Why your housecat's trite little bite could cause you quite a fright: a study of domestic felines on the occurrence and antibiotic susceptibility of Pasteurella multocida.

Approximately four to five million animal bite wounds are reported in the USA each year. Domestic companion animals inflict the majority of these wounds. Although canine bites far outnumber feline bites, unlike the dog, the cat's bite is worse than its bark; 20-80% of all cat bites will become infected, compared with only 3-18% of dog bite wounds. Pasteurella multocida is the most commonly cultured bacterium from infected cat bite wounds. Anyone seeking medical attention for a cat-inflicted bite wound is given prophylactic/empiric penicillin or a derivative to prevent Pasteurella infection (provided they are not allergic to penicillins). In an effort to establish a carriage rate of P. multocida in the domestic feline, bacterial samples from the gingival margins of domestic northern Ohio cats (n=409) were cultured. Isolates were tested for antibiotic sensitivity as prophylactic/empiric use of penicillin and its derivatives could potentially give rise to antibiotic resistance in P. multocida. The high carriage rate (approximately 90%) of P. multocida observed was found to be independent of physiological and behavioural variables including age, breed, food type, gingival scale, lifestyle and sex. High antibiotic susceptibility percentages were observed for benzylpenicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefazolin, and azithromycin (100%, 100%, 98.37% and 94.02%, respectively) in P. multocida isolates. The high prevalence of P. multocida in the feline oral cavity indicates that prophylactic/empiric antibiotic therapy is still an appropriate response to cat bite wounds. Additionally, the susceptibility of P. multocida to penicillin and its derivatives indicates that they remain reliable choices for preventing and treating P. multocida infections.

Re-assessing the likelihood of airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease at the start of the 1967-1968 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

The likelihood of airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease at the start of the 1967-1968 epidemic is re-assessed in the light of current understanding of airborne disease spread. The findings strongly confirm those made at the time that airborne virus was the most likely cause of the rapid early development of the disease out to 60 km from the source. This conclusion is reached following a detailed epidemiological, meteorological and modelling study using original records and current modelling techniques. The role played by 'lee waves' as the mechanism for the spread is investigated. It is thought that they played little part in influencing the development of the epidemic. A number of lessons learned from the work are drawn, identifying the need for further research on the quantity and characteristics of airborne virus. The results are also used to illustrate what advice would have been available to disease controllers if the outbreak had occurred in 2004.