Surveillance study reveals slaughter-associated plague transmission from camels to humans in Kazakhstan, highlighting the protective efficacy of targeted vaccination and zoning.
Camels are increasingly recognized as an important epizootological and epidemiological link in natural plague foci, contributing to the transmission of Yersinia pestis from wildlife to humans. In the Republic of Kazakhstan, where natural plague foci occupy up to 40% of the territory, the rapid growth of camel populations may significantly enhance epidemiological risks. The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive assessment of the role of camels in the epizootology and epidemiology of plague based on retrospective data (1907–2003) and contemporary monitoring (2000–2025), including spatial analysis and risk zoning. A total of 64 cases of camel plague and 43 epizootic foci were identified during the historical period. More than 400 human cases, including fatal outcomes, associated with infected camels were documented, with direct contact during slaughter and meat processing accounting for 94.7% of infections. Spatial analysis and epidemiological zoning revealed a heterogeneous risk distribution, with western and southern regions representing the highest-risk areas. Serological investigation (n = 2726) showed 75.6% seropositivity, likely reflecting substantial population immunity largely associated with vaccination. Despite increasing camel population size (from 227.7 to 304.0 thousand heads in 2020–2025), vaccination coverage varied between 32.0% and 51.0%, reflecting risk-based preventive strategies. The absence of recent camel plague cases supports the effectiveness of integrated control measures, including vaccination, surveillance, and the establishment of protective zones. These findings suggest that camels remain an important component of plague transmission systems and should be systematically integrated into surveillance programs within a One Health framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mussagaliyeva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: