| Literature DB >> 31877658 |
Elena Vera1, Simone Taddei1, Sandro Cavirani1, Jennifer Schiavi1, Mario Angelone1, Clotilde S Cabassi1, Emiliana Schiano1, Fausto Quintavalla1.
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was carried out in Bardigiano horses in the Province of Parma, Northern Italy, to assess the seroprevalence of Leptospira spp. and to investigate risk factors associated with the infection. A representative sample of 134 horses from 43 farms was selected by stratified systematic randomization. Blood sera were examined by MAT for the presence of antibodies against seven Leptospira serovars. Ninety animals (67.2%; 95% Confidence Interval 63.2-71.1) and 41 farms (95.3%; 95% CI 92.2-98.5%) were found positive to at least one of the serovars. The most frequently detected reactions were against serovar Bratislava (41.8%), followed by Canicola (36.6%), Tarassovi (28.4%), Copenhageni (17.9%), Pomona (10.4%) and Hardjo (2.2%). None of the sera reacted against serovar Grippothyphosa. Forty-eight horses (53.3% of the seropositives) were positive for more than one serovar and 21 (15.7% of the seropositives) had serum titres ≥ 1000. Bratislava was the serovar providing the highest antibody titres. Prevalence was significantly higher between adult horses and in farms lacking rodent control (p = 0.006 and p = 0.025, respectively). No significant gender or housing-related difference in seroprevalence was found. The anamnestic data suggest that the infection in Bardigiano horses is subclinical in most of the cases. The high seroprevalence indicates that Bardigiano horses living in the investigated area are at high risk of exposure and infection by Leptospira spp.Entities:
Keywords: Bardigiano; horse; leptospirosis; risk factors; seroprevalence
Year: 2019 PMID: 31877658 PMCID: PMC7022626 DOI: 10.3390/ani10010023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Location of farms. The province of Parma is highlighted by the black outline. Each farm is indicated by a circle. The number of tested animals in each farm is indicated by Arabic numerals. The proportion of positive and negative animals among the horses tested in each farm is shown in red and green, respectively.
Distribution of MAT antibody titres for each Leptospira serovar.
| Serovar | Number of Positive Animals for Each Antibody Titre | Number of Positive Animals/Overall (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 125 | 250 | 500 | 1000 | 2000 | 4000 | ||
| Bratislava | 18 | 17 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 56/134 (41.8) |
| Canicola | 20 | 17 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 49/134 (36.6) |
| Copenhageni | 12 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24/134 (17.9) |
| Grippotyphosa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/134 (0) |
| Hardjo | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3/134 (2.2) |
| Pomona | 8 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 14/134 (10.4) |
| Tarassovi | 22 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38/134 (28.4) |
| Total | 81 | 62 | 20 | 7 | 7 | 7 | |
Number of animals with single or multiple seropositivity.
| Number of Serovars to Which the Animal was Positive | Animals/Overall Number of Positives (%) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 42/90 (46.7) |
| 2 | 15/90 (16.7) |
| 3 | 22/90 (24.4) |
| 4 | 9/90 (0.1) |
| 5 | 2/90 (2.2) |
| 6 | 0/90 (0) |
| 7 | 0/90 (0) |
Figure 2Multiple seropositivity. The number of positive animals for each pair of serovars is reported. Serovar pairs are indicated by the name on the abscissa and the color of the bar.
Figure 3Heat map of seropositivity to the different serovars.
Distribution of seroprevalence for Leptospira spp. by demographic, geographic and management factors.
| Potential Risk Factor | Tested Animals | Positive Animals | Seroprevalence (%) | 95% CI 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| 1–5 years | 18 | 7 | 38.9 | 27.6–50.1 |
| 6–15 years | 93 | 69 | 74.2 | 69.7–78.6 |
| 16–30 years | 23 | 14 | 60.9 | 50.9–70.8 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 97 | 66 | 68.0 | 63.4–72.7 |
| Male | 24 | 17 | 70.8 | 61.7–79.9 |
| Gelding | 13 | 7 | 53.8 | 40.3–67.4 |
| Location of the farm | ||||
| Mountain | 102 | 70 | 68.6 | 64.1–73.1 |
| Valley | 32 | 20 | 62.5 | 54.1–70.9 |
| Rodent control | ||||
| Yes | 52 | 29 | 55.8 | 49.0–62.5 |
| No | 82 | 61 | 74.4 | 69.7–79.1 |
| Housing | ||||
| Box or paddock | 34 | 22 | 64.7 | 56.7–72.7 |
| Free ranging | 100 | 68 | 68.0 | 63.4–72.6 |
| Presence of other domestic animals 2 | ||||
| Yes | 95 | 64 | 67.4 | 62.7–72.1 |
| No | 39 | 26 | 66.7 | 59.3–74.1 |
| Presence of wild animals 3 | ||||
| Yes | 85 | 55 | 64.7 | 59.6–69.8 |
| No | 49 | 35 | 71.4 | 65.1–77.8 |
1 Confidence interval. 2 Reported domestic animals: cats, dogs, goats, poultry and pigs. 3 Reported wild animals: deer, foxes, roes, wolves, wild boars.