| Literature DB >> 26479003 |
Lucía Azócar-Aedo1, Gustavo Monti2, Ronald Jara3.
Abstract
Leptospirosis is an emerging zoonotic disease of worldwide distribution. A cross-sectional study was conducted in urban and rural environments in southern Chile (1) to detect domestic cats with serologic evidence of exposure to Leptospira spp.; (2) to determine the prevalence of anti-Leptospira antibodies; (3) to describe seroprevalences according to different characteristics of the animals, and (4) to identify risk factors associated with the seropositivity in the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT). Blood samples were taken from 124 owned cats. A frequentist and Bayesian approach were applied for prevalence estimation. The overall apparent prevalence of anti-Leptospira antibodies was 8.1% (95% Confident Interval = 3.9-4.3). With the Bayesian approach, the overall True Prevalence (TP) was 5.2% (95% Credibility Interval (CrI) = 0.6-12.4). The TP for urban cats was 1.8% (95% CrI = 0.1-7.2) and the TP for rural felines was 25.2% (95% CrI = 9.3-46.6). Cats that live in a place where agricultural activities are performed with water that flows in streams or backwater and cats that live in places near flooded areas had a higher risk of seropositivity in MAT. The exposure to Leptospira spp. in domestic cats of urban and rural origin in Southern Chile is a public health concern that requires an increased awareness and the implementation of preventive measures.Entities:
Keywords: Leptospira spp.; anti-Leptospira antibodies; cats; microscopic agglutination test; prevalence; risk factors; urban and rural environments
Year: 2014 PMID: 26479003 PMCID: PMC4494429 DOI: 10.3390/ani4040612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Approximate localization of the Los Rios and the Los Lagos regions in Chile and South America and the study area.
Serogroups, serovars and reference strains of Leptospira species used for Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT).
| Species | Serogroups | Serovar | Reference strain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panel 1 *: | |||
| Sejroe | Hardjo | Hardjo pratijno | |
| Pomona | Pomona | Pomona | |
| Canicola | Canicola | Hond Utrech IV | |
| Icterohaemorragiae | Icterohaemorragiae | Verdun | |
| Autumnalis | Autumnalis | Akiyami A | |
| Ballum | Ballum | S102 | |
| Panel 2 **: | |||
| Pyrogenes | Pyrogenes | Salinem | |
| Sejroe | Wolfii | 3705 | |
| Batavie | Bataviae | Swart | |
| Australis | Australis | Ballico | |
| Hebdomadis | Hebdomadis | Hebdomadis | |
| Tarassovi | Tarassovi | Perepelitsin | |
| Javanica | Javanica | Veldrat Batavia 46 | |
| Sejroe | Sejroe | M 84 | |
| Grippotyphosa | Grippotyphosa | Moskva V | |
| Cynopteri | Cynopteri | 3522 C | |
| Panama | Panama | CZ 214K | |
| Semaranga | Patoc | Patoc 1 |
* 124 samples were analyzed with this panel in Chile, ** 40 samples were analyzed with this panel in Argentina.
Summary of the individual characteristics, origin, serovars, and antibody titres of 10 positive cats tested using MAT.
| Cat No. | Breed * | Gender ** | Age (Years) | Clinical signs | Origin | Antibody Titre | Serovar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DSH | M | 1 | No | Urban | 1:100 | Canicola |
| 2 | DSH | F | 4 | No | Urban | 1:100 | Autumnalis |
| 3 | DSH | M | 4 | No | Urban | 1:200 | Coagglutination 1 *** |
| 4 | DSH | F | 1 | No | Rural | 1:100 | Canicola |
| 5 | DSH | F | 6 | No | Rural | 1:100 | Autumnalis |
| 6 | DSH | F | 3 | No | Rural | 1:100 | Autumnalis |
| 7 | DSH | F | 5 | No | Rural | 1:100 | Grippotyphosa |
| 8 | DSH | F | 0.5 | No | Rural | 1:200 | Bataviae |
| 9 | DLH | M | 3 | No | Rural | 1:400 | Bataviae |
| 10 | DSH | F | 2 | No | Rural | 1:100 | Coagglutination 2 *** |
* DSH: Domestic Short Hair breed cat, DLH: Domestic Long Hair breed cat, ** F: Female, M: Male, *** Coagglutination 1: serovars Wolffi/Bataviae, *** Coagglutination 2: serovars Grippotyphosa/Wolffi/Bataviae/Sejroe/Javanica/Panama.
Estimates of the True Prevalence (TP) (overall, urban and rural cats) and their 95% Credibility Intervals (CrI) that were obtained using a Bayesian approach, considering different models of the uncertainty for MAT-based sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) values.
| TP (%) | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5.2 (0.6; 12.4) | 2.2 (0.1; 9.0) | 4.0 (0.2; 16.8) |
| Urban | 1.8 (0.1; 7.2) | 1.3 (0.05; 6.2) | 2.4 (0.1; 11.6) |
| Rural | 25.2 (9.3; 46.6) | 8.5 (0.3; 33.1) | 26.3 (1.5; 82.0) |
Prevalence of anti-Leptospira antibodies based on MAT results according to individual, lifestyle and habitat characteristics of cats from different environments.
| Characteristics | All | Urban | Rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (%) | (%) | ||
| Breed | 9.3 (9/97) | 4.1 (3/73) | 25.0 (6/24) | |
| 4.3 (1/23) | 0.0 (0/20) | 33.3 (1/3) | ||
| 0.0 (0/4) | 0.0 (0/3) | 0.0 (0/1) | ||
| Gender | 5.5 (3/55) | 4.7 (2/43) | 8.3 (1/12) | |
| 10.1 (7/69) | 1.9 (1/53) | 37.5 (6/16) | ||
| Age | 5.0 (2/40) | 0.0 (0/31) | 22.2 (2/9) | |
| 9.8 (5/51) | 2.9 (1/35) | 25.0 (4/16) | ||
| 12.5 (3/24) | 9.5 (2/21) | 33.3 (1/3) | ||
| 0.0 (0/7) | 0.0 (0/7) | 0.0 (0/0) | ||
| 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/2) | 0.0 (0/0) | ||
| Purpose of kept cats | 4.3 (3/70) | 4.4 (3/68) | 0.0 (0/2) | |
| 6.3 (1/16) | 0.0 (0/8) | 12.5 (1/8) | ||
| 16.7 (6/36) | 0.0 (0/18) | 33.3 (6/18) | ||
| Veterinary control | 3.4 (2/59) | 0.0 (0/50) | 22.2 (2/9) | |
| 12.3 (8/65) | 6.5 (3/46) | 26.3 (5/19) | ||
| Habitat at home | 4.9 (4/81) | 4.1 (3/74) | 14.3 (1/7) | |
| 0.0 (0/9) | 0.0 (0/9) | 0.0 (0/0) | ||
| 17.6 (6/34) | 0.0 (0/13) | 28.6 (6/21) | ||
| Rodent-hunting habits | 12.1 (7/58) | 0.0 (0/33) | 28.0 (7/25) | |
| 3.2 (2/63) | 3.3 (2/60) | 0.0 (0/3) | ||
| Contact with other cats | 5.3 (5/95) | 1.3 (1/77) | 22.2 (4/18) | |
| 13.0 (3/23) | 7.1 (1/14) | 22.2 (2/9) | ||
| Contact with livestock (cattle, sheep and/or goats) | 28.6 (6/21) | 0.0 (0/1) | 30.0 (6/20) | |
| 3.1 (3/98) | 2.2 (2/90) | 12.5 (1/8) | ||
| Presence of dogs at home | 7.3 (7/96) | 1.3 (1/75) | 25.0 (7/28) | |
| 7.7 (1/13) | 7.1 (1/13) | 0.0 (0/0) | ||
| Rodents roaming near houses | 9.6 (5/52) | 2.6 (1/39) | 30.8 (4/13) | |
| 7.4 (5/68) | 3.8 (2/53) | 20.0 (3/15) | ||
| Excreta disposal site of the owners | 6.1 (7/114) | 3.2 (3/93) | 19.0 (4/21) | |
| 30.0 (3/10) | 0.0 (0/3) | 42.9 (3/7) | ||
| Activities with water that flows in streams or backwater | 33.3 (2/6) | 0.0 (0/0) | 33.3 (2/6) | |
| 6.8 (8/118) | 3.1 (3/96) | 22.7 (5/22) | ||
| Habitat close to flooded areas | 40.0 (2/5) | 0.0 (0/0) | 40.0 (2/5) | |
| 7.1 (8/113) | 3.3 (3/90) | 21.7 (5/23) |
Conditional logistic regression models to identify risk factors associated with the seropositivity in MAT.
| Variables Included in the Models | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: all cats *** | |||
| Contact with cattle, sheep and/or goats: | 1.9 | 0.1–139.8 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Contact with other cats: | 0.1 | 0.1–1.7 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Excreta disposal site of the owners: | 5.5 | 0.2–166.6 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Activities with water that flows in streams or backwater: | 38.0 | 1.9–763.9 ** | |
| Ref * | |||
| Habitat near flooded areas: | 44.5 | 1.4–1450.5 ** | |
| Ref* | |||
| Veterinary control: | 0.1 | 0.1–2.4 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Rural origin: | 1.4 | 0.1–241.9 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Contact with other cats: | 0.12 | 0.1–2.2 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Gender: | 0.1 | 0.1–1.3 | |
| Ref * | |||
| Habitat indoor and outdoor: | 0.1 | 0.0–1.9 | |
| Ref * |
*** The area under the ROC Curve and the Dxy value were 0.893 and 0.787, respectively for model 1 (all cats), 0.694 and 0.388, respectively, for model 2 (urban cats) and 0.772 and 0.544, respectively, for model 3 (rural cats), ** Statistically significant (p < 0.05), * Reference category.