| Literature DB >> 23556025 |
Janna M Schurer1, Momar Ndao, Stuart Skinner, James Irvine, Stacey A Elmore, Tasha Epp, Emily J Jenkins.
Abstract
We report the results of a joint human-animal health investigation in a Dene community in northern Saskatchewan, where residents harvest wildlife (including moose, bear, elk, and fish), live in close contact with free roaming dogs, and lack access to permanent veterinary services. Fecal analysis of owned and free-roaming dogs over two consecutive years (N = 92, 103) identified several parasites of public health concern, including Toxocara canis, Diphyllobothrium spp., Echinococcus/Taenia, Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp. Administration of pyrantel pamoate to a subset of dogs (N = 122) in the community in the first year was followed by reduced shedding of T. canis and other roundworms in the second year, demonstrating the potential utility of canine de-worming as a public health intervention. Using direct agglutination tests with confirmatory indirect fluorescent antibody test, 21% of 47 dogs were sero-positive for exposure to Toxoplasma gondii. Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) sero-prevalence rates in 201 human volunteers were as follows: Toxoplasma gondii (14%), Echinococcus granulosus (48%), Toxocara canis (13%) and Trichinella spp. (16%). Overall 65% of participants were sero-positive for at least one parasite. A survey administered to volunteers indicated few associations between widely accepted risk factors for parasite exposure and serological status, emphasizing the importance of environmental transmission of these parasites through soil, food, and waterborne routes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23556025 PMCID: PMC3605296 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002141
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Results of serological analyses and criteria for sero-status in people.
| Parasite | Measurement | Criteria and this study's results | ||
| Negative | Equivocal | Positive | ||
|
| Optical Density | <0.25 | ≥0.25 to <0.35 | ≥0.35 |
| Number Samples | 164/201 | 10/201 | 27/201 | |
|
| Optical Density | <0.25 | ≥0.25 to <0.35 | ≥0.35 |
| Number Samples | 149/201 | 19/201 | 33/201 | |
|
| Optical Density | <0.35 | ≥0.35 to <0.45 | ≥0.45 |
| Number Samples | 77/201 | 27/201 | 97/201 | |
|
| Units IgG (IU/mL) | <1 | NA | ≥1 |
| Number Samples | 173/201 | - | 28/201 | |
Sero-surveillance for Echinococcus granulosus, Trichinella, Toxocara canis and Toxoplasma gondii in northern Indigenous regions (Canada) [10]–[16].
| Reference | Location | Sample Size (N) |
|
|
|
|
| Sero-prevalence (%) | ||||||
| Campagna, 2011 | James Bay, QC | 250 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Sampasa-Kanyinga, 2012 | James Bay, QC | 267 | 9 | 0.7 | 4 | 0 |
| Egeland, 2010 | Inuvialuit, NT | 362 | 6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Egeland, 2010 | Nunatsiavut, NU | 310 | 8 | 0.4 | 1 | 1 |
| Messier, 2012 | Nunavik, QC | 917 | 60 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| Tanner, 1987 | Northern QC | 1195 | 30 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
| Levesque, 2007 | Mistissini, QC | 50 | 10 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Schurer, 2012 | Northern SK | 201 | 14 | 48 | 13 | 16 |
NB: All studies used the same tests by the same laboratory except Tanner 1987.
Potential risk factors for exposure to four zoonotic parasites in a northwestern Saskatchewan community.
| Risk Factor | Odds Ratios (95% Confidence Interval) | ||||
| Sample Size (N) |
|
|
|
| |
| Gender (male) | 201 | 2.2 (0.9–5.3) | 1.2 (0.7–2.1) | 1.9 (0.8–4.8) | 1.5 (0.7–3.4) |
| Does not hunt/trap | 188 | 1.5 (0.7–3.6) |
| 1.2 (0.5–2.8) | 0.5 (0.3–1.2) |
| Wild game consumption | 196 | 0.5 (0–4.9) | 0.3 (0–2.9) | 0.5 (0–4.5) | 0.2 (0–1.4) |
| Does not own a pet | 199 |
| 1.2 (0.7–2.1) | 1.3 (0.5–3.1) | 1.8 (0.8–4.2) |
| Non-commercial pet diet | 73 | 0.4 (0.4–3.8) | 1.9 (0.7–5.0) |
| 1.0 (0.2–4.0) |
| Age 5–17 | 174 | 0.2 (0–2) | 1.8 (0.7–4.6) |
| 2.0 (0.7–5.8) |
| Age over 50 | 68 |
| 0.3 (0.1–0.8) | 0.4 (0.1–1.3) | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) |
compared with all other ages.
compared with 5–17 age group.
Prevalence of canine intestinal parasites identified through quantitative sucrose flotation and immunofluorescent assay.
| Prevalence (%) | Intensity Mean, Median, Minimum-Maximum (eggs per gram) | |||
| Community ID | KY-2010 | KY-2011 | KY-2010 | KY-2011 |
|
| 8/92 (9%) | 0/103 (0%) | 77, 70, 10-230 | 0 |
|
| 10/92 (11%) | 6/103 (6%) | 2316, 31, 3-22500 | 1652, 64, 5-9660 |
|
| 10/92 (11%) | 0/103(0%) | 174, 34, 3-1005 | 0 |
| Taeniid | 0/92 (0%) | 4/103 (4%) | 0 | 124, 123, 3-248 |
|
| 2/92 (2%) | 16/103 (15%) | 586, 586, 8-1165 | 1795, 23, 3-15000 |
|
| 1/91 (1%) | 0/103 (0%) | *470, 470 | 0 |
|
| 11/89 (12%) | 2/95 (2%) | 185, 100, 33-733 | 183, 183, 33-333 |
|
| 14/98 (14%) | 4/95 (4%) | 83, 50, 33-200 | 417, 250, 133-1033 |
| *Overall | 42/92 (48%) | 29/103 (28%) | ||
Overall prevalence was calculated as the number of samples with at least one parasite type divided by the total sample number.