4.3 Article

High prevalence of intestinal infections and ectoparasites in dogs, Minas Gerais State (southeast Brazil)

期刊

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 111, 期 5, 页码 1913-1921

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-012-3037-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centro de Control de Zoonoses/Uberlandia
  2. Universidade Federal do Ceara/Fortaleza
  3. FUNCAP/Brazil (Fundacao Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)
  4. CNPq
  5. Hesse's Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study, 155 dogs euthanized by the Zoonotic Disease Unit of UberlA cent ndia in Minas Gerais State (Southeast Brazil) were autopsied. Ectoparasites were collected, and the intestinal content of dogs was systematically examined for the presence of helminthic parasites. In total, we isolated 5,155 metazoan parasites of eight species (three intestinal helminth species, five ectoparasite species). The cestode Dipylidium caninum was present in 57 dogs (36.8 %), the nematodes Ancylostoma caninum in 30 (19.4 %) and Toxocara canis in 24 (15.5 %), respectively. Among the ectoparasites, 139 (89.7 %) dogs were infested with Rhipicephalus sanguineus, 115 (74.2 %) with Ctenocephalides felis, 5 (3.2 %) with Tunga penetrans and one specimen (0.7 %) with Amblyomma cajennense, while myiasis was found in one dog (0.7 %). In logistic regression analysis, young age (adjusted odds ratio 5.74; 95 % confidence interval 1.18-27.85) and male sex (3.60; 1.24-10.40) were significantly associated with toxocariasis, and crossbreed dogs (8.20; 1.52-44.31), with dipylidiasis. Male (2.23; 1.12-4.43) and crossbreed dogs (5.17; 1.17-22.83) had also a significant higher number of concomitant parasitoses. Spatial distribution of dogs by neighbourhood identified high-risk areas. Our systematic study shows that dogs in UberlA cent ndia carry a high number of parasites which may cause zoonotic diseases in humans; therefore, further specific evidence-based intervention measures are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据