Estimating Disease Prevalence And Temporal Dynamics Using Biased Capture Serological Data In A Wildlife Reservoir: The Example Of Brucellosis In Alpine Ibex (Capra Ibex)

The monitoring of the disease prevalence in a population is an essential component of its adaptive management. However, field data often lead to biased estimates. This is the case for brucellosis infection of ibex in the Bargy massif (France). A test-and-cull program is being carried out in this area to manage the infection: captured animals are euthanized when seropositive, and marked and released when seronegative. Because this mountainous species is difficult to capture, field workers tend to focus the capture effort on unmarked animals. Indeed, marked animals are less likely to be infected, as they were controlled and negative during previous years. As the proportion of marked animals in the population becomes large, captured animals can no longer be considered as an unbiased sample of the population. We designed an integrated Bayesian model to correct this bias, by estimating the seroprevalence in the population as the combination of the separate estimates of the seroprevalence among unmarked animals (estimated from the data) and marked animals (estimated with a catalytic infection model, to circumvent the scarcity of the data). As seroprevalence may not be the most responsive parameter to management actions, we also estimated the proportion of animals in the population with an active bacterial infection. The actual infection status of captured animals was thus inferred as a function of their age and their level of antibodies, using a model based on bacterial cultures carried out for a sample of animals. Focusing on the population of adult females in the core area of the massif, i.e. with the highest seroprevalence, this observational study shows that seroprevalence has been divided by two between 2013 (51%) and 2018 (21%). Moreover, the likely estimated proportion of actively infected females in the same population, though very imprecise, has decreased from a likely estimate of 34% to less than 15%, suggesting that the management actions have been effective in reducing infection prevalence.