» Articles » PMID: 33752744

Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors for Vector-borne Pathogens in Dogs from Egypt

Overview
Journal Parasit Vectors
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 Mar 23
PMID 33752744
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Dogs play an important role as reservoirs of many zoonotic vector-borne pathogens worldwide, yet reports of canine vector-borne diseases (CVBDs) in Egypt are scarce.

Methods: Serum samples were collected from pet dogs (n = 500) of the three most common breeds (German Shepherd, Rottweiler and Pit Bull) in five Governates of Cairo (n = 230), Giza (n = 110), Al-Qalyubia (n = 60), Al-Gharbia (n = 60) and Kafr El-Sheikh (n = 40) with a hot desert climate. The presence of antibodies to Anaplasma spp. (A. phagocytophilum, A. platys), Ehrlichia spp. (E. canis, E. chaffeensis, E. ewingii), Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) and Dirofilaria immitis were assessed using IDEXX SNAP 4Dx ELISA tests. For each pathogen, risk factors (i.e. geographical area, keeping condition, sex, age, breed, tick infestation, weekly sanitation of dog enclosures and application of ectoparasiticides) were evaluated by logistic regression approach.

Results: In total, 18.2% (n = 91, 95% CI 15.1-21.8) of dogs scored seropositive for at least one pathogen, the most frequent being Ehrlichia spp. (n = 56; 11.2%; 95% CI 8.7-14.3) followed by Anaplasma spp. (n = 33; 6.6%, 95% CI 4.7-9.1), Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) (n = 9; 1.8%, 95% CI 0.9-3.4) and D. immitis (n = 7; 1.4%, 95% CI 0.9-2.9). In the tested population, 15.4% (95% CI 12.5-18.8) of dogs were exposed to a single pathogen while 2.4 (95% CI 1.4-4.2) and 0.4% (95% CI 0.1-1.4) were simultaneously exposed to two or three pathogens, respectively. Major risk factors associated with VBDs were living outdoors (Anaplasma spp., P = 0.0001; Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.0001), female sex (Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.005), German Shepherd breed (Anaplasma spp., P = 0.04; Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.03), tick infestation (Anaplasma spp., P = 0.0001; Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.0001; B. burgdorferi (s.l.), P = 0.003; D. immitis, P = 0.02), irregular sanitation (Anaplasma spp., P = 0.0001; Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.0001; B. burgdorferi (s.l.), P = 0.002; D. immitis, P = 0.01) and not using ectoparasiticides (Anaplasma spp., P = 0.0001; Ehrlichia spp., P = 0.0001; B. burgdorferi (s.l.), P = 0.007).

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale seroepidemiological study of CVBDs in Egypt. Considering that all of the detected pathogens are potentially zoonotic, effective ectoparasite control strategies, regular examination of pet dogs and successful chemoprophylaxis are advocated.

Citing Articles

Serosurvey of spp. and in Dogs from Shelters in Sicily (Southern Italy).

Di Bella S, Gambino D, Pepe D, Gentile A, Blanda V, Valenti A Pathogens. 2025; 13(12.

PMID: 39770378 PMC: 11678695. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens13121119.


Epidemiology of canine ehrlichiosis and molecular characterization of Erhlichia canis in Bangladeshi pet dogs.

Kabir A, Chouhan C, Habib T, Hossain M, Raihan A, Yeasmin F PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0314729.

PMID: 39637034 PMC: 11620671. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314729.


Review of Lyme Borreliosis in Africa-An Emerging Threat in Africa.

Doss N, Morrone A, Forgione P, Trevisan G, Bonin S Biology (Basel). 2024; 13(11).

PMID: 39596852 PMC: 11591761. DOI: 10.3390/biology13110897.


First Evidence of Infection in Dogs in Northern Tunisia.

Gharbi Z, Ouni A, Balti G, Bouattour A, Chabchoub A, Mghirbi Y Vet Sci. 2024; 11(9).

PMID: 39330781 PMC: 11435778. DOI: 10.3390/vetsci11090402.


Molecular, epidemiological, and hematological evaluation in infected dogs from an endemic region in Egypt.

Mobarak D, Elbaz E, Atwa S, Eisa M, El-Sebaey A, Selim A Open Vet J. 2024; 14(8):1819-1835.

PMID: 39308739 PMC: 11415908. DOI: 10.5455/OVJ.2024.v14.i8.10.


References
1.
Yuasa Y, Hsu T, Chou C, Huang C, Huang W, Chang C . The comparison of spatial variation and risk factors between mosquito-borne and tick-borne diseases: Seroepidemiology of Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma species, and Dirofilaria immitis in dogs. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012; 35(6):599-606. DOI: 10.1016/j.cimid.2012.08.001. View

2.
de la Fuente J, Antunes S, Bonnet S, Cabezas-Cruz A, Domingos A, Estrada-Pena A . Tick-Pathogen Interactions and Vector Competence: Identification of Molecular Drivers for Tick-Borne Diseases. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017; 7:114. PMC: 5383669. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2017.00114. View

3.
Dantas-Torres F, Chomel B, Otranto D . Ticks and tick-borne diseases: a One Health perspective. Trends Parasitol. 2012; 28(10):437-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.pt.2012.07.003. View

4.
Otranto D, Dantas-Torres F, Breitschwerdt E . Managing canine vector-borne diseases of zoonotic concern: part one. Trends Parasitol. 2009; 25(4):157-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.pt.2009.01.003. View

5.
Angelou A, Gelasakis A, Verde N, Pantchev N, Schaper R, Chandrashekar R . Prevalence and risk factors for selected canine vector-borne diseases in Greece. Parasit Vectors. 2019; 12(1):283. PMC: 6547445. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3543-3. View