Serodetection and Risk Analysis of Leptospiral Infection in Dogs and Dog Handlers (Sheltered and Working)
World Small Animal Veterinary Association Congress Proceedings, 2018
S.H. Goh1; S.F. Lau1; R. Ismail2; P.A. Megat Abdul Rani3; T.B. Mohd Mohidin4; A.R. Bahaman5; S.K. Bejo6; R. Radzi1; K.H. Khor1
1Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; 2Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, The National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; 3Department of Companion Animal Medicine & Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; 4Institute of Biological Science, Division of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; 5Department of Veterinary Pathology & Microbiology, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; 6Department of Veterinary Pathology & Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Introduction
A global upward trend of leptospirosis warrants unified initiative in managing this zoonotic disease. Dogs were speculated to contribute to disease transmission, posing risk to humans.
Objectives
Study aimed to detect leptospiral infection serologically and examined the risk factors towards leptospirosis among dogs and dog handlers.
Methods
Serum were collected from 266 apparently healthy vaccinated (quadrivalent vaccine) dogs and 194 dog handlers. Microscopic agglutination test (MAT) was performed using 20 leptospiral serovars with a cut-off titre ≥1:100 (dog) and ≥1:50 (dog handlers). Risk factors were analysed using odd ratios.
Results
Seventy dogs (26.3%) were seropositive mainly against serovars Icterohaemorrhagiae, Ballum, Bataviae and Javanica (titres: 1:100–1:800). Sixty-seven dog handlers (34.5%) were seropositive mainly against serovars Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae and Malaysia (titres: 1:50–1:200). Risk factors for dogs and dog handlers were as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Risk factors of leptospiral infection among dogs and dog handlers
|
Risk factor
|
Odd ratio
|
p
|
Confidence interval
|
|
Dog
|
|
Rat contact
|
4.29
|
0.05
|
0.98–18.78
|
|
Sharing area
|
5.87
|
0.01
|
2.25–15.32
|
|
Environment setting
|
1.8
|
0.03
|
1.06–3.21
|
|
Dog handlers
|
|
Rat contact
|
6.60
|
0.01
|
2.80–15.60
|
|
Small mammal contact
|
4.46
|
0.01
|
1.91–10.44
|
|
Contact time with dog
|
4.20
|
0.01
|
1.70–10.50
|
Conclusions
Seropositive dogs were likely due to post-vaccination, post-exposure or subclinical infection, hence further investigation were required. Vaccine immunity may not be adequate as other serovars were detected. Low titres among dog handlers could indicate post-exposure. Rat contact poses risk for both groups. Prolonged contact time with dogs increased risk for handlers. Therefore, leptospirosis awareness among dog handlers could assist disease prevention.