against Coxiella burnetii in a sample of farm workers in Western Sicily. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2016, 23, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Dal Pozzo, F.; Martinelle, L.; Leonard, P.; Renaville, B.; Renaville, R.; Thys, C.; Smeets, F.; Czaplicki, G.; Van Esbroeck, M.; Saegerman, C. Q fever serological survey and associated risk factors in veterinarians, Southern Belgium, 2013. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2017, 64, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Tiscione, E.; Ademollo, B.; Donato, R.; Roller, S.; Signorini, L.F. Prevalence of antibodies against Coxiella burnetii in 2 geographical zones of Tuscany Article in Italian. Ann. Ig. 1989, 1, 1133–1143. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  51. Pascual Velasco, F.; Otero Ferrio, I.; Borobio Enciso, M.V. Prevalence of antibodies against Coxiella burnetii in a healthy population in Lanzarote (Canary Islands) Article in Spanish. An. Med. Interna 1991, 8, 233–234. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. McCaughey, C.; McKenna, J.; McKenna, C.; Coyle, P.V.; O’Neill, H.J.; Wyatt, D.E.; Smyth, B.; Murray, L.J. Human seroprevalence to Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in Northern Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health 2008, 55, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Brandwagt, D.A.; Herremans, T.; Schneeberger, P.M.; Hackert, V.H.; Hoebe, C.J.; Paget, J.; van Der Hoek, W. Waning population immunity prior to a large Q fever epidemic in the South of the Netherlands. Epidemiol. Infect. 2016, 144, 2866–2872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Weitzel, T.; Lopez, J.; Acosta-Jamett, G.; Edouard, S.; Parola, P.; Abarca, K. Absence of convincing evidence of Coxiella burnetii infection in Chile: A cross-sectional serosurvey among healthy adults in four different regions. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Neare, K.; Janson, M.; Hutt, P.; Lassen, B.; Viltrop, A. Coxiella burnetii antibody prevalence and risk factors of infection in the human population of Estonia. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Jaubert, J.; Naze, F.; Camuset, G.; Larrieu, S.; Pascalis, H.; Guernier, V.; Naty, N.; Bertolotti, A.; Manaquin, R.; Mboussou, Y.; et al. Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) exposure in humans on Reunion Island. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, ofz227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kersh, G.J.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Pletnikoff, K.; Brubaker, M.; Bruce, M.; Parkinson, A. Prevalence of serum antibodies to Coxiella burnetii in Alaska native persons from the Pribilof Islands. Zoonoses Public Health 2020, 67, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dragan, A.L.; Voth, D.E. Coxiella burnetii: International pathogen of mystery. Microbes Infect. 2020, 22, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Borawski, K.; Dunaj, J.; Pancewicz, S.; Krol, M.; Czupryna, P.; Moniuszko-Malinowska, A. Coxiella burnetii and Q fever—A review. Przegl. Epidemiol. 2020, 74, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Abeykoon, A.M.H.; Clark, N.J.; Soares Magalhaes, R.J.; Vincent, G.A.; Stevenson, M.A.; Firestone, S.M.; Wiethoelter, A.K. Coxiella burnetii in the environment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of sampling methods. Zoonoses Public Health 2021, 68, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Zendoia, I.I.; Barandika, J.F.; Hurtado, A.; Lopez, C.M.; Alonso, E.; Beraza, X.; Ocabo, B.; Garcia-Perez, A.L. Analysis of environmental dust in goat and sheep farms to assess Coxiella burnetii infection in a Q fever endemic area: Geographical distribution, relationship with human cases and genotypes. Zoonoses Public Health 2021, 68, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Van den Brom, R.; van Engelen, E.; Roest, H.I.; van der Hoek, W.; Vellema, P. Coxiella burnetii infections in sheep or goats: An opinionated review. Vet. Microbiol. 2015, 181, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Robi, D.T.; Demissie, W.; Temteme, S. Coxiellosis in livestock: Epidemiology, public health significance, and prevalence of Coxiella burnetii infection in Ethiopia. Vet. Med. 2023, 14, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Espana, P.P.; Uranga, A.; Cilloniz, C.; Torres, A. Q fever (Coxiella burnetii). Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 41, 509–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gale, P.; Kelly, L.; Mearns, R.; Duggan, J.; Snary, E.L. Q fever through consumption of unpasteurised milk and milk products—A risk profile and exposure assessment. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 118, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Basanisi, M.G.; La Bella, G.; Nobili, G.; Raele, D.A.; Cafiero, M.A.; Coppola, R.; Damato, A.M.; Fraccalvieri, R.; Sottili, R.; La Salandra, G. Detection of Coxiella burnetii DNA in sheep and goat milk and dairy products by droplet digital PCR in South Italy. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 366, 109583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Yessinou, R.E.; Katja, M.S.; Heinrich, N.; Farougou, S. Prevalence of Coxiella-infections in ticks—Review and meta-analysis. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2022, 13, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Muhammad, K.A.; Gadzama, U.N.; Onyiche, T.E. Distribution and prevalence of Coxiella burnetii in animals, humans, and ticks in Nigeria: A systematic review. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2023, 15, 576–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Roest, H.I.; Bossers, A.; van Zijderveld, F.G.; Rebel, J.M. Clinical microbiology of Coxiella burnetii and relevant aspects for the diagnosis and control of the zoonotic disease Q fever. Vet. Q. 2013, 33, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Melenotte, C.; Million, M.; Raoult, D. New insights in Coxiella burnetii infection: Diagnosis and therapeutic update. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 2020, 18, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Husin, N.A.; AbuBakar, S.; Khoo, J.J. Current tools for the diagnosis and detection of spotted fever group Rickettsia. Acta Trop. 2021, 218, 105887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ross, C.; Morrow, P.S. Q fever: An issue in occupational health & safety? An overview of the methods of control and the effects of Coxiella burnetii on the human host. J. R. Soc. Health 1994, 114, 151–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Egberink, H.; Addie, D.; Belak, S.; Boucraut-Baralon, C.; Frymus, T.; Gruffydd-Jones, T.; Hartmann, K.; Hosie, M.J.; Lloret, A.; Lutz, H.; et al. Coxiellosis/Q fever in cats: ABCD guidelines on prevention and management. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2013, 15, 573–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Aitken, I.D. Clinical aspects and prevention of Q fever in animals. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1989, 5, 420–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Idr 16 00061 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart showing the selection process of research participants.
Figure 1. Flow chart showing the selection process of research participants.
Idr 16 00061 g001
Table 1. Distribution of veterinary students exposed and unexposed to C. burnetii, assessed by immune status or pathogen DNA identification by PCR in the venous blood, categorized by sex and location.
Table 1. Distribution of veterinary students exposed and unexposed to C. burnetii, assessed by immune status or pathogen DNA identification by PCR in the venous blood, categorized by sex and location.
CitySexIgM (−)IgM (−)IgM (+)IgM (+)IgM (+)IgM (+)
IgG (−)IgG (+)IgG (−)IgG (−)IgG (+)IgG (+)
PCR (−)PCR (−)PCR (−)PCR (+)PCR (−)PCR (+)
SofiaMales165----
Females3112123
Stara ZagoraMales1915-121
Females6478421
Note: “+”, positive result; “−”, negative result.
Table 2. Association between C. burnetii exposure with sex and location variables. Relative risk for each experimental group is calculated.
Table 2. Association between C. burnetii exposure with sex and location variables. Relative risk for each experimental group is calculated.
VariablesTotal, nExposed, n (%)Unexposed, n (%)Chi Square Statistics (df)p-ValueRelative Risk (%)
Pooled Sex
Males5924 (40.6)35 (59.4)2.22 (1)<0.0541
Females12631 (24.6)95 (75.4) 25
Pooled Location
Sofia6114 (23.0)47 (77.0)4.00 (1)<0.0523
Stara Zagora12441 (33.1)83 (66.9) 33
Males
Sofia215 (23.8)16 (76.2)3.89 (1)<0.0524
Stara Zagora3819 (50.0)19 (50.0) 50
Females
Sofia409 (22.5)31 (77.5)0.14 (1)>0.123
Stara Zagora8622 (25.6)64 (74.4) 26
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Genova-Kalou, P.; Hodzhev, Y.; Tsachev, I.; Pepovich, R.; Panaiotov, S.; Dobrinov, V.; Krumova, S.; Boneva-Marutsova, B.; Chakarova, B.; Todorova, K.; et al. First Insight into the Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii Infection among Veterinary Medicine Students in Bulgaria. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2024, 16, 794-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/idr16050061

AMA Style

Genova-Kalou P, Hodzhev Y, Tsachev I, Pepovich R, Panaiotov S, Dobrinov V, Krumova S, Boneva-Marutsova B, Chakarova B, Todorova K, et al. First Insight into the Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii Infection among Veterinary Medicine Students in Bulgaria. Infectious Disease Reports. 2024; 16(5):794-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/idr16050061

Chicago/Turabian Style

Genova-Kalou, Petia, Yordan Hodzhev, Ilia Tsachev, Roman Pepovich, Stefan Panaiotov, Veselin Dobrinov, Stefka Krumova, Betina Boneva-Marutsova, Borislava Chakarova, Keytlin Todorova, and et al. 2024. "First Insight into the Prevalence of Coxiella burnetii Infection among Veterinary Medicine Students in Bulgaria" Infectious Disease Reports 16, no. 5: 794-805. https://doi.org/10.3390/idr16050061

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop