| Literature DB >> 35410221 |
Paulo Henrique Araújo Soares1, Eduardo Sérgio da Silva1, Klauber Menezes Penaforte1, Renata Aparecida Nascimento Ribeiro1, Marcella Oliveira Gama de Melo2, Diogo Tavares Cardoso3, Ingrid Morselli Santos1, Raissa Cotta Machado1, Clara Lemos Carneiro Trindade1, Anna Karolyna Rodrigues Cunha1, Rafael Gonçalves Teixeira-Neto1, Saulo Nascimento de Melo1, Vanessa Vilela de Aquino1, Vinícius Silva Belo4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Responsible companion animal guardianship (RCAG) comprises a set of concepts involving activities, behavior and care that guardians must provide to ensure the welfare of their animals. When such principles are disregarded, the risk of animals developing zoonotic diseases, such as canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL), increases. This disease is a public health problem in many urban settings in Brazil because dogs are the main reservoirs of Leishmania and are involved in the transmission of the parasites to humans. Our analytical cross-sectional epidemiological survey aimed to investigate the prevalence of CVL in a city in southeastern Brazil and to establish the association between the disease and a number of predictor variables including dog traits, socioeconomic status of guardians, ecological features of the domicile and RCAG.Entities:
Keywords: Animal welfare; Control; Dual Path Platform test; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Leishmania infantum; Surveillance; Zoonosis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35410221 PMCID: PMC8996582 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03238-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Bivariate analysis showing the relationship between predictors of CVL and the results of serology tests
| Predictor variable | Serology tests | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 25 (6.5) | 360 (93.5) | 0.831 | ||
| Male | 22 (6.9) | 297 (93.1) | |||
| Size | |||||
| Small | 22 (5.4) | 386 (94.6) | 0.328 | ||
| Medium | 17 (7.9) | 198 (92.1) | |||
| Large | 7 (8.9) | 72 (91.1) | |||
| Breed | |||||
| Purebred | 17 (5.7) | 281 (94.3) | 0.421 | ||
| Mixed-breed | 29 (7.2) | 372 (92.8) | |||
| Hair length | |||||
| Short | 37 (7.2) | 475 (92.8) | 0.242 | ||
| Long | 9 (4.8) | 180 (95.2) | |||
| Time in the domicile | |||||
| < 1 year | 6 (5.3) | 107 (94.7) | 0.551 | ||
| > 1 year | 37 (6.8) | 504 (93.2) | |||
| Education | |||||
| No formal education | 6 (20) | 24 (80) | 0.008 | ||
| Incomplete primary school | 16 (6.8) | 221 (93.2) | |||
| Complete primary or secondary school | 17 (4.8) | 336 (95.2) | |||
| University degree | 8 (9.8) | 74 (90.2) | |||
| Number of bathrooms in the domicile | |||||
| 1 | 21 (5.9) | 333 (94.1) | 0.471 | ||
| > 1 | 25 (7.3) | 318 (92.7) | |||
| Close to forest | |||||
| Yes | 42 (7.4) | 527 (92,6) | 0.142 | ||
| No | 5 (3.8) | 126 (96.2) | |||
| Presence of chickens and other birds | |||||
| Yes | 22 (8.3) | 243 (91.7) | 0.164 | ||
| No | 24 (5.6) | 405 (94.4) | |||
| Presence of cats | |||||
| Yes | 14 (9.5) | 133 (90.5) | 0.120 | ||
| No | 33 (5.9) | 524 (94.1) | |||
| Dog age at the time of acquisition | |||||
| Adult | 17 (10.9) | 139 (89.1) | 0.015 | ||
| Puppy | 29 (5.4) | 508 (94.6) | |||
| Mode of acquisition of dog | |||||
| Purchase | 4 (3.8) | 101 (96.2) | 0.451 | ||
| Born in the domicile | 5 (6.5) | 72 (93.5) | |||
| Adopted | 37 (7.2) | 480 (92.8) | |||
| Number of dogs in the domicile | |||||
| 1 | 15 (6.7) | 209 (93.3) | 0.933 | ||
| > 1 | 31 (6.5) | 444 (93.5) | |||
| Shelter conditions | |||||
| Exclusively in the domicile | 1 (1.0) | 95 (99.0) | 0.034 | ||
| Exclusively in the peridomicile | 32 (8.3) | 355 (91.7) | |||
| In the domicile and peridomicile | 13 (5.9) | 207 (94.1) | |||
| Access to the streets | |||||
| Yes | 8 (14.8) | 46 (85.2) | 0.013 | ||
| No | 39 (6) | 611 (94) | |||
| Vaccination against rabies (at least once) | |||||
| Yes | 43 (6.7) | 603 (93.3) | 0.411 | ||
| No | 2 (3.8) | 51 (96.2) | |||
| Worm treatment (at least once) | |||||
| Yes | 38 (6.2) | 573 (93.8) | 0.190 | ||
| No | 8 (10.1) | 71 (89.9) | |||
| Tick infestation | |||||
| Yes | 15 (8.3) | 166 (91.7) | 0.533 | ||
| No | 32 (6.2) | 487 (93.8) | |||
| Flee infestation | |||||
| Yes | 14 (7) | 187 (93) | 0.796 | ||
| No | 33 (6.6) | 464 (93.4) | |||
| Fed with commercial chow | |||||
| Yes | 43 (6.3) | 642 (93.7) | 0.011 | ||
| No | 4 (21.1) | 15 (78.9) | |||
| Sterilization status (nutered/spayed) | |||||
| Yes | 4 (4.7) | 81 (95.3) | 0.451 | ||
| No | 42 (6.9) | 569 (3.1) | |||
aDogs presenting positive results for Dual-path Platform test (screening) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (confirmation)
Final multiple regression model comprising the main predictors of CVL
| Predictor variable | Odds ratio | 95% Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | |||
| Guardian with no formal educationa | 4.091 | 0.013 | 1.139 | 12.501 |
| Guardian with incomplete primary schoola | 1.484 | 0.284 | 0.720 | 3.058 |
| Guardian with university degreea | 2.731 | 0.030 | 1.101 | 6.773 |
| Dogs sheltered outside the house | 2.033 | 0.037 | 1.042 | 3.964 |
| Dogs with free access to the streets | 2.471 | 0.040 | 1.043 | 5.854 |
| Dogs acquired at the puppy stage | 0.491 | 0.035 | 0.253 | 0.950 |
aReference category comprised guardians with complete primary or secondary school education
Fig. 1Geographically weighted logistic regression (GWLR) model of canine visceral leishmaniasis showing the predictor variables: A) Dogs acquired at the puppy stage; B) Guardians with no formal education; C) Dogs with free access to the streets, and D) Dogs sheltered outside the house. The rivers Itapecerica and Para that cross the city of Divinópolis are shown in blue; colors represent the strength of the associations within the study area as indicated in the respective inserts; positive values of the coefficients indicate a greater chance of CVL in the dogs of the indicated group
Fig. 2Study setting: Location of Divinópolis, Minas Gerais, Brazil