High serological and molecular prevalence of Ehrlichia canis and other vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Boa Vista Island, Cape Verde.

Despite the high global impacts of canine vector-borne diseases (CVBD) due to their wide distribution and zoonotic potential, the current epidemiological situation of CVBD in many tropical and subtropical regions remains unknown. This study examines the seroprevalence and molecular prevalence of Ehrlichia canis and other pathogens causing CVBDs (Leishmania infantum, Dirofilaria immitis, Babesia spp., Anaplasma spp. and Hepatozoon canis) in dogs living on the island of Boa Vista (Cape Verde Republic). Blood samples and infesting ticks were taken from 150 dogs across the island (stray, shelter, and pet dogs). Serum samples were tested using a rapid immunochromatographic test (Uranotest® Quattro) that detects antibodies against E. canis, L. infantum, Anaplasma spp. and D. immitis antigen. Levels of serum antibodies against E. canis were measured using the immunofluorescence antibody test (IFAT). In addition, tick-borne pathogens in blood samples (Anaplasma spp., Babesia spp., Hepatozoon spp., and Ehrlichia canis) were detected by microscopy observation and/or PCR plus sequencing. The seroprevalence of E. canis was extremely high at 82% (123/150), as revealed by both immunochromatography and IFAT. Most dogs returning a seropositive test result (82.92%; 102/123) had antibody titres > 1:1280 but showed no clinical signs or notable laboratory abnormalities. Of the 123 animals testing seropositive for E. canis, 67 (54.47%) also presented antibodies against Anaplasma spp., and 13 (10.56%) showed the presence of Hepatozoon spp. gamonts in the blood smear. Ehrlichia canis infection was detected in 17.1% (25/146) of dogs tested by direct sequencing of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products. Co-infections were detected in seven of these dogs: four dogs tested PCR-positive for both E. canis and A. platys, two dogs tested positive for E. canis and Hepatozoon spp., and one dog tested positive for E. canis, A. platys and Hepatozoon spp. Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato was the only tick species found infesting the canine study population. The high prevalence of tick-borne pathogens detected in dogs from Boa Vista Island highlights a need for improved control measures designed to prevent the transmission of these pathogens.

Zoonosis screening in Spanish immunocompromised children and their pets.

Introduction: Although pets provide several social-emotional benefits for children, the risk of zoonosis must be considered among immunocompromised individuals. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital including immunocompromised patients younger than 20 years owning dogs and/or cats. Colonization and/or infection was evaluated by stool studies, bacterial swabs, blood polymerase chain reaction and serological studies in both patients and their pets, to evaluate potential zoonotic transmission occurrence. Results: We included 74 patients and their 92 pets (63 dogs, 29 cats). Up to 44.6% of the patients and 31.5% of the pets had at least 1 positive result. Up to 18.4% of pets' fecal samples were positive (bacteria, parasites or hepatitis E virus). No helminths were observed despite the high frequency of incorrect intestinal deworming practices. Among children, gastrointestinal microorganisms were found in 37.3% (primarily Clostridium difficile). Colonization by Staphylococcus pseudintermedius was common among pets (8.0%) but not among children (0.0%). No shared colonization between owners and pets was observed, except in one case (Blastocystis in both patient and pet feces). Among patients, serologies were positive for Strongyloides stercoralis (14.8%), Toxocara canis (3.2%), Bartonella henselae (19.1%) and hepatitis E (5.6%). Serology was positive for Rickettsia spp. (22.6%) and Babesia spp. (6.5%) in dogs and for Leishmania spp. (14.3%) and Toxoplasma spp. (14.3%) in cats. Conclusion: Exposure to zoonotic agents was detected in both patients and pets; however, shared colonization events were almost nonexistent. In our cohort, dogs and cats do not appear to entail high zoonosis transmission risk for immunocompromised patients.

The role of veterinarians in zoonosis prevention: Advising families of immunocompromised children with pets.

Background: Pet ownership is widespread, offering numerous benefits to individuals and families. However, the risk of zoonotic diseases must be carefully considered, especially for immunosuppressed patients. Knowledge gaps in preventive measures for zoonoses have been identified, underscoring the vital role of veterinarians in addressing this issue. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and recommendations of veterinarians regarding pet ownership by immunocompromised individuals. Additionally, we compared these insights with responses from European healthcare professionals specializing in pediatric transplant recipients. Methods: We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study involving small animal veterinarians in Spain. An online survey was administered to gather information on veterinarians' knowledge of zoonoses and their recommendations for immunocompromised pet owners. Results: A survey of 514 individuals was collected from experienced veterinarians mainly working in primary care clinics. Surprisingly, 63% of respondents did not routinely inquire about the presence of immunocompromised individuals among pet owners, although 54% offered specific recommendations for this group. Most respondents adhered to deworming guidelines for pets owned by immunocompromised individuals and demonstrated sound practices in Leishmania and Leptospira prevention, as well as the avoidance of raw food. However, gaps were noted concerning Bordetella bronchiseptica vaccination. Notably, veterinarians outperformed medical professionals in their knowledge of zoonotic cases and identification of zoonotic microorganisms. The presence of specific recommendations in veterinary clinics was viewed positively by nearly all respondents. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that veterinarians possess a superior understanding of zoonotic pathogens and exhibit greater proficiency in diagnosing zoonoses compared with physicians. They stay well-informed about recommendations outlined in established guidelines and are more likely to provide written recommendations in their clinics than physicians. Nevertheless, knowledge gaps among veterinarians emphasize the need for enhanced communication between medical and veterinary professionals. Reinforcing the "One Health" concept is imperative, with veterinarians playing a pivotal role in this collaborative effort.

Global molecular diversity of Hepatitis E virus in wild boar and domestic pig.

Our study aim was to describe and characterize the global Hepatitis E virus (HEV) molecular and genotype geographical distribution in domestic pig and wild boar, which could facilitate the traceability of human cases. We performed a systematic sequence search for HEVs identified in domestic pig and wild boar from the available data in GenBank. Only sequences with lengths greater than 300 nt were included. For all sequences, the sequence length, host (i.e., domestic pig or wild boar), country of origin, and HEV genotype/subtype were recorded. Genotypes were assigned by the HEVnet typing tool. The genotype distributions were described by country and host. In countries with sequences available for both species, the genotype coincidences between both animal populations were analyzed. A total of 1404 viral sequences were included: 32.6% from wild boar and 67.4% from domestic pig. Most sequences were consistent with HEV genotype 3 (n = 1165). Genotype 4 was represented by 193 sequences, while genotypes 5 and 6 were represented by only 6 sequences. Sequences were identified in 39 countries, which included all continents except Antarctica. The genotypes with a wide distribution were 3a and 3f. Twenty-five countries had sequences that were found only in domestic pig, three countries only in wild boar, and 11 countries had sequences in both populations. In all countries with available sequences in both populations, the same viral genotype was identified. Our study shows that the number of swine HEV sequences is small, which limits direct comparisons with the sequences identified in humans. The global distribution of genotype 3, together with the wide distribution of genotype 4 in Asia, strongly limits the interpretation of the molecular analysis in the absence of an epidemiological survey of the cases. Increased HEV sequencing in swine should be a priority.