Worms and Germs Blog : Animal Health & Diseases : University of Guelph : Ontario Veterinary College : Zoonotic Diseases : Guelph, Hamilton, Ontario

Israel has experienced a major upswing in canine rabies cases since 2009. There had been a significant decline since 2003, when oral rabies vaccination of foxes was started, but the recent increase has been in dogs and jackals, not foxes. Now, stray jackals and dogs are the main rabies vectors in northeastern Israel, the area affected by the current outbreak.

Stray dogs are a significant concern in terms of rabies because they can have close contact with humans and wildlife. Dogs are the most common source of human rabies internationally and thousands of people die each year from rabies acquired from dogs.

The increase in rabies in stray dogs and jackals has lead to discussions about how to control the stray population and reduce the risk of rabies. Previously, it was common for authorities to shoot strays in parks and nature reserves. This practice was stopped a while ago, however the Israel Nature and Parks Authority has now asked for permission to shoot strays in the interest of rabies control. The proposed regulations would allow strays to be shot in national parks, reserves, and "any other open area where wildlife species are considered at risk", but not unless their presence poses "an immediate discernible risk to wildlife and never within 1 km of human habitation."

This seems to be a wildlife protection program disguised as a rabies control program. The emphasis is on protection of wildlife, since packs of stray dogs have had major impacts on some endangered wildlife (e.g. fallow deer). It's not really a good rabies control program, since culling alone is unlikely to be effective, and only culling when the dogs pose a risk to wildlife and away from human habitation presumably would only have a limited impact on the prevention of human rabies. If they want to control the dog population to protect endangered species, they should just say that. If they want to control rabies, they need a comprehensive rabies control program that involves consideration of various approaches such as vaccination of strays and jackals, sterilization of strays, public education to decrease the risk of exposure, and vaccination of domestic animals. A cull alone won't cut it for rabies control.

Photo: A pair of Golden Jackals (Canis aureus) in Israel (photo credit: Michael Baranovsky)(click for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A field worker from Mexico died in Louisiana this weekend from rabies. This is the first case of human rabies in Louisiana in over 60 years, but based on the time the man had been in the country and the incubation period of rabies, it is believed that he was infected in Mexico. Human-to-human transmission of rabies is rare, but healthcare workers and other people he had recent contact with are being evaluated to determine if post-exposure treatment is required.  In the case of the man's co-workers, they could have also been exposed to the same source of rabies that infected him.

The original source of infection isn't known, or at least has not been reported. Wildlife are the main source of rabies exposure for people in the US, but dogs are the most common source of human infection internationally. Dog-associated rabies cases in people from Mexico have been previously reported in the US, and it's certainly possible here.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yet again, a large number of people are undergoing rabies post-exposure treatment because they were exposed to a rabid raccoon that was "adopted" from the wild. In this case, a North Carolina family found a baby raccoon at the side of the road and decided to bring it home. Over the next couple of weeks, various family and friends handled the raccoon, and many were bitten or scratched in the process. The raccoon then died and was identified as being rabid. Forty-five people are now being assessed to determine whether they need to be treated for rabies exposure.

The family dog, which was unvaccinated, has been taken by Animal Control and now faces either a six-month strict quarantine or euthanasia. I suspect the dog will be euthanized.

So, this probably well-meaning but misguided action has resulted in:

• the need for costly post-exposure treatment of many people
• presumably a stressful period for many of those people
• probably the death of the pet dog (although not having the dog vaccinated played a big role here too, since if it was vaccinated, it would only face a 45 day observation period at home, not a strict six-month quarantine or euthanasia).

Fortunately, the raccoon was tested. Otherwise we might be talking about human deaths from rabies, instead of people needing post-exposure treatment. The people who took in the raccoon could also face charges since keeping wildlife without a permit is illegal, but it sounds like that's unlikely to occur.

A few take-home messages from a situation like this:

• Leave wildlife in the wild.
• Vaccinate your pets.
• If you are exposed to an animal that is acting strangely, make sure it's tested for rabies (they did this right, at least).

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A couple questions that I received about C. difficile and hospital visitation dogs:

Is there any concern about cross contamination from dogs/handlers that visit health facilities and get contaminated by C. difficile? I see on this site a concern about dogs being contaminated by visitation and I wonder if the Delta Society has considered this to be an acceptable risk.

Dogs (and handlers) could be sources of C. difficile in hospitals. We have shown clearly that dogs that visit hospitals are at increased risk of shedding C. difficile in their feces, presumably because they ingest C. difficile spores from the hospital environment and/or patients' hands. All dogs that go into hospitals are at risk, with dogs that lick patients and that are allowed up on beds at increased risk (Lefebvre et al 2009). We have also shown that the dog's body can become contaminated with C. difficile after visiting a hospital.

Should there be a period of time mandated between visits to account for possible contamination?

That's hard to say, but probably not. Contamination is a potential problem and certainly occurs, but we don't know how long it lasts nor whether providing a "rest" period actually does anything. Clostridium difficile spores, the form of the bacterium that would be present on a dog's coat, are very environmentally tolerant and can survive for years. Therefore, giving a few days break in between visitation would not result in the bacteria dying. However, some spores would presumably be physically removed over time, through shedding of hair, grooming and other activities. Based on that, it's plausible that the longer the time between visits, the less likelihood of contamination still being present. Whether this actually helps, we don't know.

What to do?

Among other things, we need to consider whether there is actually any evidence of risk. We don't know whether dogs are able to transmit C. difficile in hospitals. My assumption is that there is some degree of risk, but it's limited and can be controlled with good hygiene and the use of basic visitation practices, as highlighted in the "Guidelines for animal-assisted interventions in healthcare facilities" (American Journal of Infection Control, 2008).

Another thing to consider is whether there are any measures that can be taken to reduce potential risks, while maintaining a practical and effective visitation program. A key component of this is knowing that there are factors that make it more likely that a dog will be exposed to C. difficile during visitation. If a specific subset of dogs is at increased risk, then you have a clearer way to approach it. In this case, dogs that are allowed to lick patients and that are allowed on beds are at increased risk. These activities are modifiable - you can prohibit them without having a significant impact on the visits. Licking can be prohibited. Dogs can be kept off beds unless it is required, and when that's the case, they can be placed on a towel or some other barrier to reduce their exposure to C. difficile from the bed. Additionally, we know that if a dog is being treated with antibiotics, it's more likely to shed C. difficile, so dogs that are being (or have recently been) treated with antibiotics should be excluded from visitation.

For C. difficile to be a problem, it has to go from human or animal feces to a patient's hands and then to a patient's mouth. There are multiple potential interventions to interrupt this chain of transmission. At the end of the day, however, hand hygiene is the key. If people wash their hands before and after touching the dog, there should be much lower risk of disease transmission. A problem is that when I say "hand washing," I mean hand washing - not use of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer. Clostridium difficile spores are resistant to alcohol. That creates a conundrum because the use of alcohol hand sanitizers, a common and recommended hand hygiene method, doesn't have the ability to kill C. difficile. Since not all visitation patients are able to get up and go to a sink, that complicates C. difficile control.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article released today in the journal Pediatrics (Behravesh et al, 2010) provides more information about a salmonellosis outbreak linked to pet food. The outbreak itself is old news - I commented about it almost two years ago. What is new is the detailed epidemiological analysis of the outbreak, and there is some interesting information in the paper that is worth reporting. Here are the highlights:

Almost 50% of people who were infected were kids two years of age or younger.

• That's not too surprising considering kids less than five years of age are a high-risk group for getting sick after being exposed to Salmonella.

Households with sick people were almost 7 times as likely to have recently purchased the affected food.

• This provides good evidence of the link between the contaminated food and disease.

The Salmonella strain that was found in people was also found in bags of pet food at the manufacturing plant, samples from the manufacturing plant environment, and fecal samples from dogs that had eaten the food.

• This is pretty convincing evidence that the food was the source. Because they were able to type the Salmonella strain in people and it was an uncommon strain, and they then found the same uncommon strain in food, animals and people, it paints a pretty clear picture of what happened.

Illnesses occurred over a 3 year period.

• This is pretty concerning. This was more than a little lapse at a plant that led to contamination of a single batch of food or a short term event. This was a major failure in quality control that was undetected for a long period of time, resulting in at least 79 human infections in 21 US states.

A cluster of infections caused by the strain involved here, S. Schwarzengrund, was identified early in the outbreak. However, a link with pet food was not considered until the following year.

• That's unfortunate but maybe not surprising. There are a lot of other more likely sources of infection that were probably focused on initially. "What kind of pet food do you feed your dog?" was unlikely to be a routine question asked of people with infections. Identification of outbreaks caused by uncommon events is difficult and typically takes more time.

People that fed their dog in the kitchen were 4 times as likely to have an infection.

• Feeding a pet in the kitchen presumably increased the chance of cross-contamination with human food or contamination of the food preparation environment.

The cause of contamination was never identified. The authors of the paper suspected that contamination occurred after extrusion (the process during which the kibble is formed), which makes the most sense. The extrusion process results in high enough temperatures to kill bacteria like Salmonella. Possible causes of contamination include contaminated equipment used after extrusion, cross-contamination of pre- and post-extrusion food and contamination of substances (e.g. flavour enhancers) sprayed on kibble after extrusion. The fact that Salmonella was found in the room where materials were sprayed on the kibble supports this further.

In general, dry pet food is quite low-risk in terms of Salmonella contamination, but just like with other non-raw-animal products such as lettuce, tomatoes and sprouts, contamination can occur and human infections can result. The best way to reduce the risk is to use good general hygiene practices, particularly washing hands after handling food, keeping pet food and pet food bowls out of kitchens and limiting contact of young children and other high-risk individuals with pet foods.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

How likely is E. cuniculi to be trasmitted from an infected rabbit to a dog? My sister has a positive rabbit and my dog was just diagnosed with kidney insufficiency.  Now that the dog's kidneys are compromised, should we be concerned?

Encephalitozoon cuniculi is a strange little organism that is now classified as a fungus, but is also similar to some types of protozoal parasites. It is an important (and often overlooked but potentially treatable) cause of neurological disease in rabbits. It is quite common in healthy pet rabbits, and infected rabbits shed the organism mainly in urine.

Less is known about E. cuniculi in dogs. Neurological disease, stunted growth and renal failure are the most common problems that develop. Disease usually occurs in young dogs (less than 1 year of age, with most cases in dogs a couple of months old or younger). Some studies have reported antibodies against the organism in a large percentage of healthy dogs, indicating that they've been exposed at some point, but most studies have found antibodies in few or no dogs.

The risk of transmission from rabbits to dogs is not known. There are a few different types of E. cuniculi, including one type (type I) that is called the "rabbit strain" and another (type III) that is called the "dog strain." The ability of the rabbit strain to infect dogs, particularly dogs with normal immune function, is unclear. Considering the low incidence of infection in dogs (especially older dogs), the different types of E. cuniculi that predominate in dogs and rabbits, and the commonness of kidney disease in dogs, I doubt there's a link between the rabbit's infection and the dog's kidney disease in this case.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recent Salmonella recalls have led to some questions about the best way to diagnose salmonellosis in dogs and cats.

The first issue is when to test. In general, there is no indication to test healthy animals. Testing should be reserved for animals with diarrhea or other signs of salmonellosis (e.g. fever).

When testing is indicated, a few things should be considered:

The Sample

• A fresh sample is best. It should be submitted for testing as soon as possible, but it can be kept cool (i.e. refrigeration temperature) for a day or more if it can't be submitted right away.  (Do NOT keep a fecal sample in your fridge at home! Take it to your local vet clinic and they will keep it in a designated specimen fridge.)
• More is better. A reasonable volume of stool (e.g. a tablespoon or two) is preferred to something like a rectal swab. Testing can be performed on rectal swabs but they are lower yield because they contain a lot less stool.  See image right: standard-size 30 mL fecal sample containers (click for source).

The Test

There are two tests used to detect Salmonella in feces: culture and PCR.

Culture is used to grow and isolate the Salmonella bacterium. Usually, enrichment culture is used, whereby the sample is first cultured in a selective broth culture medium, then put on culture plates. This increases the recovery rate but takes more time.

Advantages of culture are:

• A positive is definitive - the bacterium is definitely there and alive.
• An isolate is available for subsequent testing such as determining the susceptibility to antibiotics and typing it to see what strain is involved.

Disadvantages of culture:

• Salmonella can be hard to grow for labs that don't have a lot of experience and good protocols.
• A few days are required to obtain results, particularly if proper enrichment methods are used.

PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is a molecular diagnostic test that looks for DNA from a particular organism (in this case, Salmonella).

Advantages of PCR:

• Speed. Results may be available within 24 hours.

Disadvantages of PCR:

• Tests validated for dogs and cats are not usually available.
• The test detects both live and dead bacteria, so a positive result could theoretically be from ingestion of dead (and therefore irrelevant) bacteria.
• False negative results can occur from low levels of Salmonella or substances in the stool sample that inhibit the test.
• Lab quality control is critical but not always good.

Current recommendations are to base diagnosis on culture. PCR can be used as a faster presumptive test, but culture should be performed to confirm the diagnosis and get a bacterial isolate that can be further tested for antibiotic sensitivity and typed to see what strain is involved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following on the heels of a limited recall of feline dry renal diets because of potential contamination with Salmonella, Proctor and Gamble has now recalled all Iams Veterinary Dry Products, as well as Eukanuba Naturally Wild, Eukanuba Pure and Eukanuba Custom Care Sensitive Skin. These products are sold across the US and Canada, and all products with best-before dates between July 1, 2010 and Dec 1, 2010 (so, presumably everything that is on the market at the moment) are included. The broad scope of the recall is apparently a proactive measure based on the premise that since Salmonella was found in some products made at a particular production facility, there is the potential for contamination of everything made there. More data about what they have found and how widespread the contamination is would be nice (but is not forthcoming at the moment).

No illnesses have been reported. If your pet is being fed one of the recalled diets and develops diarrhea, vomiting or other signs of illness (e.g. weakness, fever, decreased appetite), it is important to consider the possibility of Salmonella. Similarly, if any people in the house develop these types of symptoms, they should make sure their physician knows they may have been exposed to Salmonella. Presumably, the level of contamination was low and the risks to the general public (human and canine/feline) are relatively low, with higher risks to people and animals with compromised immune systems or other diseases that limit their ability to fight off a bug like Salmonella.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Proctor and Gamble has announced a recall of two lots of Iams' Veterinary Formulas Feline Renal, a prescription dry cat food. The lot numbers are 01384174B4 and 01384174B2. Anyone that has this food should stop using it immediately. Since these are prescription diets that should only be available through a veterinarian, affected customers should presumably contact their veterinarian for information about a replacement or refund. If a cat that has eaten this food develops diarrhea, Salmonella should be considered as a possible cause and a stool sample should be tested.

As with most of these recalls, no illnesses have been reported, although lack of reported cases doesn't necessarily mean lack of cases. While Salmonella contamination of dry pet food diets is quite uncommon, it can happen.  It's a good reason for people to make sure they wash their hands after having contact with any pet food or the pet's food bowl, and to make sure that pet food is kept separate from food meant for human consumption.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I get this question surprisingly often. In one way, that's good because it shows increasing awareness of the potential for interspecies transmission of microorganisms. In some situations, when a person has an infection, the pet should be considered in case it was the source of the infection and/or in case it's at risk of becoming infected by the person.

Clostridium difficile is a very important cause of diarrhea (and sometimes more severe intestinal disease) in people. Previously it usually only affected people confined to hospitals and people being treated with antibiotics, but it's now being identified more often in people in the community.

The potential for interspecies transmission of this bacterium is real.

• C. difficile can be found in a small percentage of healthy dogs and cats.
• The strains of C. difficile in dogs and cats are almost always the same as those found in people. My lab has one of the largest collections of C. difficile around and we only have a couple of C. difficile isolates from dogs and cats that we have not found in people.
• Dogs that visit human hospitals are at increased risk of shedding this bacterium in their stool, and certain types of contact with people have been identified as increasing this risk (Lefebvre et al 2009).
• Dogs owned by an immunocompromised person are at increased risk of shedding C. difficile (Weese et al 2010), presumably because the person is more likely to shed the bacterium and subsequently infect the pet.
• Dogs that are owned by people being treated with antibiotics are more likely to shed the bacterium (Lefebvre et al 2009). That's probably because, as with immunocompromised people, when someone's being treated with antibiotics, they have a greater likelihood of shedding C. difficile and their dog subsequently becomes infected.

However, there's currently no indication that testing is needed.

• What would the results tell you? If you identify C. difficile in your dog and you have a C. difficile infection, does that mean that you were infected by the dog, you infected the dog or you were both infected by the same source?
• What would you do with the results? There's no indication to treat the dog if it's positive and healthy.
• What testing would you actually get done? Testing for diagnosis of C. difficile disease usually involves trying to detect bacterial toxins in stool. The tests aren't meant to be used on normal stool. To really know what's going on, you'd need to have the bacterium cultured from your pet's stool as well. Not many labs can do that. Furthermore, to get really useful information, you'd also need to get your stool cultured and, if C. difficile was present in both you and your dog, molecular typing would be required to show that they were the same strain. Very few places can do that. Even with that information, at the end of the day, finding the same strain in you and your pet doesn't tell you more than the fact that the bug probably moved between you and your pet, in one direction or another.

If you have C. difficile, it's reasonable to take precautions to reduce the risk of infecting other individuals, both human and animal:

• Practice good hygiene. Wash your hands thoroughly after using the washroom.
• Don't let your dog drink out of the toilet.
• Use antibiotics judiciously. If your pet is being treated with antibiotics and you have C. difficile, there's probably a greater chance of your pet picking up the bacterium.
• If you have C. difficile and your pet develops diarrhea, tell your veterinarian. It's important that they know that your pet may be at higher risk of C. difficile infection.

If you have recurrent C. difficile infections, considering the pet as a possible source might be reasonable, but we don't currently know what role pets may play. As described above, investigating your pet as a possible source would require culturing stool from both you and your pet, having both typed using molecular tests, and a joint effort involving your veterinarian and physician.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trap/neuter/release (TNR) programs involve trapping feral (stray) cats, then spaying or neutering and vaccinating them. Some cats are adopted, while the majority are released. The goal is to reduce the feral cat population by limiting the number of breeding animals, and to increase overall vaccine coverage in order to reduce illness and deaths. One such TNR program has come under fire in a Texas town.

In Leander, Texas, trapping wild animals (including feral cats) is illegal, but authorities have ignored the rules for groups that run TNR programs. One citizen, Carmen Amaya, is leading a charge to get authorities to start enforcing this so that TNR programs can't happen. The main reason appears to be that she's upset her dog was scratched by a feral cat and ended up with $800 in vet bills (not something I'd be happy with either, but is this really the best way to direct her anger?).

A non-profit group, Shadow Cats, has led the TNR effort and has trapped, neutered and vaccinated  about 3000 cats in Central Texas since 2004. About 500 were adopted and the rest released. The organization knows they are working outside the law and have lobbied for it to be changed. That was being considered in June, but opposition from Amaya and others has led to the creation of a task force to make a recommendation, which is due next month. In the meantime, Shadow Cats has ceased activities in Leander.

I'm not sure what the opponents to TNR really want. If it's just cessation of the program, there's no benefit to them.  Without the program:

• Stray cats will continue to be around, and there will probably be more of them.
• Potentially adoptable cats won't be taken into homes to improve the lives of those cats.
• Vaccine coverage of the population will decrease. That's a critical point, because it will result in lower "herd immunity."   With herd immunity, the greater the percentage of a population that is immune to a disease (i.e. vaccinated), the lower the likelihood of the disease establishing itself in and spreading through the population, even among those individuals who don't get vaccinated.

On the other hand, if these people simply want Shadow Cats to stop releasing the neutered cats back into the neighbourhood, it means either 1) finding a way to care for all those cats in shelter, which simply isn't realistic for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is cost, 2) releasing the cats elsewhere, which doesn't actually solve the problem, it just makes it someone else's, or 3) euthanizing all the cats instead of neutering and releasing them.  If they're hoping that by objecting to the TNR program that all the cats being trapped will be euthanized instead, they need to realize:

• It's not going to happen as long as volunteer "rescue" groups are in charge of the program. These groups aren't going to trap and kill.
• The city is unlikely to do it either, and there's a cost to having city personnel catch the cats and take them somewhere to be euthanized.
• Most importantly, culling has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective way to control feral animal populations. What's needed is a combined approach that includes measures such as neutering and vaccination, education to reduce the risk of human and domestic animal exposure to feral animals, and taking steps to discourage feral animals from spending time in close proximity to people and domestic animals.

Amaya states that "her" feral cat is a nuisance and she doesn't want it on her property. So what is she trying to accomplish? If anything, her actions will just help her single stray cat turn into a large extended family of stray cats that are susceptible to rabies.

There are certainly concerns with feral cats and TNR programs. They are not perfect and not always run well. Some people are opposed to them for various reasons, some of which are quite reasonable. It's a tough issue because one person's idea of success might be completely different from someone else's. Some people focus on the number of animals, while others focus on the quality of life of the animals, public health aspects, impacts of feral cats on wild bird populations and other diverse areas. A local council isn't going to be able to solve these problems, and it really comes down to an assessment of the potential usefulness of the program and the ability of the people involved to do it safely, ethically and legally.

Personally, I'd rather see well-designed, well-run and regularly-evaluated programs to try to reduce feral cat (and dog) populations, and (perhaps more importantly) increased vaccination coverage in the feral animal population, than nothing. Feral animals aren't going to disappear if we ignore them.

Image source: www.shadowcats.net

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) is becoming a huge problem in dogs (and to a lesser degree cats). I think it can easily be called an epidemic, and probably even a pandemic, considering the degree of spread, the massive increase in cases and the international distribution of this multidrug-resistant bacterium.

Public health concerns regarding MRSP have received attention because of the huge problem with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in people. My line with S. pseudintermedius in general is that while there are only periodic reports of infections in people, exposure to this bacterium is very common, since it is carried by a large percentage of healthy dogs. Given the frequent exposure and very small number of infections, it’s not a particularly pathogenic bacterium for people. The same should apply for MRSP, since methicillin resistance doesn’t’ make it inherently any more able to cause disease, it just makes it harder to treat. However, I always add the statement that, while the risk is pretty low, I’d rather not have an infection with a highly drug resistant bacterium, so we need to pay attention and try to reduce the risk of transmission.

A paper in an upcoming edition of the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (Stegmann et al 2010) shows that these concerns are not unfounded. This report, from Switzerland, described an MRSP infection in a person that developed after sinus surgery. The bacterial strain that was involved was sequence type 71 (ST71), the predominant strain found in dogs in Europe. The affected person had a dog with various health problems, but unfortunately the dog was euthanized (presumably not because of the person’s infection) before samples could be taken to see if it carried the same strain. Since we know that S. pseudintermedius can move between pets and their owners (although usually without causing any problems), it's reasonable to assume that the dog was the source of infection here.

More information about MRSP and MRSA can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Infection control is a constantly evolving and expanding area - for the good. Paying close attention to infection control in human hospitals is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the advances in infection control are now having an impact outside of hospitals. Pandemic H1N1 influenza drove a lot of changes, but there's been a general increase in awareness of the need for routine infection control in the greater community. This applies to veterinary clinics and living with animals, but is also evident in everything from protocols in workplaces to summer camps.

We're getting ready to send my oldest daughter to summer camp for 12 days. Back in my time, I doubt there was much of an infection control plan for summer camps. If anything, it was probably "don't puke on the other campers and try not to eat too much dirt."

Oh, how things have changed! Last night, we received an email from the camp reminding us to keep our daughter at home if she is sick and outlining their infection control program. Among the infection control measures are:

• Having 2 12-foot handwashing stations outside of the Dining Hall, with everyone required to wash their hands before eating
• Having sinks equipped with handwashing supplies present in all buildings
• Having hand sanitizers throughout the Dining Hall and in every cabin
• Training staff in infection control protocols
• Cleaning cabins every day, with daily inspections of cabins by their "Public Health Supervisors"
• Daily spraying down of surfaces like Dining Hall tables, door handles, toilet handles, taps etc. with disinfectant
• Screening of all kids by one of the Registered Nurses on the first day of camp

Pretty impressive effort, in my opinion. Like everything else, compliance is critical and having good facilities and plans doesn't guarantee good practices, but the efforts put into developing this program and communicating it suggest that they'll be paying attention to it. Even with a good program, camps are an excellent breeding ground for infectious diseases and are perpetually an outbreak waiting to happen, but a good infection control program should greatly reduce the risks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A study we just published in the journal Veterinary Record (Floras et al 2010) described an MRSA outbreak in a dog breeding kennel. That's a little unusual in itself, but considering how MRSA is spreading amongst the dog population, it's not really astounding. What was unique about this outbreak was the strain of MRSA that was involved, sequence type 398 (ST398).

ST398 MRSA is commonly referred to as livestock-associated MRSA, since this strain seems to have originated in pigs, and is commonly found in pigs and calves in some regions of the world. It can also infect people, and high rates of carriage of this MRSA strain can be found in pig farmers, pig vets and other people with close contact with livestock. In some areas of Europe, this strain is a big problem, accounting for a large percentage of human MRSA infections. Interestingly, it seems to be a rare cause of illness in people in North America (at least at the moment).

Dogs seem to be innocent bystanders when it comes to MRSA. The vast majority of MRSA strains found in dogs are common human strains, indicating that, ultimately, MRSA in dogs originated in people. There are only two other reports of dogs with ST398, both from Europe. One was a dog with a skin infection. The other was a healthy dog (a carrier) who was owned by a pig vet. 

This kennel outbreak involved a larger number of dogs, including both healthy carriers and sick dogs. Overall, MRSA was isolated on at least one occasion from 23/42 (55%) dogs in the kennel. In a couple of litters, most of the puppies were identified as carriers, but fortunately most stayed healthy. MRSA caused skin infection in one puppy and mastitis in a mother dog, and was also found in the respiratory tract of a puppy that died (although it may or may not have been the cause of death).

The source of the ST398 was not identified. One of the owners worked on a pig farm, but MRSA was not isolated from either owner. It's most likely that the owner did bring MRSA home from the farm, either as a transient carrier (in their nose) or as a contaminant on their skin. Regardless, once it got into the kennel, it was able to move between dogs, either from dog-dog contact or with the help of human hands. Fortunately, ST398 MRSA carriage by dogs seemed to be transient in this situation, which is consistent with what we know about carriage of other strains. MRSA is not really adapted for long-term survival in dogs, so they only carry it for short periods of time. That's a big advantage when it comes to trying to control this pathogen.

While we have to be careful to not over-interpret data from only a few studies, this report indicates that ST398 can cause disease in dogs and it can be present in apparently healthy dogs. It can also be spread relatively easily amongst dogs in a breeding kennel situation. While a pig-link was not confirmed, it's reasonable to suspect that dogs with contact with pigs (and perhaps other livestock) might be at higher risk of developing ST398 infections, as is the case with people.

This is a perfect example of the one medicine concept, and why we need to think about infectious diseases in broad terms, not just focusing on specific populations or species. This situation involved a pig Staphylococcus aureus that somehow acquired methicillin-resistance, spread widely around the world (most likely in pigs, initially), spread to people, and then likely spread to another species, in this case dogs.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

All lots of "Pro-Pet Adult Daily Vitamins" have been recalled by United Pet Group, Inc. because of Salmonella contamination. At least one lot has tested positive for Salmonella, although there is no mention about whether the bacterium was detected during routine testing or in response to a problem. Regardless, Salmonella contamination of these products is a concern because of the potential for disease in dogs fed the vitamins. Further, people could become infected from contact with dogs that become infected from the vitamins, or from handling the vitamins directly. If you have these vitamins, stop using them immediately. If your pet has been receiving these vitamins and develops fever, diarrhea, anorexia or any other signs of illness, take your pet to your veterinarian and make sure he/she knows there has been a chance of Salmonella exposure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Bali's rabies outbreak continues to claim lives, largely because of inadequate access to proper healthcare. The death toll from this outbreak, which has been ongoing for about two years, is officially 58, although the true count may be higher.

The latest case was a 57-year-old temple priest who was infected after trying to break up a fight between strays dogs and his puppy.  He was bitten by a stray dog in the process, but did not receive any post-exposure rabies vaccination because of a vaccine shortage. Rabies is basically 100% preventable when proper care is provided after an exposure, but inadequate access to proper treatment remains a problem, particularly in certain areas and in less developed countries. The priest started to develop signs of rabies about two months after the bite, which is a pretty typical time frame. Once signs of rabies are present, it's almost invariably fatal, and he unfortunately succumbed to the disease shortly after being hospitalized.

Despite ongoing efforts to control this outbreak, rabies remains a serious problem in Bali, and many stray dogs remain unvaccinated. Inadequate education of the public is a problem since not everyone who is bitten goes to a doctor, especially for minor bites. However, even if people go to a doctor, the shortage of rabies vaccine is a huge problem. This whole situation is clearly not under control.

Visitors to Bali need to be aware of this ongoing outbreak. If you are traveling to Bali:

• Avoid contact with stray dogs. You never know who's rabid.
• If you are bitten, promptly clean the wound and get to a physician.
• If you are bitten by a stray, make sure you get post-exposure treatment: a shot of anti-rabies-antibody and 4 (previously 5) rounds of vaccine over a few weeks. If you can't get the treatment started in Bali, get it as soon as possible. Rabies exposure is not an emergency, but you don't want to unnecessarily delay treatment. You don't need to be immediately evacuated from the country to a place you can be treated, but at the same time, you don't want to take your time, travel for a while, then get vaccinated a week or two later. You'd probably be fine, but rabies is not something with which to take chances. The incubation period is variable and the rapidity of onset depends in part on the severity and location of the bite. In particular, a severe bite to the head or neck region would be an indication for very prompt treatment. So, if you're bitten, don't panic, but try to get back home and get treated as soon as is reasonably possible.

Rabies vaccination of people planning on visiting Bali is not recommended, unless you are planning on having contact with dogs. If you are going to Bali to take part in stray dog vaccination, then rabies vaccination would absolutely be indicated. Otherwise, it's not really something that's needed. If you don't get bitten, you won't get exposed, and a little common sense goes a long way toward avoiding dog bites.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Canadian singer Alanis Morissette wrote a song called "Ironic" that (ironically) doesn't really describe irony: Rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you already paid, a black fly in your Chardonnay... they all suck but they're not ironic. What is ironic is Dr. Ed Breitschswerdt, an internationally renowned veterinary internist and tickborne disease expert, getting bitten and infected by a tick.

Dr. Breitschwerdt has worked on tickborne diseases for decades and is a wealth of knowledge on the subject, in terms of both animal and human infections. He regularly provides advice about how to avoid tickborne illnesses.

Dr. Breitschwerdt wrote an article about his recent tick-encounter, and here are some excerpts:

"...I do "tick checks" after outdoor activity on my farm, but I recently missed one. When I discovered the tick, I followed recommendation I've given to hundreds of individuals in lectures on tick-borne pathogens. I placed the parasite in a vial of alcohol and wrote the date of its removal on the label. This is an important step, as there are at least four tick species that attach to animals and people in North Carolina, and each species can transmit different bacteria that collectively cause a spectrum of diseases. Knowing the species can help the physician or veterinarian understand which infectious agent has been transmitted...The small tick in my armpit remained attached long enough for my body to mount an inflammatory response (itching, swelling and pain) before I noticed and removed it. Not initially feeling an attached tick is the norm, since ticks have evolved the ability to secrete chemicals that block pain and decrease the body's inflammatory response."

• The fact that the tick was present for a while is critical, since it takes time after attachment before a tick starts feeding and can pose a potential risk for disease transmission. 

"Nine days after removing my tick I developed severe chills. The next day my symptoms progressed to include fever, muscle pain and headache - classic symptoms of Rocky Mountain spotted fever and human granulocytic or monocytic ehrlichiosis, the three most serious and frequent tick-transmitted diseases of dogs and people in the southeastern United States.

"Typical of the early stages of these diseases, my white blood cell count (the body's first line of defense) was low. My bone marrow responded by sending new white blood cells to fight the infection. After blood was obtained for diagnostic testing, antibiotic treatment was started immediately. This is of critical importance, as a delay in diagnosis and initiation of antibiotics for 24-48 hours greatly increases the severity of illness and the chances of death."

• Testing was performed on the tick and Dr. Breitschwerdt's blood, and Rickettsia rickettsii DNA was found in both.  In combination with his clinical signs, including a rash on his arms and legs (see photo), this confirmed the suspected diagnosis of Rocky Mountain spotted fever. This is a serious disease from which approximately 6% of infected people die. Early recognition is critical, but diagnosis is often delayed because of failure to identify or report a tick bite, or failure of physicians to consider the disease.

Dr. Breitschwerdt concludes "This recent experience enhanced my belief that tick-transmitted diseases deserve respect and enhanced, comparative biomedical research. The next time you walk in the beautiful fields and valleys of North Carolina, apply a tick repellent and remember to check carefully for attached ticks when you return home."

Photo: Child's right hand and wrist displaying the characteristic spotted rash of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (source: CDC Public Health Image Library #1962)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently, I was speaking with a physician who mentioned that a colleague has recommended that people with raccoons in their yard get rid of their dogs because of the risk of Baylisascaris procyonis. This parasite, also known as the raccoon roundworm, can cause severe neurological disease in people that ingest infective parasite eggs from the environment.

The most severe type of disease caused by the migrating larvae of this roundworm (neural larval migrans) is very nasty, and usually causes death or serious, severe neurological deficits.  However,  the recommendation to get rid of dogs when there are raccoons around makes no sense. Here's why:

• The main host for Baylisascaris is the raccoon. A large percentage of healthy raccoons (over 90% in some areas) are infected and pass large numbers of parasite eggs in their stool.  Exposure to eggs from raccoon feces is the main source of human infection.
• Human infections are very rare. They predominantly occur in people that are at increased risk of ingesting feces or dirt, based on their age or behaviour.
• Dogs can be infected with Baylisascaris, but this is rare.
• The small number of dogs that are shedding Baylisascaris in their feces do not pose an immediate risk to people. Eggs that are passed in feces are not immediately infective. Eggs must mature in the environment (which usually  takes 2-4 weeks) before they are able to cause infections.
• There are no clearly documented cases of dogs being a source of human infection.
• The main risk from dogs is probably the potential for dogs to carry old (i.e. infectious) Baylisascaris eggs into houses on their haircoats, after roaming around raccoon infested areas.
  

How do you reduce the already very low risk associated with Baylisascaris and dogs?

• Discourage raccoons from living near your house. Raccoons defecate in certain areas or "latrines," where the soil becomes heavily contaminated with raccoon feces, and where tremendous numbers of infectious eggs can be present.  If you make your yard uninviting to raccoons, then they won't establish a latrine near your house.
• Carefully clean any raccoon latrines that might be on your property.
• Don't let you dog have contact with raccoon latrines.
• If your dog has had contact with a raccoon latrine, give it a bath. Baylisascaris eggs are sticky and can stick to the dog's coat quite well, so a thorough bath is much better than a quick rinse or brush. Wear gloves and some form of protective outwear (e.g. a coat that you take off after and promptly launder) while bathing the dog. Wash your hands thoroughly when done.
• Closely supervise people at increased risk of ingesting feces or dirt (e.g. young children) when they're outside.
• A routine deworming program will eliminate Baylisascaris in the intestinal tract of a pet dog, in the unlikely event it's been infected.
• Prophylactic treatment of dogs that have eaten (or have a tendency to eat) raccoon feces could be considered, but the need and usefulness of this is not clear.

Bottom line: You don't need to get rid of your dog if there are raccoons in your yard.  The risk of Baylisascaris infection from your dog is extremely low, and the steps above can help you decrease the risk even further.  Getting rid of the raccoons (instead of the dog) will be much more effective.

More information about Baylisascaris and neural larval migrans is available in our archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Streptococcus zooepidemicus is an important cause of infections in horses. This bacterium can also be found in healthy horses. When you consider the large number of horses that are infected and the larger number of healthy horses that are carriers, along with the close contact that people have with horses, it's pretty obvious that people are regularly exposed to "Strep zoo". This bacterium is not well-adapted to survive in people and cause infections, so human infections are quite uncommon, but they can occur. There are periodic reports of S. zooepidemicus infections in people, with varying degrees of association with horse-contact.

An upcoming edition of journal Epidemiology and Infection contains a report of S. zooepidemicus meningitis in a 51-year-old woman (Minces et al, 2010). This person had a mild upper respiratory tract infection, then developed signs of meningitis (including fever, unresponsiveness, respiratory distress). A spinal tap was performed and S. zooepidemicus was isolated. The woman fortunately responded to treatment and recovered.

Upon initial questioning of the patient's mother, no animal contact or ingestion of unpasteurized dairy products (another risk factor) was reported. However, it was later revealed that the woman's daughter had started horseback riding at a friend's farm approximately one month earlier. The type of contact that the woman had with horses (if any) at the farm was not reported, nor was there any investigation of S. zooepidemicus shedding by horses on the farm.

Based on the fact that this is typically an equine-associated bacterium and the history of contact (albeit potentially limited or indirect) with horses, horse contact was blamed for the infection. It's a reasonable conclusion but it's far from certain because of the nature of the contact, the lack of any proof of the same strain of S. zooepidemicus in horses on the farm, and previous reports of infections occurring in people with no contact with horses.

Exposure to S. zooepidemicus is an inherent risk of having contact with horses. It's nothing to lose sleep over and is probably relatively low on the list of potential health problems associated with horse contact. The risk is probably greatest in people with compromised immune systems and other general risk factors for disease such as advancing age and pregnancy. Good general hygiene measures, avoiding contact with sick horses and close attention to hand hygiene probably minimize these already low risks.

(click image for source)

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 25-May-10.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since my post about Delta Society and raw diets, I've had multiple questions or comments about the research behind it.

Here's one question:

"Please site the research that "clearly show..." that raw-fed animals shed bacteria at a higher rate."

Here's the answer:

Lefebvre et al, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2009

• Study following therapy dogs over the course of a year. Diet history was recorded. Raw-fed dogs were 17 times as likely to be shedding multidrug-resistant E. coli compared to non-raw-fed dogs, and more likely to be shedding Salmonella.

Leonard et al, Zoonoses and Public Health, 2010

• Study of healthy dogs in households. Dogs fed a commercial or homemade raw diet were greater than 5 times as likely to be shedding Salmonella than other dogs.

Lefebvre et al, Zoonoses and Public Health, 2008

• Study investigating therapy dogs in Ontario and Alberta. Raw-fed dogs were 23 times as likely to be shedding Salmonella and 17 times as likely to be shedding multidrug resistant E. coli.

Lenz et al, Canadian Veterinary Journal, 2009

• Campylobacter jejuni was found in the feces on 2.6% of raw-fed dogs and Salmonella was found in 14% of raw-fed dogs. Neither was found in any dogs not fed raw meat.

That's pretty clear to me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

The recent ringworm outbreak in a Newmarket, Ontario shelter has focused a lot of attention on shelter outbreaks, outbreak prevention and management. A common question that I've been getting in the last couple of days is "Why do these outbreaks occur?"

There are many reasons why an outbreak can develop. I have no first-hand knowledge of the Newmarket outbreak, and don't know what prompted that outbreak, but here are some general causes of outbreaks.

Inadequate protocols:

• Shelters need clear and logical protocols for all things dealing with animal care. This needs to include aspects like where new animals go, what types of evaluation and monitoring are performed, vaccination and deworming plans, when animals need to be tested or treated, when they can be released from quarantine, how to record and report infectious diseases, how to clean and disinfect areas and items, personal hygiene, and protective clothing, among other things. These protocols need to be in writing and accessible to all personnel.

Inadequate training:

• Shelters often have large numbers of staff, many with minimal training in animal husbandry or medicine. Proper training is required to ensure that they know what to do and why. (The latter is important because if people know why they need to do something, they are more likely to do it.) Training programs need to be well-structured and formal, not casual, follow-someone-around-and-see-what-they-do training.

Inadequate supervision:

• Even with good protocols and training, the facility managers need to ensure that protocols are followed. They need to enforce protocols and address problems with compliance. They need to make sure their protocols are up-to-date and consistent with best practices.They need to monitor disease rates and concerning trends of illnesses, so that problems can be identified early. They need to know when to get advice and who to ask (see below).

Infrastructure challenges:

• Some facilities (or actually, most facilities) are not well designed in terms of infection control. That makes it harder to prevent disease transmission and contain problems. Limitations in isolation/quarantine areas may result in mixing of new (and more likely infectious) animals with those ready for adoption. Few sinks may reduce handwashing, a key component of infection control. A facility that is too small for the animal load results in cramming in too many animals.

Poor awareness:

• If staff (from management on down) don't understand the issues, they may not act appropriately. Proper routine preventive measures and outbreak response measures may not be convenient, easy or cheap. There must be motivation to implement them. If there is little awareness of the problem, people are less likely to do what is needed.

Failure to act appropriately when the first cases are identified:

• It is much easier to contain a problem when you act early. If only a few animals have been infected or exposed, it's much easier to take aggressive measures. Once you get a large number of infected or exposed animals, it's much harder to do things like properly separate different groups (e.g. infected vs potentially infected vs non-infected). The more animals affected, the greater the chance of further transmission. Keeping your head in the sand and hoping things will go away can result in a small containable outbreak becoming a facility-wide,  difficult-or-impossible-to-contain outbreak.

Failure to get good advice:

• People working in shelters can't be expected to be experts in all aspects of infectious diseases and infection control. That's why getting good advice (and following it) is critical. Sometimes, people don't ask for advice or don't go to the real experts. This can happen because they don't really understand the problem, don't know who to contact, don't want to admit they don't know everything or don't realize they are in over their heads. A little good advice, especially early, can make a world of difference.

Bad luck:

• Ultimately, you can have an exceptionally run facility and still get an outbreak. By the nature of what shelters do, they bring in a lot of animals with potentially infectious diseases and have many animals that are at higher risk of getting sick if they get exposed. It's much less likely to occur with a good infection control program, but you can never 100% guarantee nothing bad will happen. You can't do much about this. All you can do is make the best program possible, and try to limit any problems that develop.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm not sure what to think about the recent increase in scientific papers about Staphylococcus pseudintermedius infections in people. This dog-associated bacterium has been well known for quite a while, and human infections have been sporadically reported, but it seems like there has been a big increase in reported cases over the past year.

The latest case, published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (Chuang et al 2010) describes a bloodstream infection in a 6-year-old boy. The infection was associated with an intravenous catheter site. The bacterium was initially misidentified as Staphylococcus aureus, a related bacterium that is more commonly found in people. It seems that the patient's history of having contact with dogs led to further testing of the bacterium. That's pretty surprising (and encouraging) from a few standpoints:

• The attending physicians asked about pet contact. That's not always done.
• The physicians recognized the potential for dog-human transmission of bacteria and considered the possibility that there was a misidentification by the lab. I'm quite surprised that they did further testing, since S. aureus is so common.

Unfortunately (as is commonly the case), they didn't take the investigation any further. It would have been nice for them to have tested the patient's dogs to see if they carried the same strain of S. pseudintermedius, to provide more evidence that the infection was truly from the dogs.

Concern has been raised before regarding the potential that S. pseudintermedius infections might be misdiagnosed as S. aureus, such that we don't know the true extent of the problems caused by the dog-associated bacterium. The ability of medical diagnostic labs to differentiate these two bacteria is something that needs to be investigated to help determine whether there may be more going on than we realize.

The increase in reports of S. pseudintermedius infections in the literature could also just be because infections that have always been occurring at a low level are being properly diagnosed, and people are bothering to write them up. The fact that people are still finding single cases of this infection noteworthy suggests that it's still a very uncommon condition. When you consider that the majority of dogs are carrying this bacterium, and millions upon millions of people have close contact with dogs on a regular basis, it's clear that people get exposed to this bacterium very often. The fact that infections appear to be so rare indicates that the risks to humans is likely quite low.

It's also possible that there truly has been an increase in these infections. It's hard to think of a reason why that might be the case. There's no evidence that the types of S. pseudintermedius have changed such that current strains are better able to infect people than older strains. Most likely, this is still a rare infection in humans that is often associated with dogs, but is of pretty low risk for the average dog owner. Regardless, continued study in the area is required, to make sure that this is not an emerging problem, especially when you consider that multidrug-resistant forms of this bacterium are also becoming much more common in veterinary medicine. Increased physician awareness about pet contact and zoonotic diseases is required to properly diagnose this and other potentially zoonotic diseases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In 2007, there was a massive equine influenza outbreak in Australia. A large number of horses were infected in this country that was previously equine influenza-free, and there was tremendous economic disruption caused by containment measures. It turns out horses weren't the only animals infected. A report in the April edition of Emerging Infectious Diseases describes influenza infections in dogs associated with the equine outbreak.

In some ways, it's not too surprising. Canine influenza in North America is caused by H3N8 influenza that moved from horses to dogs. Similarly, H3N8 influenza of equine origin has been identified in dogs in the UK. So, while it's an uncommon event, we know that in some situations, the "standard" equine H3N8 influenza virus can infect dogs.

The first dog that was diagnosed lived near a large horse stable. The dog developed typical signs of influenza: decreased appetite, lethargy, nasal discharge and cough. After the first dog was identified, other dogs were noted to have similar signs, including dogs whose owners had contact with infected horses and dogs that had contact with other sick dogs. Some dogs had severe infections. Influenza was diagnosed through detection of antibodies in their blood, and the influenza virus was isolated from one dog. The virus that was isolated was the same as the one present in horses (and different from that in US dogs).

For influenza to jump between species a few things have to happen.

• First, the virus has to be able to infect the other (non-natural) species. This can happen because the virus is inherently able to infect different species or because of a random viral mutation that allows for infection of the new species.
• Second, the virus must encounter that host (in this case, dogs). It must then be able to multiply within the new host.

All this can happen with or without development of disease. For the virus to truly establish itself in the new species and spread (like canine flu did in the US):

• The virus must be able to multiply well in the new host, and adequate virus levels must be produced for the new host to be a source of infection to other individuals.
• The new host must come into contact with other susceptible individuals.
• The virus must be able to infect new hosts readily enough to maintain infection in the population, instead of dying out after a couple transmission cycles.

In these Australian cases, while it is apparent that equine flu was able to infect dogs, there was no clear evidence that perpetual dog-to-dog transmission occurred. Influenza virus was rarely detected in nasal secretions from infected dogs, making it unlikely that the virus would spread between dogs.  Therefore, the virus was not able to establish itself in the dog population. This means it ended up being only an interesting situation that affected a limited number of animals, instead of the creation of a new, self-propagating infection that could continue to circulate in dogs in the country.

(Click image for source.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A 62-yr-old Italian woman has died from psittacosis, an infection caused by the bacterium Chlamydophila psittaci. Sometimes called "parrot fever," psittacosis is an uncommon but important disease linked to contact with birds, particularly psittacines (e.g. parrots, parakeets, cockatiels). In people, C. psittaci usually causes flu-like respiratory disease, but severe pneumonia and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) can occur in some individuals. With prompt diagnosis and treatment, mortality (death) rates are very low (<1%), however mortality rates are higher when diagnosis and proper treatment are delayed. It's not clear in the this case whether psittacosis was considered early in disease nor when treatment was initiated.

Chlamydophila psittaci can cause illness in birds, but it's also carried by a variable percentage of healthy birds, mainly psittacines. This complicates control of the disease, since you can't tell which birds are carrying the bacterium without testing them all. In this case, the woman's parrot died a few days before she became ill. It's not clear from the brief report whether the bird was diagnosed with C. psittaci infection, however this is a good reminder of the need to consider pet and owner health in parallel. It also indicates why diagnostic testing is important when pets are sick, or even after they've died.

If a pet becomes sick, knowing what caused the disease might be of relevance to human health. Also, if physician's ask about illness of any other individuals in the house, this should include pets, as they might get some relevant information.

In a case like this, if the bird was diagnosed with C. psittaci infection and the owner developed flu-like illness shortly thereafter, it should have been a strong indication that the person might have psittacosis, allowing for early treatment. Alternatively, even without a diagnosis, knowing that the person had a pet parrot (a risk factor for psittacosis), and that the bird had died shortly before the woman got sick, could lead to recognition that both diseases could be linked, and could lead to earlier consideration of psittacosis.

This unfortunate event should be taken as yet another reminder of the need for veterinary personnel and human physicians to communicate more effectively, and that physicians need to know about pet contact and pet health when evaluating their patients.

Image: African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus erithacus). (Photo credit: Eli Duke)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recently reported outbreak affecting horses in Bahrain has been diagnosed as glanders, a very serious bacterial infection caused by the highly contagious bacterium Burkholderia mallei. So far, it has been reported that 8 horses were euthanized over the past 3 weeks because of the infection.

Bahrain's cabinet has allocated BD150 000 to fight the outbreak. Authorities have apparently stated that the outbreak can be "easily" managed, "We have sent samples from nearly 400 horses to a specialist laboratory in the UAE and the 10 results we have got so far give us the all-clear. We now know we can manage this quite easily and are taking appropriate action."

That's a pretty dangerous sentiment to be expressing (and believing) early in an outbreak, but hopefully it's true. "Easily" and "outbreak" aren't often uttered in the same sentence, and it's far from unusual to be fooled by an allegedly contained or controlled outbreak. I'd be very surprised if all of the positive horses have already been identified. Control of glanders involves widespread testing of horses, typically with euthanasia of any infected animals. It sounds like testing is underway and results of this will give a good indication of the extent of the problem. Ten negative samples don't mean that much to me. As more results come in (and if they continue to be negative), more confidence can be had in the assessment that this outbreak is truly contained.

Glanders is not solely a concern for horses. It's a zoonotic disease that can cause rare but serious infection in humans, with a high mortality rate (almost 100% if proper treatment is not administered). People can become infected by direct contact with infected horses, with the bacterium gaining entry through skin abrasions, inhalation or contact with tissues of the mouth and nose. Pneumonia, bloodstream infections and other problems can develop. Burkholderia mallei is a Class B bioterrorism agent. Hopefully, people working around infected horses are using appropriate infection control precautions to reduce the risk of infection.

Hopefully, more information will be available soon about this outbreak and results of ongoing testing.

Image: A horse with glanders (Burkholderia mallei infection), exhibiting the characteristic infectious nasal discharge.  Glanders is a reportable disease which has been eradicated from North America, Australia and most of Europe.

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 26-Apr-10.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The May 2010 edition of Emerging Infectious Diseases contains a report about an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Scotland (McGuigan et al. 2010). Cryptosporidiosis is a common parasitic disease caused by Cryptosporidium, a protozoal parasite. It causes diarrhea, which is usually annoying (to say the least) but self-limiting in healthy people, but the infection is potentially fatal in people with compromised immune systems.

An investigation was launched after a single case of cyrptosporidiosis was diagnosed by a Scottish laboratory. The reason a single infection caused such concern is that it was suspected to have originated from contact with lambs at a wildlife centre, so there was potential for exposure of many people. The concerns were valid, since a total of 128 cases of cryptosporidosis were uncovered during their investigation, and 117 of the people affected had visited the wildlife centre. Another 252 unconfirmed cases were also identified.

The investigation suggested that direct contact with diarrheic lambs was the source of infection. Lambs (and calves) are high risk for shedding Cryptosporidium, even when they're healthy.  Diarrhea increase the risk of transmission from these animals even more, because diarrheic animals are more likely to (1) shed the parasite and (2) have fecal staining of their haircoats, which increases the likelihood of fecal contact for every person and animal around them. That's why young ruminants (e.g. lambs, calves) as well as young poultry are considered inappropriate for petting zoos and other similar public animal contact events. This outbreak is yet another example of why these recommendations are in place.

At the wildlife centre in this study, children were apparently encouraged to pick up the lambs, despite visible diarrhea. No handwashing facilities were near the lamb petting area and it took "considerable effort" to find a location to wash your hands anywhere on site. Alcohol hand sanitizers were available, however Cryptosporidium is resistant to alcohol. Handwashing is a critical component of disease prevention, but unfortunately it is very underused. In general, people are becoming much more aware of the need for handwashing, but even so, if handwashing facilities are not conveniently located, people tend not to go to much effort to find them. That leads to increased risk of infections, as was the case here.

Control measures at the wildlife centre implemented after the investigation included removal of the lambs (who should never have been there anyway), disinfection of the premises with bleach (although disinfecting a farm environment is very difficult, and Cryptosporidium is also resistant to bleach), and stopping direct contact between animals and visitors.

As we enter the season when there are more fairs, petting zoos and other animal contact events, facility managers need to pay attention to important factors like:

• Readily available hand hygiene facilities
• Good design to control the types of human-animal contact and to steer people towards hand hygiene stations
• Appropriate animals: no calves, lambs or chicks
• Proper supervision of people and animals

A little common sense goes a long way. The goal is to set up these events so that there is still a beneficial impact of seeing and interacting with animals while reducing (but never eliminating) the risk of disease transmission. A 100% safe petting zoo is not achievable (there's always some risk in life), but some pretty simple measures can greatly reduce the risks while still providing excellent entertainment and educational opportunities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Warm spells in early spring, like the recent warm spell in our area, inevitably lead to (premature) thoughts of summer, and for many people, this includes thoughts of spending time in the swimming pool. I've previously written about the presumably low risk of disease transmission from dogs swimming in pools, and common sense measures that can be taken to reduce any risks. Since more and more people and dogs are carrying resistant bacteria like MRSA, there are increasing questions about the potential for pools to be a source of transmission. A recent paper in the journal Clinical Pediatrics (Gregg & LaCroix, 2010) sheds some light on the issue.

In this study, the researchers obtained different types of swimming pool water (chlorinated water, saltwater, and biguanide (Baquacil) nonchlorinated water) from local pools. No MRSA was identified in any of the samples. They then inoculated the water samples with MRSA. They used a lot of MRSA - roughly similar to the amount that would be released from an MRSA abscess (and much, much greater than the amount that would be released from someone who was just an MRSA carrier). MRSA numbers were greatly diminished after 30 minutes and no MRSA was detected after 1 hour.

This study suggests that pools are likely not a significant source of MRSA exposure. Even with high-level contamination, MRSA died quickly. Presumably, there would be little MRSA shed by a person that was only a carrier, and when you consider the dilutional effect of a small amount of MRSA in a large volume of water, plus the bactericidal effects of treated water, the risks should be extremely low. Common sense would dictate that someone with an MRSA infection shouldn't go in the water because they could shed large numbers of bacteria, but this study suggests that the risks are probably minimal and short-term even then.

Bottom line: Don't worry about pools in terms of MRSA. Pools are a greater risk for certain causes of gastrointestinal disease like norovirus and Cryptosporidium. If you or your dog has an infectious disease, stay out of pools. If not, and you are otherwise healthy, then don't worry. There's always some risk of exposure to infectious disease, but it's very low. Life is full of risks and swimming in a pool is not a big one (at least from an infectious disease standpoint.  If you can't swim, that's a different story!).

Image from: http://blog.timesunion.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A large rabies outbreak continues in Moscow.  There were 257 rabies cases reported in the area in 2009 - ten times the number from previous years, and well above the very low numbers that occurred for a decade of so after an aggressive control program to control the post-World War II rabies epidemic. Control of that outbreak mainly involved shooting of potential rabies vectors: stray dogs, foxes and raccoon dogs. 

Various more humane but still aggressive control measures are being considered to help control the current epidemic, including banning movement of pets to suburban cottages (probably better to just vaccinate the pets first), canceling a dog show (pretty low yield - better to vaccinate), and mass immunization of wild and domestic animals (the key approach).

An aggressive approach makes sense. Rabies is almost invariably fatal and large numbers of people who are exposed require post-exposure treatment every year.  Local wildlife population patterns, wildlife rabies hotbeds and rates, pet numbers, pet movement and vaccination must all be considered when determining the best approach to control. Apparently, about 30 000 pet dogs visit cottages in the Moscow area each weekend, and there's concern that they could bring rabies back to the city with them. Authorities have warned about traffic jams that might develop, presumably from police stopping traffic looking for contraband canines. However, instead of banning dog movement, it would likely be more effective to increase vaccination (or even mandate it for dogs in those high risk regions) and control roaming dogs. If a dog doesn't roam freely in the country, it's less likely to encounter a rabid animal. If it's vaccinated, it's unlikely to get infected if it does get exposed. If it's not allowed to roam when it returns to the city, it's less likely to spread rabies to other animals and people in the very rare event that it was exposed and infected. Furthermore, if wildlife are vaccinated through rabies bait drops, the chances that a roaming dog will be exposed get even lower.

Ensuring the highest possible canine vaccination rates is the key measure. Whether that's through mandating vaccination, providing it at low cost, or making it more convenient for owners to get it done, it's a great place to focus efforts and resources. In principle, it's a simple concept. In practice, it can be more difficult, especially when compliance of the general public is required.

For those of you that want to practice your Russian reading skills, here's the original story.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A somewhat controversial study has just been published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care (Savigny et al 2010). The study looked at the use of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) for the treatment of parvovirus infection in dogs. Tamiflu is best known as a potentially important influenza drug in humans. It's a neuraminidase inhibitor that can prevent replication of some viruses, such as influenza. It actually has no effect on parvovirus, but has been used by some veterinarians based on the hypothesis that it can have an effect on bacteria and perhaps prevent secondary bacterial infections, which contribute to the severity of parvoviral disease.

The study examined a relatively small number of dogs (35) with parvovirus infection. Some dogs received Tamiflu along with standard treatments, while the others received a placebo and standard treatments. There was no difference in major outcomes between the two groups, but control dogs lost more weight during treatment.

The study has some weaknesses and doesn't tell us too much, but it's the first objective investigation of this drug in dogs. There was no significant difference in relevant outcomes, but was that because the drug doesn't work, because the dose was too low (as has been suggested by some) or because the study was too small to detect a real difference? That's the big question.

Some veterinarians are completely convinced Tamiflu works for parvovirus infections and disregard any suggestion that it doesn't. Currently, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting its use, and this study doesn't help much one way or the other. There are abundant anecdotes, and it's plausible that this drug could be useful for treating this disease, but there are a few concerns:

• We really don't know whether it works. Continuing to use a treatment in the absence of objective information is not necessarily a good idea.
• We don't know the appropriate dosage and duration of treatment for dogs. We also don't know which animals Tamiflu might or might not help. It is probably most effective (or perhaps only effective) early in disease.
• Tamiflu is an important human influenza drug, and resistance is emerging in influenza. Can we justify using a drug that is a part of pandemic influenza control for the treatment of canine parvovirus, without any evidence that it is effective or needed?

The article's abstract concludes by saying "Based on these results, the true role of oseltamivir in the treatment of parvoviral enteritis remains speculative, although it is believed that further investigation is warranted."  Very true.

We need two things:

• Rational discussion about whether use of drugs like this is justifiable in animals.
• Better studies to tell us whether it works, and if so, how to best use it.

If we end up using it, we also need surveillance to make sure routine use of this drug in animals doesn't contribute to resistance in humans. Unfortunately, the Tamiflu debate is too often full of anecdotes and arguments as opposed to logical discussion and sound evidence. Hopefully that won't get in the way of someone doing a more definitive study.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

On the way home from an MRSA symposium in the US the other day, I was (perhaps fittingly) listening to a podcast about new antibiotic development. The podcast, by The Lancet Infectious Diseases, discussed the small number of new antibiotics that are in the pipeline (about 15), particularly in contrast to the number of new anti-cancer drugs (about 800). There are many reasons for this, and development of new anti-cancer drugs is certainly important. However, we have definitely not "won the war" against bacteria, and resistance continues to be a serious threat to human and animal health.

The small number of potential new drugs (since many drugs in development will not ever make it past drug trials) is a concern if resistance continues to increase. The disparity in development between antibiotics and anti-cancer drugs is also concerning when you consider that good antibiotics are very important for cancer therapy - people with cancer often get infections, and often their infections are caused by multidrug-resistant bugs. As we develop more and better anti-cancer drugs, there will be more people who are susceptible to these potentially severe infections, and ways to treat them are needed.

Why are there so few antibiotics in development compared to other drug types?

• $$$ - Money.  The potential return on investment for pharmaceutical companies is much greater for many other drug types. Huge amounts of money must be invested to develop, test and license drugs. Logically, companies are going to focus on the higher yield drugs, leaving some important areas with less research and development than would be desired.
  

What do we do?

Well, unless you own a pharmaceutical company or have millions of dollars to spend, you're probably not going to have an impact on drug development. Since we can't control what will be available to us in the future, we need to make sure that we delay, as much as possible, the emergence and dissemination of highly resistant bacteria.

Common sense practices such as only using antibiotics when necessary, using them properly (e.g. proper dose and route, giving the entire treatment course), good preventive medicine to reduce the risk of bacterial infections and good infection control measures are critical and often underused. While not as fancy as high-tech drug develop, these are the ways that we can have a positive impact in both human and animal health, and reduce our need for new drugs.

Click image for source.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nature's Variety has expanded their recall based on more concerns about Salmonella contamination of their products. In a lot of ways, this makes no sense to me since you have to assume that raw meat is contaminated with Salmonella, E. coli, Campylobacter and various other pathogens. That's been clearly shown in studies of raw meat for humans and animals, and that's why we cook meat intended for human consumption and emphasize good food handling practices. It's also why there are concerns about feeding raw meat to pets, and the explanation for various studies showing pets fed raw meat have much higher rates of shedding potentially harmful bacteria like Salmonella. You have to assume that a reasonable percentage of Nature's Variety's food has been contaminated with Salmonella, not that this is an uncommon and preventable event.

Because of the problem or consumer concerns, Nature's Variety has announced that they will be treating all of their diets using high pressure pasteurization. Basically, this process uses very high pressures (with only a slight increase in temperature) to reduce bacterial levels. I can't find any scientific literature about the effectiveness of this method on Salmonella contamination of raw meat (it's mainly used with milk and cheese) but it should be able to greatly reduce bacterial levels in meat. That's a good thing, as long as it works. What's important to know, however, is whether it is really highly effective in this situation and whether all potentially harmful bacterial will be eliminated every time.

I'm concerned that if people think this food is "sterile" and it's not, they might not take the necessary food handling precautions. If this method usually, but not always, kills all of the bad bacteria, or if it reduces levels greatly but not completely, then there could still be the risk of infection of people and pets. This information is critical. In the absence of clear scientific data, I think we need to assume that some level of contamination could still be present (although probably much less often and at a much lower level), and make sure that proper food handling practices are used.

It's good to see this company taking measures to reduce the risks associated with raw meat feeding. Let's hope that some objective research is made available to indicate what risks might remain.

Image source: www.defendingfoodsafety.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The latest edition of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases contains an article about a South African vet student that acquired West Nile virus from a pony while performing a necropsy. Occupational exposure to infectious diseases is an inherent risk in veterinary medicine. Veterinarians know that they are at higher risk of encountering various infectious diseases and take (or should take) precautions to reduce those risks. Sometimes infections occur despite the best precautions. Sometimes infections occur because of bad practices. This report highlights the latter.

In this case, a 4-month-old pony began showing vague signs of illness, then developed neurological abnormalities and was euthanized. A necropsy (post-mortem exam) was then performed by a veterinary pathologist with the assistance of two veterinary students. As part of the necropsy, the student removed the brain and spinal cord for testing, but gloves were the only protective gear that were used. No face or eye protection was used, which is quite astounding.

The pony was eventually diagnosed with West Nile virus. Six days after performing the necropsy, the veterinary student developed a fever, malaise, sore muscles, stiff neck and severe headache. West Nile virus infection in the student was confirmed, and the viruses from the pony and person were the same type based on testing. Fortunately, the signs of infection in the student subsided after approximately ten days.

Horses are considered "dead-end" hosts for West Nile virus, meaning they cannot naturally transmit the virus. This is because horses (even severely affected ones) only have very low levels of virus in their blood, so a biting mosquito can't pick up the virus and transmit it to other individuals. However, the brain and spinal cord, particularly in a clinically affected horse, may contain very large amounts of the virus. It's astounding that a veterinary school would have a student removing the brain and spinal cord of an animal that died from a neurological condition, especially without proper protective gear, since the procedure carries a risk of splashing or aerosol exposure to the virus. Anyone performing necropsies needs to be aware of the potential risks and take appropriate precautions. The paper states that after the incident, biosafety practices were improved to include the wearing of masks and eye protection during necropsies. Well, I guess it's better late than never...

Click image for source.

This Worms & Germs entry was originally posted on our sister site, equIDblog, on 11-Mar-10.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article in Saturday's Toronto Star discussed composting options for people without organic waste pickup or the ability to have a backyard composter, including indoor composters that can be used by apartment or condo dwellers who want to satisfy their eco-friendly side.

They mentioned that one of the composters they highlighted (NatureMill) can apparently handle pet waste, but composting animal feces is not a good idea. Pet waste (feces +/- cat litter etc.) can contain a wide range of potentially harmful parasites and bacteria. The composting process can generate enough heat to kill these bugs, but it's not guaranteed to do so, and I'd be especially concerned about small indoor composters. Having a few nasty things in the composter itself isn't necessarily a big deal, but what happens down the line? People can be exposed to these microorganisms when removing compost, and (maybe more importantly) compost usually ends up in gardens where the bad bugs can contaminate the soil, as well as anything grown in the garden.

One concerning microbe is the protozoal parasite Toxoplasma gondii. Cats are the natural reservoir of Toxoplasma and can pass it in their feces (usually only for a short period), but most people that become infected by Toxoplasma are likely exposed to the oocysts ("eggs") outside in gardens, or from contact with contaminated foods (e.g. unwashed vegetables). (Undercooked meat can also be a source of infection, but that's another story).  Composting may not kill this parasite, so when pet-waste compost is put into flower gardens or vegetable gardens in which people work, the risk of exposure to Toxoplasma may be increased. The risk of transmission from an individual cat is admittedly low, since only a very small percentage of cats are shedding the parasite at any one time (even though most have at one point), but it's a preventable risk. There are also various other microorganisms that are potential concerns. While composting is a great way to dispose of most organic wastes, it's best to keep putting dog and cat feces in the garbage or down the toilet (and wash your hands afterward, of course).

If you really feel the need to compost pet waste, the safest alternative is probably to have a separate composter for pet waste that you handle a bit differently: pay careful attention to hand hygiene after handling the compost, and make sure the compost isn't used in gardens or other areas where people might have contact with the soil.

Click image for source.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A man from Jharkhand, India, was bitten by a dog and realized that there was the potential for rabies transmission. That's good, particularly given the huge problem with rabies in India. However, he didn't take the recommended approach of proper wound care and getting post-exposure vaccination. Rather, he killed the dog (getting bitten a few more times in the process), cut out its heart with a pair of scissors and ate it raw, exclaiming that now there would be no problem with rabies.

Not a good idea.

Rabies is widespread in India. Every year, 25 000-30 000 people die of this disease. A person in India is bitten every 2 seconds and someone dies of rabies every 30 minutes.

Every dog bite needs to be considered a possible rabies exposure. If a dog that bites someone is not available for quarantine or testing to determine whether it has rabies, post-exposure treatment is necessary. That involves an injection of anti-rabies antibodies and a series of 4 or 5 vaccines, not ingestion of the animal's heart.

Hopefully, the dog didn't have rabies and this will go down as a somewhat curious little story. Unfortunately, if the dog had rabies, there is a good chance that this person has been infected, and if infected, he will almost certainly die.

Eating an animal's heart to prevent rabies transmission may just be a bizarre belief of an unusual individual. This is something that needs to be investigated, however, because if the same belief is held by many other people in the area, they will all put themselves at risk if they are bitten by not seeking appropriate and effective treatment. Not only does killing the dog and eating its heart have no chance of preventing infection, it probably increases the risk of rabies by leading to more bites. More rabies education is often needed in problem areas, and this may be the case here.

Image: Canine heart (source: www.historyforkids.org)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ear mites are a common problem in dogs and cats, particularly in young animals, as well as in strays and animals in shelters. The species of mite typically involved is called Otodectes cynotis. It is transmitted between individuals by direct contact (basically hopping animal to animal, as it does not survive for long in the environment), and causes an extremely itchy ear infection (which can get even worse if there is secondary infection with bacteria or fungi).

There are a few reports of suspected infections with Otodectes in people. Considering how common ear mites are in cats and the small number of reported human infections, transmission between pets and people is probably rare, but it certainly can occur. Most of the reports are somewhat circumstantial, involving people with itchy skin lesions that developed after a pet was diagnosed with ear mites. However, one curious veterinarian took it a step further. 

Dr. Robert Lopez, of Westport, New York, intentionally infested himself with ear mites from infected animals, and described the outcome in a 1993 edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. First, he took a sample from the ear of a cat with ear mites and placed it in his own ear. He described the scratching sounds and movement that he could feel as the mites explored his ear canal. Severe itching developed, to the point where "sleep was impossible." The intensity of the itching and mite movement decreased over time and the infection resolved by itself within a month.

Personally, I think I would have stopped there. (Actually, I wouldn't have made it to that point, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't have tried it again.) Yet, Dr. Lopez wanted to confirm his findings so, a few weeks later, he infected himself again with mites from another cat. The same type of disease developed, although it was less severe and only lasted two weeks.

Guess what he did next - he tried again, wanting to see if the reduction in severity might indicate development of immunity. So, he infected himself a third time, with the outcome being milder disease. This suggested to him (logically so) that immunity to the mites might develop, something that fits with the fact that ear mite infestations are more common in young animals.

Self-experimentation is generally frowned upon, but has been the source of remarkably scientific discoveries, even Nobel Prize winning discoveries (e.g. the role of Helicobacter pylori in gastric ulcers in people). I don't think Dr. Lopez is in line for any prizes, but it shows how a little academic curiosity along with minimal squeamishness can provide some interesting information.

What's the relevance of all this? If your pet has signs of ear mite infestation (e.g. scratching at the ears, dirty material inside the ears), get it examined and treated. If nothing else, this needs to be done because it's a very uncomfortable problem for the pet. There's also some risk of human infection, but it's probably minimal. The mites have to make it from the pet's ear to your body to cause problems. The quicker they are treated, the lower the likelihood of this occurring. Human ear mite infestations, be they in the ear or on the skin, seem to resolve by themselves, with treatment of the animal being the most important part of control. However, it can be a pretty uncomfortable condition and one most people (with the possible exception of Dr. Lopez) would certainly rather avoid.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Fort McMurray (Alberta) SPCA shelter has been closed because of a Giardia outbreak. Giardia is an intestinal parasite that can cause diarrhea in dogs (and other species, including people) but can also be found in about 7% of healthy dogs. Giardia infection was confirmed in four dogs in the shelter, which led to the rather aggressive measure of closing the shelter. Shelter personnel suspect that the infection started with one dog, who spread the parasite to some other dogs that were in close contact with it. Giardia is passed in stool and animals get infected by ingesting Giardia oocysts from stool contamination in their environment or water sources.

 

Shelter personnel speculated that "If [the first dog to be infected] went for a walk with the snow melting, of course there's lots of little presents underneath the snow, so when she goes for a walk and she steps in, say another dog's feces, and then licks her paws, she can get it."

 

It's pretty unlikely that old feces revealed by thawing snow were the cause, since freezing is a pretty effective way to kill Giardia. More likely, the parasite was brought into the shelter by a healthy dog, considering that a reasonable percentage of dogs are shedding Giardia at any time. Why it spread to other dogs is a different question, as is whether the other animals were sick (with diarrhea) and whether Giardia was really the cause if they were. As with any organism that can be found in healthy animals, it's hard to say for sure whether Giardia actually caused any disease or whether there was some other cause that wasn't detected and the affected dogs just happened to be shedding Giardia at the same time.

Giardia usually causes pretty mild disease that gets better on its own or with treatment. Shelter personnel stated "We are in desperate need for help from the public as far as raising funds for medical, because obviously it costs a lot of money to treat the dogs. It's a lot of money to treat an animal with giardia." It's actually pretty cheap to treat individual cases, but this makes me wonder whether they are treating all dogs in the shelter. That's not something I'd recommend because there's little evidence that treatment of non-diarrheic animals is needed or useful. 

Presumably this outbreak (whether it was caused by Giardia or something else) will end soon, either because of or despite of what was done. You never know if you did something to control the outbreak or whether it just ran its natural course. If it truly was Giardia, I'd be surprised if there are more problems, but resolution of the outbreak won't change the fact that many dogs that they bring in will be shedding the organism.

Giardia is a cause of diarrhea in people, but we now know that dogs probably play only a minor role in human disease. The type of Giardia that is most often found in dogs is a dog-specific type (Assemblage D) that cannot infect people. Unless these dogs were infected with a strain that can infect people (uncommon but not impossible), there's no risk to people. Regardless, avoiding contact with stool, especially diarrhea, is still a good idea - for prevention of Giardia and other diseases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nature's Variety has recalled chicken-based raw meat products because of Salmonella contamination. After a customer complaint about "digestive problems," they tested the food and found Salmonella, prompting the recall. (For more details about the recall, click here.)  In some ways, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you think Salmonella contamination should be an uncommon event and a problem, you should test routinely, not wait until animals get sick. If you think that Salmonella contamination of raw meat is expected (which it is), then why test or recall? Just assume that every raw meat sample is positive for Salmonella (and Campylobacter, and E. coli). Recalling raw meat for Salmonella isn't logical. Presumably, a large percentage of the raw meat that they have sold and which they will sell in the future is contaminated, based on various studies of commercial raw meat. Handling and feeding raw meat carries an inherent risk of human and animal infections with Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli and other bacteria. People that feed raw meat need to understand that risk, and consider whether it's a reasonable risk for their pets and the people in the household. I don't think feeding raw meat is a good idea, but in some situations it's a particularly bad idea (e.g. when there are infants, elderly persons or immunocompromised people in the household, when the pet is very old or very young, when the pet visits high risk people).

More information about raw meat feeding can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Phoenix, Arizona man is suing a pet store after he contracted rat bite fever from a rat he had purchased. It's not surprising to see a lawsuit following a serious illness, considering people in the US often try to sue for just about anything, but I'm not sure it won't get very far. I don't doubt that the man had rat bite fever, or that he got it from the rat he purchased - the question is, is the pet store really liable? Specifically, did they do anything inappropriate?

"Rats being sold to people should not have rat-bite fever," Heitzman's lawyer, M.E. "Buddy" Rake Jr., tells New Times.

Actually, the rats don't have rat bite fever... rats are healthy carriers of the bacteria that cause rat bite fever. There are two different bacteria that can cause the disease, Streptobacillus moniliformis and Spirillum minus. Streptobacillus moniliformis is presumably the cause here since it's the main cause of rat bite fever in the US. This bacterium is very commonly found in healthy rats, with upwards of 100% of healthy rats being carriers. You have to assume that every rat is carrying this bacterium.

"It wouldn't be any different if they sold someone a dog with rabies," he says. "I'm not in the nuisance-lawsuit business - he was in rough shape."

It would certainly be a different story if the store sold someone a dog that had signs of rabies. It's possible that someone could buy a dog that had been exposed to rabies but which was healthy at the time of sale, but that's pretty unlikely. However, a big difference is that there is a highly effective vaccine against rabies. There is no such thing for rat bite fever. If a pet store sells an unvaccinated dog of unknown origin that could have been exposed, despite knowing the need for rabies vaccination, there certainly could be liability issues. Selling a rat that is carrying a bacterium that we assume most or all rats carry anyway is different.

PetCo did not immediately return telephone calls this afternoon, but in its defense, there is an information pamphlet explaining exactly how to avoid contracting rat-bite fever available on the company's Web site. ...though it seems the pamphlet's best suggestion is to not get bitten in the first place.

It would be better if everyone who bought a rat was given the information sheet, but it's a start. The fact is, the best way to avoid rat bite fever IS to avoid getting bitten by a rat! Proper rat handling is a very important aspect of disease prevention, since you can never rule out the possibility that a rat is a carrier.

Our suggestion: Don't have a disgusting rat for a pet.

Whoa.  Rats can make excellent pets. They can also carry infectious diseases. However, EVERY animal can carry infectious diseases, and rats are probably no more risky than most other domestic pets. The key is to take common sense precautions to reduce the risk of injury and infection (though the risk can never be completely eliminated). For rats, this includes selection of a rat that is not aggressive or fearful, knowing how to properly take care of a rat, knowing how to take care of a bite should it happen and being aware of some diseases for which you might be at increased risk because you own a rat.

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Hollywood effect is quite real when it comes to various trends, including pets (remember the glut of Dalmatians after 101 Dalmatians?). I can understand how seeing a cute puppy of some breed might lead to people wanting to get one. However, when Disney's The Princess and the Frog was released, I didn't really think a lot of people who watched this movie were going to start running around kissing frogs. I assumed that some degree of common sense would apply. Apparently, I was wrong.

Various news outlets are reporting that at least 50 children (mainly kids under the age of 10) have become sick in the US after copying the movie's Princess Tiana by kissing frogs. There's not a lot of information regarding what they contracted, whether the illnesses were all clearly linked to frogs, or whether these were truly associated with the movie, but there are certainly disease risks associated with kissing a frog. While we pay more attention to reptiles as a source of Salmonella, the risk is also present with frogs, and the best thing is to do is assume that all frogs are carrying this potentially harmful bacterium. Accordingly, high-risk people (e.g. kids less than 5 years of age, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems) should have no contact with frogs - they shouldn't even be in the same house. Hands should always be washed after touching a frog, and no one should ever kiss a frog. The chances of living happily ever after with a prince are much lower than the chances of a nasty bout of diarrhea (or worse)!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The latest edition of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases contains a paper describing the 2008  Australian Hendra virus outbreak in horses and people.

In this outbreak, there were five horses infected and two humans infected. The horses predominantly had signs of neurological disease, not respiratory disease like some other reports describing this disease. Four horses died. One recovered but was euthanized for public health reasons.

Two people became infected after working with the sick horses, which represents 10% of the total veterinary staff that were exposed to the infected horses.  Both people started off with influenza-like illness, which seemed to improve initially, but then signs of severe neurological disease developed. They were treated with ribavirin, an antiviral drug, as part of an experimental treatment. One of them died after 40 days of illness, the other person survived.

The authors stressed that the effectiveness of ribavirin could not be determined, but they recommend it nonetheless because of the severity of Hendra virus infection and lack of other options. Ribavirin was also used in the 2009 outbreak, but it is clearly not 100% effective since one person died there also.

A number of concerning activities occurred that put people at risk of infection, including a "percutaneous blood exposure while euthanizing an infected horses" (they didn't explain exactly what this was, but it could have been a needlestick), low use of personal protective equipment, and contact with potentially infectious body fluids. This is unfortunately not surprising since the approach to infection control (particularly in terms of zoonotic infections) is often lax in equine medicine. That certainly has to change, particularly in areas where Hendra virus may be present.

Much more information about how to control this potentially devastating virus is needed. Fortunately, infections are uncommon and it is restricted to a fairly small geographic range in Queensland, Australia.

Image source: http://animalphotos.info/

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 27-Jan-10.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A paper in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases (Durdik et al 2010) describes a case of meningitis in an 11-month-old child caused by S. intermedius. (Presumably, the bacterium was actually S. pseudintermedius and they’re behind the times on identification of / nomenclature of this bacterium). This is the first report of this bacterium as a cause of meningitis in people, and obviously it’s a concern because of the potential severity of meningitis. Fortunately, the child made a full recovery with proper treatment.

S. pseudintermedius is a normal inhabitant of the skin and other body sites in dogs, and is found less commonly in cats. In this case, the child’s family owned a dog, but the dog lived outside and no direct contact was reported between the child and the dog. Indirect contact, such as someone bringing the bacterium in on their hands after touching the dog, would certainly be a possible route of transmission. Unfortunately, the authors of this study did not investigate the dog as the potential source and there was no attempt to isolate the same bacterium from the dog. The dog is certainly a likely source of infection here since S. pseudintermedius is not commonly found in people, and when it is, it is often associated with dog-contact.

There seems to have been an increase in reports of Staphylococcus intermedius/pseudintermedius infections in people lately. Reports are still very rare but there have been a couple in the past six months. That could be because there are more infections, but it could also be that people are just writing up the cases or that labs are getting better at identifying the organism. Overall, the number of apparent human infections caused by this dog-associated bacterium is very low.  While it is clearly a bacterium that can infect people, the risks to people in contact with pets is also very low. “Low” doesn’t mean “no”, however, and the very low but not negligible risk of S. pseudintermedius infection is just one of many reasons to pay close attention to good hygiene practices around pets, and ensure that your physician knows if you have pets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've seen reasonably good evidence of the potential involvement of pets in the transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for a few years, and a study recently published in the Journal of Hospital Infection (Loeffler et al 2010) sheds a little more light on the subject.

In this UK study, they tested 608 veterinary staff and pet owners in contact with pets that were carrying MRSA or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). MRSA carriage was identified in 12.3% of veterinarians that treated MRSA-infected animals and in 7.5% of their owners (although the chicken vs egg conundrum comes up, i.e. are vets that treated MRSA -infected pets more likely to have MRSA because they got it from the pet or because they already had MRSA and infected their patient?). These numbers are relatively consistent with a small number of other studies that have looked at these groups, and are higher than the expected carriage rates in the general population. This is highlighted by the results from people that had contact with animals only carrying methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, since MRSA was only identified in 4.8% of veterinary staff and 0% of owners in this group. Veterinary personnel were significantly more likely to carry MRSA than pet owners. As expected, virtually all MRSA from people and pets in the study were the predominant strains present in human hospitals in the UK.

We shouldn't fear MRSA or our pets, but we should respect the potential for infection and act accordingly. Mainly, this involves basic practices like:

• Good hygiene: washing hands regularly after handling pets
• Avoiding contact with infected body sites in pets, and preventing pets from having contact with infected body sites in people
• Prudent antibiotic use in both veterinary and human medicine
• Proper and timely diagnostic testing to identify MRSA infections, to permit proper treatment and earlier implementation of appropriate infection control practices.

Ultimately, MRSA in pets is a human-borne disease. Most pets that have MRSA presumably acquire it from a close human contact, so efforts at controlling MRSA in pets need to be directed at both the pet and human aspects. Uncontrolled MRSA in people will lead to increased risk for pets, and for pets to be a source of subsequent human infection.

Image: Seven-month-old British Shorthair (photo credit: Tamila Aspen)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There was another paper published in the August issue of the Canadian Veterinary Journal about Baylisascaris procyonis (roundworms) in raccoons, this time in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Sexsmith et al 2009). The study was actually undertaken after infection with B. procyonis larvae was identifed as the cause of death of several animals in the collection at the Assiniboine Park Zoo in Winnipeg.

The researchers collected feces from 52 active raccoon latrines around the city and from 114 "nuisance" raccoons that were caught, euthanised and submitted for necropsy to the local lab. Interestingly, the vast majority of latrines and nuissance raccoons were found close to the two major rivers that run through Winnipeg. Half (50%) of all the latrines were positive for roundworm eggs on at least one sample (out of a possible 3). Among the necropsied raccoons, 61/114 (53.5%) were positive for roundworms. Adult raccoons were almost four times as likely to carry roundworms than juveniles (which is in contrast to a previous study that found juveniles more likely to be infected), and bigger raccoons (over 2.75 kg) were more than seven times as likely to carry roundworms compared to smaller animals. Although there are regions where the prevalence of B. procyonis s reported to be very low, Winnipeg, like many other regions of North America, has joined the ranks of those where the prevalence is high and the public needs to be aware of the associated risks.

The most severe zoonotic disease caused by B. procyonis is called neural larval migrans (NLM), which results from migration of parasite larvae through the central nervous system (i.e. brain). Two of the reasons this is much more of a concern with raccoon roundworms (Baylisascaris) compared to dog and cat roundworms (Toxocara) are:

1) A massive number of parasite eggs are passed in the feces of infected raccoons (which typically have a very high burden of adult worms). Coupled with the fact that the eggs are further concentrated in areas where many raccoons defecate (latrines), this can lead to heavy exposure of people (or animals) who come in contact with the soil in these areas, which greatly increases the risk of infection.

2) The larvae of B. procyonis are very active migrators, and they get bigger as they migrate through tissues - much bigger than Toxocara larvae ever get, which means they also tend to cause a lot more damage before they're finally (if ever) trapped or killed by the body's immune response.

Natural infection of dogs living in the same areas as raccoons has been found - it's not common, but it appears to occur frequently enough to warrant noting. Dogs and cats can also be infected by their own species of roundworms, which will also result in parasite eggs being shed in the feces. It's important to have your veterinarian perform a fecal examination for your pet on a regular basis so any parasite infestations (roundworm or other) can be treated.

Dogs and cats may also be susceptible to larval migrans in the same manner as people (and the animals at the zoo in Winnipeg) if they are exposed to high numbers of infectious eggs. Remember that roundworm eggs must be swallowed in order for infection of any kind to occur, so good hand hygiene and avoiding soil contamination of food are key to preventing transmission. Also, do not allow your pet to dig or play in an area where raccoons defecate (preventing direct contact between your dog and raccoons should go without saying!).  And of course, feces of any kind (and from any species) should be treated as infectious material, and handled with appropriate precautions.

More information about Baylisascaris and raccoon latrines is available in our archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I received newsletter today from Intervet (a pharmaceutical company) that is targeted at equine veterinarians. One article discussed rabies in horses. It wasn't bad overall, but I thought the section on what to do when a horse might have been exposed to rabies was worth discussing.

The article asks, "If your client suspects that a horse has been bitten by a rabies-infected animal, what should be done?"

Answer: "Contacting you as the veterinarian is always the first step."

Great first step.  A second step that wasn't mentioned should be, "Try to identify and (safely) capture the animal that bit the horse." This is often impossible but certainly worthwhile if it can be done.  However, if you're trying to catch the offending animal, make sure you don't put yourself at risk of exposure to rabies in the process.  If the animal can be caught, it's rabies status at the time of the bite can be determined (either through testing or quarantine). If it can be shown that the animal wasn't rabid, a lot of stress, hassle and expense can be saved.

"If the horse was previously vaccinated... Then isolate and observe the animal for 45 to 90 days (your clinical evaluation will involve gait analysis, radiography and a spinal tap)."

Boosting the rabies vaccine is also a good idea. The next step, however, needs to be contacting local regulatory officials to find out what you have to do. They determine if, how and how long an animal needs to be quarantined - this is NOT the decision of the local veterinarian nor the animal's owner. Most likely, they will recommend a 45 day quarantine for a vaccinated horse, since this is what is recommended in the NASPHV Compendium on Rabies. The discussion of diagnostic testing makes no sense. There is absolutely no indication to perform diagnostic tests on a horse that has been bitten by a rabies suspect. None. There are no tests that can be used to diagnose rabies in live horses (also exposed horses don't instantly develop signs of rabies). Horses should be monitored closely for signs of rabies during the quarantine period, but that's it.

"...and have the client make a list of all people who had contact with the horse."

This is often done when horses have or are suspected of having rabies, but not horses that are potentially exposed. It is done to help public health personnel contact people that may have been exposed to rabies. A horse that was just bitten by an animal is not a risk for transmission of rabies.  (However, keeping a list of people who have contact with the horse after it's been bitten (i.e. durng the quarantine period) - which should be as short a list as possible - is a reasonable precaution in the unlikely event that the horse does develop rabies.)

"If the animal was not vaccinated, your options are to euthanize and perform a postmortem examination of the brain (the only way to definitely confirm rabies)..."

Euthanasia is one of the options that needs to be considered in an unvaccinated horse that has been exposed, which is one of the reasons that identifying the biting animal and testing it is critical, if it can be done. The last part of the above sentence (from the atricle) is complete nonsense. Why would you test the brain of a normal horse that has been euthanized because it's just been bitten by a potentially rabid animal? The horse isn't being euthanized because it has rabies, it's being euthanized because of the likelihood  of it developing rabies weeks to months later. Testing of the brain will tell you absolutely nothing if the animal was only bitten recently.

"...or isolate and observe the horse for six months and develop the human contact list."

Again, this needs to be decided based on discussions with regulatory personnel who are responsible for dictating what is to be done. A six-month quarantine is a pretty standard recommendation for an unvaccinated animal. Creating a human contact list should not be necessary, since quarantine involves severely restricting contact of people with the horse and only a few (ideally one) person would have any type of contact.

The article wraps up with the very true emphasis on vaccinating horses. It's a cheap measure to prevent a relatively rare but invariably fatal disease.

Click image for source.

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 05-Jan-10.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When we have a -30C windchill and snow on the ground, my first thoughts usually aren't about survival of bacteria in the outdoor environment. However, some microorganisms are well adapted for survival in various adverse conditions and we shouldn't assume that cold=dead for every bug of concern. Along that line, we received a question recently about survival of Leptospira and I passed it along to our lepto expert, Dr. John Prescott. Here's his guest post:

A reader in Ohio owns a dog that had leptospirosis, and had some questions about leptospirosis that may be of general interest.

Q1. Since the yard is likely contaminated with leptospires, she asked “How cold does the temperature have to get before the Lepto organisms are killed?”

A1. Once it’s frozen, as it is now in January, they’re dead. Leptospires are fragile bacteria that are killed by dry heat and by freezing. They survive well in moist or wet environments, with moderate temperatures. In some countries leptospirosis is called “mud fever” or “fall fever” since this description captures so well the environmental conditions under which they thrive.

Although leptospirosis in dogs can occur at any time in the year, it mainly causes disease in the fall, late September to December, peaking in November. The increasingly mild and prolonged falls that we have experienced in the last decade are thought to be an important reason that leptospirosis has resurged in dogs. Interestingly, there is often a “blip” of leptospirosis in dogs in March in Ontario (and likely Ohio), since this is when the snow melts and conditions are wet, even though we can still get freezing at that time. I suspect that this is also the time when the raccoons that are thought to be the main source of leptospirosis for dogs are again active after the winter, and are foraging for food for themselves and their babies.

Q2. Do dogs still shed leptospires after they’ve been treated?

A2. No. Leptospires are quickly killed by the antibiotics used in treatment, amoxicillin or doxycycline. There is no danger that dogs treated for a week with these drugs are a risk to people or other animals. You may read in otherwise very reputable textbooks that these antibiotics “do not eliminate the carrier state” but I have no idea where this misunderstanding comes from.

Q3. Where can I find out more about leptospirosis in dogs?

A3. I like the web site http://www.leptoinfo.com, which is maintained by a vaccine company. I was surprised how many web sites devoted to leptospirosis that there are, but like much on the internet some contain highly misleading information. The “Worms & Germs” site has good past blogs about canine leptospirosis and is usually (just kidding, Scott) a reliable source of information.

One very common entrenched misconception, which is very hard to kill, is that vaccination does not stop animals shedding the organism. This is quite wrong. I suspect this misconception came from an experimental study half a century ago when dogs with pre-existing kidney infection with a leptospiral serovar called Canicola were vaccinated. It would not be expected by anyone that these animals would stop shedding since antibodies don’t penetrate into the place in the kidney where the leptospires live and from which they are shed in the urine. What vaccination does incredibly effectively is to prevent leptospires from actually reaching the kidney and setting up home there. The leptospires are removed by antibodies in the blood, so they never reach the kidney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

.A Texas couple is undergoing rabies post-exposure prophylaxis after an abandoned puppy they adopted was diagnosed with rabies. They found the puppy outside and brought it into their house. One of them was subsequently bitten and they found out about the rabies diagnosis on Christmas eve.

One of the couple is quoted as saying "The doctor said 'It was a good thing they didn't wait until Monday, because it would have been too late. We couldn't have given you the shot because it wouldn't have done any good. You would have been dead within 48 hours." I really hope they completely misinterpreted what the doctor said, otherwise the doc has no clue about rabies. Prompt treatment is the goal, and you certainly don't want to wait any longer than you have to, however rabies doesn't kill in 48 hours, and you can start post-exposure treatment any time (just the sooner the better).

The couple also have seven other pets, who may also have been bitten. There wasn't any comment about what's happening to those pets. Hopefully they are properly vaccinated so they can be given a rabies vaccine booster and only undergo a short-term "quarantine" at home with the owners. (The alternative is immediate euthanasia or strict, long-term quarantine for months).

This isn't a new scenario - adopting a stray animal then finding out it has rabies. The less you know about an animal at the time of adoption, the greater the risks. I'm certainly not saying don't adopt a stray animal. But, if you are going to do it, recognize the risk, make sure you are in a low-risk household (everyone's susceptible to rabies, but some people are at greater risk for other zoonotic diseases and stray adoptions should be avoided by them), get the animal examined by a veterinarian as soon as possible, and make sure that it gets examined by a veterinarian if it develops any signs of disease.

All this leads into another another story I read a few days ago. Basically, it was a feel-good story about someone who found some puppies, stopped by a nursing home (or similar facility) and the facility adopted one or more of the puppies. This demonstrates some good points (e.g. resident's presumably had a great time watching the pups) and bad points (e.g. disease exposure, unknown temperament, injury risks from rambunctious puppies...) of animals in long-term care facilities. What if the puppies that were adopted by the home had rabies? It's happened before, and you end up having to administer post-exposure prophylaxis to a large number of people that already have enough health issues and risks. Nursing homes and other facilities should never adopt stray animals. Hopefully we don't see a news release in the next few weeks about widespread rabies exposure in that facility. 

 Video from wfaa.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent study just published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases evaluated risk factors for dogs having an infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) versus methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). This study, headed by Dr. Meredith Faires, compared dogs with MRSA versus MSSA infections from three different veterinary referral hospitals in Canada and the US. Among the more important findings were the following:

• Staying in a veterinary hospital was not a risk factor for MRSA infection, reinforcing the notion that this is predominantly a community-associated disease in dogs (meaning it typically develops in dogs in the general population).
• Most infections, in both the MRSA and MSSA groups, were skin infections. While serious deeper infections can and do occur, skin and ear infections are very common.
• Prior treatment with antibiotics was associated with development of MRSA versus MSSA infections. Dogs that received any antibiotic within 90 days were approximately 3.8 times as likely to have MRSA versus MSSA infection. Dogs treated with drugs from the fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics were 4.6 times as likely to have MRSA versus MSSA infection.

The association between prior antibiotic use and development of a resistant (i.e. MRSA) infection is not surprising, but it is important to document these events and to be aware of them. Antibiotics are critically important drugs in veterinary and human medicine. They save countless lives, but are also overused and misused frequently, and resistance is a critical problem. Studies such as this demonstrate the need for prudent antibiotic use - use them when needed, but use them properly.  Don't use them when a bacterial infection is not present or unlikely to occur.

The study can be downloaded by clicking here. More information about MRSA in available on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

Image source: http://animalphotos.info/a/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A rabies epidemic has been underway in Bali for some time. There have been 25 deaths, with 2 occurring in the past 2 weeks. There are several reasons for this ongoing problem: large numbers of dogs (especially feral dogs) with limited vaccination, rabies circulating in the feral dog population, inadequate post-exposure treatment of people, and poor education of the public regarding the risks of rabies and how to properly address dog bites.

An encouraging sign is the institution of a mass rabies vaccination program for dogs. Unfortunately it won't start until February, which is disappointing because some people may get infected and die in the interim, but there are likely considerable logistical challenges to overcome, making some delay unavoidable.

The goal of this program is vaccination of 70% of all dogs in each affected regency. According to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), 70% is the proportion of the canine population that needs to be vaccinated in order to have a chance of eradicating of canine rabies from a given area. It's a challenging goal given the number of feral dogs and the limited resources available in Bali, but it's critical to vaccinate as many dogs as possible. It is estimated that there are approximately 500 000 dogs on the island. Approximately 137 000 dogs have already been vaccinated and another 39 000 have been culled (destroyed). Vaccination will not be performed in two regions because rabies cases have not been identified there. (Hopefully they have good enough surveillance to be very sure that rabies truly isn't in the dogs in those areas. It's a bit of a gamble otherwise.)

One thing that has not been specified is how they intend to handle vaccination of feral dogs. It's not clear whether the numbers mentioned here include feral dogs and whether efforts are being directed at pet dogs only or both pets and feral dogs. Poor compliance with booster vaccinations was cited as a concern, implying this was only focused on pets. Achieving 70% vaccination of the pet population is an important step, but if there is still uncontrolled circulation of rabies in the large pool of feral dogs, eradication will not be possible. Hopefully, trap-vaccinate-and-release programs or oral rabies bating will be used to address the feral dogs.

Image: Mt. Agung, southern Bali

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

My daughter's kindergarten class is having a gingerbread cookie decorating event tomorrow. They're supposed to bring a guest (in Amy's case, me) and some items (e.g. candy sprinkles, gummies) to put on the cookies. I was surprised (but impressed) to see a statement asking people to avoid bringing items from bulk bins because of the potential for cross contamination. The concern is that bulk bin items could be contaminated with items such as nuts, which are banned from schools because of allergies.

Cross contamination can also involve bacteria, and can extend into the realm of pet treats. Salmonella contamination of rawhide treats is a problem, and rawhides and other raw pet treats have been the cause of multiple outbreaks of salmonellosis in people. Salmonella (and E. coli, and other bacteria) contamination is a concern with any raw animal-origin product, and while there have been improvements in some areas in manufacturing practices, some risk will always be present. That's why rawhides, pigs' ears and similar treats shouldn't be present in households with young children, elderly individuals or people with compromised immune systems, and why good attention to hand hygiene is needed when these products are handled. Buying individually-packaged rawhides (instead of bulk bin items) is also recommended. Bulk bins may offer some cost savings, but you are at the mercy of cross-contamination and potential accumulation of Salmonella and other bacteria. If one rawhide is contaminated, it can cross-contaminate all the other rawhides in the bin. If bins are just topped up as they get low, this can lead to contamination of a large number of rawhides. There's also the risk of exposure when you reach into the bin and grab one (and it's unlikely that you'd wash your hands afterwards).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The CDC is investigating an apparent multistate outbreak of salmonellosis associated with contact with frogs. As of December 7, 48 infected people had been identified from 25 states - a pretty remarkable distribution. People got sick between June 24  and November 14, 2009. As is normal for Salmonella outbreaks linked to animals, young children have been more commonly affected, with kids under 10 accounting for 77% of cases. Fortunately, no one has died.

As part of the investigation, contact with animals was investigated and their preliminary analysis indicates contact with water frogs like African Dwarf frogs is the likely source of infection.

Amphibians often get ignored when it comes to zoonotic diseases. The risk of salmonellosis associated with reptiles is fairly well known, but not too many people think about the risk associated with amphibians. The same general guidelines for keeping and handling reptiles should be used for amphibians:

• Children under the age of five should not have contact with amphibians, nor should people with compromised immune systems.
• Hands should be thoroughly washed after handling frogs or having contact with their environment (terrarium/aquarium).
• Frogs should not be allowed to roam freely in the house.
• Aquarium/terrarium water should not be dumped out in the kitchen sink. Ideally, amphibian habitats should be cleaned outside. Care should be taken to prevent contamination of the household environment.
• Amphibians should not be kept in childcare facilities or kindergarten classrooms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A very poorly-written and confusing report suggests that another Streptococcus zooepidemicus outbreak is underway in dogs in a shelter in Ohio. Five of 175 dogs on the premises died suddenly of hemorrhagic pneumonia. The report variably mentioned a "virus that mutated from horses," that it's thought to be "not contagious" despite multiple dogs being affected, and that it's a "rare form of streptococcus" (a bacterium). Presumably, they are dealing with a group of dogs with Streptococcus zooepidemicus pneumonia (technically, Streptococcus equi var. zooepidemicus). This bacterium predominantly lives in horses but periodically causes infections in other species. Outbreaks in dogs are uncommon but have been reported in other shelters. I assume that cultures from the dead dogs identified the bacterium, otherwise other possible causes such as canine influenza would also have to be considered.

The statement about it not being contagious is bizzare. Obviously, it is contagious between dogs. It may have been referring to dog-to-human transmission, but while that's rare it has been reported.

The shelter is apparently treating all dogs with penicillin prophylactically (i.e. to prevent any more dogs from getting sick). There's no clear guidelines regarding management of S. zooepidemicus outbreaks in kennels. It's now known whether mass antibiotic treatment does anything helpful, but it has been used in other outbreaks. I think it's likely that these outbreaks stop on their own, rather than penicillin having a major impact, and that there's probably another underlying cause such as a viral infection to account for outbreaks of this rare disease. However, that's just speculation for now. Hopefully this outbreak will cease with whatever treatment and infection control measures they put in place (or on it's own). Hopefully a good review of routine infection control practices will be performed at the same time, as routine practices (or lack thereof) are often a major problem in shelters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article in an upcoming edition of Transplant Infectious Disease (Gisel et al) describes a case of Bordetella bronchiseptica pneumonia in a person who had received a kidney and pancreas transplant. This person had to board her dogs at a veterinary clinic while she was hospitalized for a bowel obstruction that occurred after surgery. The clinic required her dogs to be vaccinated against Bordetella bronchiseptica, a cause of canine "kennel cough." They were vaccinated intranasally (i.e. up the nose) with a modified live vaccine comprised of live B. bronchiseptica that is modified so it is unlikely to cause disease but can still induce a good immune response. The owner developed pneumonia after returning home and B. bronchiseptica was isolated. Specific testing was not performed to confirm that the vaccine strain caused disease, so it's possible that she was infected by the normal (i.e. "wild type") B. bronchiseptica (which still would have presumably come from the dogs).

Immunosuppressed individuals are at high risk for infection by microorganisms that usually don't cause disease in otherwise healthy people. Bordetella bronchiseptica is a good example of this. Care should be taken around pets by anyone whose immune system is compromised. Here are some recommendations pertaining to kennel cough vaccination:

• Immunosuppressed individuals should not receive modified live vaccines themselves, and it is probably prudent to extend this recommendation to avoid modified live vaccination of their pets with vaccines like the Bordetella (kennel cough) vaccine.
• If vaccination for kennel cough is required for entering a kennel or vet clinic, an exemption should be sought because of the potential risk to the immunocompromised person.
• If vaccination must be performed, injectable vaccination is preferred. It doesn't produce as good immunity in the dog compared with intranasal vaccination but the risks to the immunocompromised owner would be much less.
• If intranasal vaccination with modified live kennel cough vaccine is used, immunocompromised owners should not be in the same room during vaccination. They should avoid contact with the dog's mouth, nose and face for at least a few days after vaccination and should wash their hands (or use a hand sanitizer) regularly after contact with the dog.
• If respiratory disease develops in someone exposed to a dog recently vaccinated against kennel cough, the potential for vaccine-associated disease should be mentioned to the physician.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Leprosy usually evokes images of deformed faces and hands and leper colonies. This disease, caused by Mycobacterium leprae, has been recognized for at least 4000 years, and is thought to have been one of the biblical plagues. While now treatable with proper access to healthcare, leprosy is still a problem in some regions.

Feline leprosy is a disease that is present in cats in certain areas of the world, especially British Columbia Canada, northern New Zealand and eastern Australia. It typically causes granulomas (firm fleshy, tumour-like masses) in the skin and tissues directly under the skin, These can become ulcerated and secondary bacterial infections can develop. Feline leprosy has some similarities to human leprosy, however it's not the same thing. It is caused by a related but distinct bacterium Mycobacterium lepraemurium. (It's also suspected that one or more other related bacteria can also cause this disease.) Mycobacterium lepraemurium also causes disease in rodents and can survive in the environment. Cats most likely become infected after being bitten by infected rodents. While the name may be concerning and the disease can be serious in cats, fortunately there is no risk to humans. There is no evidence that this uncommon disease in cats can be transmitted to people.

Image: A photomicrograph of Mycobacterium leprae taken from a leprosy skin lesion. (source: CDC Public Health Image Library ID#2123).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

.An article about a therapy dog demonstrates some good points of these programs and places to improve. The story is about "Taco", a Chihuahua involved in pet therapy at the Livingston Regional Hospital (Tennessee). The obvious benefit of the program is highlighted by the owner's comment "She creates smiles when there were none." There are definite social and emotional benefits of pet therapy. There are also some potential health benefits, although the research on that isn't the strongest. On the downside, there are disease transmission concerns. These can be greatly reduced through attention to some simple procedures, but this article describes a number of concerning yet common problems:

"(Taco) greets each patient (ones who are comfortable enough to have her in their lap) with kisses on the nose."

• Being allowed to lick patients has been shown to be a risk factor for visitation dogs acquiring MRSA. Being allowed to like the nose is about as good of a model of MRSA transmission as you can develop, because the nose is the number-one site where this important bacterium lives. This type of licking can also transmit various other infectious agents to this compromised hospital population. Licking is an unnecessary behaviour that should not be permitted because it can be associated with infectious agent transmission.  Not permitting licking does little to decrease the value of visitation.

"(Owner Gerry) Cotnoir has had Taco since she was 9 weeks old.  She worked at Bethesda [Health Care Center) in Cookeville then and brought Taco with her to work every day. "She got used to people at an early age,""

• Socialization of dogs is important, but a hospital is not the place to do this. Only dogs older than 1 (and ideally older than 2) years of age should be in hospitals. Young animals are more likely to bite or scratch; not necessarily from aggression but also from playful or excited behaviour. Young animals also have much higher rates of shedding of various infectious agents such as Campyobacter.
• People in hospitals should not be bringing pets to work. Animals that are in hospitals should be there for formal, structured, short-term, properly observed and properly scrutinized visitation activities. That's not the case when someone brings a pet to work. A hospital is not a doggie day-care, although some people use them as such, with the occasional visit of a patient to explain why they are there.

The hospital's infection control personnel have approved the use of Taco in the Livingston facility, but you have to wonder how much they investigated the issues. There are clear guidelines for hospital therapy programs which aren't being followed here. Hopefully other important aspects of the guidelines, especially hand hygiene, are being followed. It's likely this is a situation where people don't understand the issues and don't realize that there are both concerns and resources to help them out.  Any facility that has, or is thinking of having, a visitation program, should be aware of these guidelines, plus other information from reputable groups such as Delta Society.

(Image source: www.studentsoftheworld.info)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The topic of the potential for feral (stray) animals, particularly cats, to be sources of human influenza infection came up today. For feral animals to be a public health problem, the following sequence has to happen:

Feral animals need to be exposed to H1N1

• This is pretty unlikely. Influenza is spread through close contact, mainly through aerosols generated by an infectious person coughing, sneezing or breathing. Influenza only travels short distances in this manner. The likelihood of a feral animal being exposed to the H1N1 influenza virus is very low because it is rare for a feral animal to get that close to people. If there is close contact, it's probably very short term, and not high risk for exposure.

They need to become infected AND shed appreciable levels of virus

• Considering the number of infected people, how common pet cats are, and the fact that only one cat has been diagnosed with H1N1, the risk of actually transmitting the virus to a cat is very low even with close contact with an infected person. If tens of thousands of household pet cats have had close and prolonged exposure and only one infection has been diagnosed, this virus is pretty poorly transmissible to cats.

They need to be exposed to susceptible people

• As discussed above, there's not too much contact between stray cats and people. Close and prolonged contact is extremely rare. Influenza is only shed by infected individuals for a short period of time, unlike some other infections. So, the chance of an infected cat having close contact with a person during the relatively short infectious period is very low.

Each one of these events independently is very unlikely. When you combine them, it should be clear that the risks posed by feral cats are extremely low (probably about as close to zero as we get with infectious diseases).

A bigger concern might be someone infecting their indoor/outdoor cat, who would then infect a stray cat, which would then infect another indoor/outdoor cat, which could infect a family member. That's still a VERY unlikely situation - really it's nothing to worry about.

There are certainly public health issues with feral cats. H1N1 is not one of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rabies baiting is a highly effective way to reduce rabies in wildlife populations. As we've discussed before, in Ontario this involves air-dropping edible rabies vaccine. These baits are dropped in key rural areas, but there is the potential for curious people to come into contact with the vaccine if they handle baits that they come across. It is recommended that people avoid contact with the baits and wash their hands if they do come into contact with one, because the baits contain a live virus. They do NOT contain live rabies virus. Rather, they contain a vaccinia virus that has been manufactured to produce immunity to rabies virus. The risk of human infection is low, but as we constantly get reminded with infectious diseases, low doesn't mean zero.

Today's MMWR reported a case of human vaccinia infection associated with a rabies bait.  In August, a 35-year-old Pennsylvania woman was picking berries and her dog and found a rabies bait. The dog punctured the bait packaging and the woman subsequently handled the bait. It took around 30 minutes for the woman to reach somewhere she could wash her hands, which she then did. This person had a few factors that put her at higher risk of developing an infection, including some skin lesions on her hands from berry thorns, and she was on multiple immunosuppressive drugs.

The day after exposure, her doctor took blood samples for rabies and vaccinia virus antibodies and examined her hands. Skin lesions (papules, i.e. little bumps) developed three days later. These lesions were tested and vaccinia virus was found in them. The skin lesions progressed and she was hospitalized a couple of days later. She was treated with antibodies against vaccinia virus because of the progression of disease and her compromised immune system. She went on to develop muscle aches, headache and a swollen lymph node.  She was treated with more antibodies and an experimental antiviral drug. She ultimately responded to treatment and was discharged from the hospital on day 19.

This is the second reported human infection associated with a rabies bait. Considering the millions of baits that have been dropped and the presumably relatively large number of people that have had some contact with the baits, the overall risk of disease is still very low. This person was at high risk because of her immunocompromised status, and it's likely that an otherwise healthy person would not have developed an infection like she did. The big problem here was her contact with the bait. She did everything right after that: washed her hands as soon as she could, called the Department of Health, went to her physician and ensured that testing was done, but she still got sick.

Avoid rabies baits. The risks are low but why take any risk? People that have compromised immune systems or skin diseases should take particular care. If you've been exposed to a rabies bait, wash your hands ASAP and contact the local health authorities to determine if anything else should be done.

Image from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Rabies/2ColumnSubPage/275904.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An Indiana woman has died of rabies. Little information is currently available.  Reports state that bat rabies was involved but that the source of exposure was not known. Presumably, they have determined that she was infected by the bat rabies variant (strain), but she didn't report being bitten or otherwise exposed to a bat. Bat rabies is a serious concern because it is easy to get bitten by a bat and not know it. Most cases of rabies in Canada and the US are associated with bat exposure. This is a tragic reminder about why we pay a lot of attention to bats and rabies (and why my family received post-exposure treatment after having a bat in the house a few years ago).

More information about rabies can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Just when all those turkeys that managed to survive Thanksgiving weekend thought their troubles were over, there's new issue: H1N1 influenza (formerly known as swine flu) has been found in an Ontario turkey flock.  The H1N1 virus was first reported in birds in Chile in late August.

This is not a reason to panic.  No one can get the flu from eating a properly-cooked Thanksgiving turkey (nor from any other type of properly-cooked turkey).  The producer has voluntarily (and very responsibly) quarantined the affected flock, and no birds or eggs have left the facility.  There is no risk to the food chain.

Pigs can be infected by human, pig and bird flu viruses, and multiple infections can result in viruses trading genes and producing new viruses that can infect more species.  So it's not too surprising that H1N1can infect people, pigs and now birds as well.  This incident serves as an important reminder that we need to remain diligent about infection control and hygiene, even around animals.  It's highly unlikely that these turkeys had contact with infected pigs - most likely the virus was spread to this flock by a person.  Poultry producers may therefore need to consider getting vaccinated for H1N1 flu not only to protect themselves, but also their flocks, and anyone who may have the flu should definitely stay off these farms.  Hopefully the virus does not become established in wild bird populations (like H5N1 has in some areas), as this would make it much harder to control.

Recommendations for avoiding the flu (H1N1 or other) remain the same:

• Wash your hands and/or use alcohol-based hand sanitizer
• Sneeze into your elbow
• Disinfect commonly touched surfaces
• Stay home if you are sick
• Get vaccinated!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You'd think, after countless outbreak of salmonellosis associated with pet turtles, that people would learn and things would start to improve. I guess not. A paper published this week in Pediatrics (Harris et al) described a large outbreak of Salmonella Java associated with pet turtles. Between May 2007 and January 2008, 107 infections were identified. The median age (the age in the middle of the range of affected people) was seven years old. Sixty percent of infected people reported exposure to turtles during the week before they got sick; 87% were small (<4 inch) turtles, and 34% were purchased at a retail store (despite the fact that the sale of turtles less than 4 inches long is banned in the US). Five infected people, all less than 10 years of age, reported kissing the turtle or putting it in their mouths.

When they compared people with Salmonella Java infection to people without the infection, 72% of people with Salmonella reported contact with turtles versus only 4% of controls.

Salmonella is far from rare but it's nothing to ignore. Thirty-three percent of infected people were hospitalized. Fortunately, no one died.

The link between turtles and Salmonella has been known for a long time. Healthy turtles can carry the Salmonella bacterium and be a source of infection, particularly for children. The sale of small turtles is banned in the US to reduce the likelihood of close contact between turtles and kids, but this law is widely flouted. An understanding of the link between turtles and Salmonella is surprisingly uncommon - only 32% of Salmonella patients in this study (and 28% of controls) reporting knowledge of this link. Clearly, there are a lot of areas which could be improved.

• If banning the sale of small turtles is truly an effective measure, then it should be enforced. "Black market' turtles are far too easy to find.
• More public education is needed, among the general population and particularly people buying turtles. You shouldn't be able to take a turtle home from a store without an information sheet about the risk of Salmonella and how to avoid it.
• People with turtles (or any reptile) need to recognize the risk and act appropriately. Good general infection control and hygiene measures are needed to reduce the risk of Salmonella exposure.
• Households with children under five years of age, or with immunocompromised individuals should not have pet turtles.
• Antibiotics are not the solution. Attempts to create Salmonella-free turtles with drugs have just led to the production of turtles carrying antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.
• Common sense needs to be a little more common. The picture above (from http://www.familylovezone.com/js_DeepAndWide.htm) was proudly posted by a parent.

More information about infectious disease risks associated with turtles can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned consumers about buying antiviral flu treatments over the internet. The FDA issued this warning after it tested "Tamiflu" purchased over the internet. Most of the products contained oseltamivir, the active ingredient in the original Tamiflu, but at varying concentrations. Some were pretty obviously a problem, such as one of the orders that arrived in an unmarked envelope with a postmark from India, and consisted of unlabeled, white tablets taped between two pieces of paper. These tablets contained talc and acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol), but no oseltamivir.

The commissioner of Food and Drugs, Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D, stated in the FDA press release that “Medicines purchased from Web sites operating outside the law put consumers at increased risk due to a higher potential that the products will be counterfeit, impure, contaminated, or have too little or too much of the active ingredient.”

Another issue is that a drug like Tamiflu needs to be given very early in disease to have any effect. If you think you're getting the flu and order Tamiflu over the internet, it's pretty unlikely to have any chance of working by the time it actually arrives (if they send you the appropriate drug in the first place). Then there's the concern that few people actually need to use Tamiflu compared to the number that do, and that viral resistance to Tamiflu may develop with unnecessary use.

Bottom line: if you really need medication, you should get it from a reputable source on the recommendation of a physician. If your pet needs mediciation, you should take the same approach. It's hard to be certain about what you're getting if you order it through the internet, especially from companies that are illegally selling prescription drugs. It might seem cheaper to buy drugs over the internet, but if it's not needed or it's fake, it's going to cost you more in the long run.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Clostridium difficile is a high-profile bacterium, being an important cause of illness and death in people. It can also be found in various animal species, including dogs and cats. In a study we published earlier this year (Lefebvre et al, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2009), factors associated with acquisition of Clostridium difficile by dogs involved in hospital and non-hospital therapy programs were assessed. Things that were significantly associated with a dog acquiring C. difficile were:

- Contact with human hospitals: Not too surprising since it's clear that hospitals can be highly contaminated with C. difficile and the hands of some patients petting the dogs are probably also contaminated.

- Contact with children: Most parents know that kids are biohazardous (we've getting over a round of illness in our house brought home by the kids - not an unusual event). Whether the increased risk for dogs is because kids have higher rates of C. difficile carriage, or because they have closer contact with dogs (with little hygiene) or some other factor isn't clear.

- Recent use of antibiotics: No surprise here. Antibiotic use is a well-recognized risk factor for C. difficile, since antibiotics can disrupt the normal protective bacterial population of the intestinal tract and allow C. difficile to grow.

- Recent use of antibiotics by a person in the house: I think this is a fascinating result and a great example of the close inter-relatedness of people and pets microbiologically. What presumably happens is that when someone is treated with antibiotics, they are more likely to acquire C. difficile and pass it in their feces. By doing so, there is a greater chance that their dog will be exposed to C. difficile, perhaps from the person's hands or the household environment. (The toilet would be a great source if the dog's a toilet-drinker). The implications of this, for both dogs and people, are unclear. It could be primarily an academic risk (i.e. of little practical significance), or it could be that interspecies transmission of C. difficile plays a role in disease in both species. We simply don't know at this point.

This is also a good example of why educational efforts regarding prudent antibiotic use need to be directed at both animal and human healthcare.

More information about Clostridium difficile can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

Image source: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507101820.htm

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recently, a relative was bitten by a dog, and the incident emphasized that you need to take such things seriously and pay attention to making sure things get taken care of properly.

So what should you do if you've been bitten?

1) Identify the dog.

• You need to know who the dog is, and who owns it. If you can't identify the dog, you have to assume it's rabid (even though it's extremely unlikely) and get treated with a series of vaccinations.

2) Get medical care as needed.

• Bites can be associated with significant trauma and risk of infection. Getting to a doctor is particularly important if the bite is severe, occurs at a high risk body site (e.g. over the hands, joints, tendons and nerves, groin, prosthetic devices) or if you are at higher risk of infection (e.g. immunocompromised, don't have a functional spleen, very young or very old, pregnant). If in doubt, go to a doctor to be on the safe side.

Once you've done this, it's important to make sure that the offending dog actually doesn't have rabies. If you go to a doctor, they will (in most regions) report the bite directly to public health. Public health inspectors will investigate the rabies vaccination status of the animal and ensure that it is quarantined for 10 days. If the dog has rabies and is infectious, it will develop signs of infection within this 10 day period. If the dog is healthy after 10 days, it did not have rabies at the time of the bite.

Seems pretty simple, eh?

Unfortunately, there are a few places where this process can break down.

Reporting: All bites need to be reported. Bites that do not result in people going to the hospital may be missed. You don't need a serious bite to contract rabies (or another serious infection).

Public health follow-up: This is hopefully not an issue, but you should make sure that public health has investigated, and done so promptly. Don't be afraid to call to find out the status of the investigation, and make sure information has flowed quickly from the physician to a public health inspector. Hopefully they'll be in touch with you, but don't be afraid to initiate contact. The main issue with follow-up relates to the next point:

Prompt euthanasia of the dog: Sometimes, people will decide to euthanize a dog after a bite, because it's done it before, because they consider any bite unacceptable, and/or they fear for family members or legal liability. Dogs (or cats) that have bitten someone must not be euthanized before the 10 day quarantine period is over. If the dog is euthanized and the body is not available for testing, you have to consider the dog rabid and undergo post-exposure treatment. Veterinarians are required to ask whether a dog has bitten someone in the preceding 10 days prior to performing euthanasia, but it's possible that this could be missed, or people may not tell the truth because they want to have the dog put down ASAP. This is why public health inspectors need to investigate promptly - to provide another level of assurance that the animal is not euthanized inappropriately. You should follow up with public health to make sure things are underway and the dog is quarantined.

Rabies associated with dog bites is extremely rare in Canada (and many other countries) but still kills tens of thousands of people every year, mainly in Asia and the Middle East. Considering it's almost invariably fatal and pretty much 100% preventable, you need to pay attention to the risks, no matter how small.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While in London (UK) last week, I went with a group of people to the John Snow pub. It's a bit of an epidemiologist pilgrimage, where you can sit in a pub named after one of the "fathers of epidemiology" and sign the guest book.

John Snow was a physician in London in the mid-1800's. Cholera outbreaks were a problem in Victorian London because of contaminated communal wells (for drinking water). Unlike many others, Snow did not believe in the miasma theory, which stated that noxious vapours in the air were the cause of many illnesses. While the "germ theory" of disease was not yet on the scene, Snow thought there must be some other way that diseases like cholera were transmitted, and he suspected (correctly) that the water supply was the problem.

During a cholera outbreak in 1854, he determined that a well in central London (Broad St, now Broadwick St) was a major source of the disease. Removing the handle from the pump (so that people could no longer use the well) stopped the outbreak.  Although Snow himself suggested that the outbreak was already in decline, removing that source undoubtedly played a large role in saving many lives. Back then (and even still commonly today), getting people to accept and adhere to infection control measures was not easy. After the outbreak ended, public officials fixed the pump, despite the fact that it was clearly associated with the outbreak. In hindsight, it's not surprising that this well was associated with disease, since it was shallow and very close to a cesspool.

The John Snow pub is located at the original site of the Broad Street pump.  You can see the location of the original pump from the window of the pub (there's a replica pump there and a marking on the ground at the exact site of the original pump). So, you can visit the source of a great cholera outbreak, peer out at the simple solution that helped stop it,  and have a drink in the pub named after John Snow - something that's more than a little ironic, since Snow was also famous as a teetotaler.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At the ongoing ASM-ESCMID conference on methicillin resistant staphylococci in animals, Dr. Engeline van Duijkeren of Utrecht University (The Netherlands) presented a study on an outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in their equine hospital.

From 2006-2008, several horses that underwent surgery at their hospital developed MRSA infections.  MRSA was also isolated from some healthy horses and personnel at the clinic. Early in the process, the hospital was closed for a thorough disinfection and the outbreak stopped, however another outbreak occurred later.  Further study again found people in the clinic that were MRSA carriers. Close to 15% of people in the hospital who handled equine patients were MRSA carriers, which is really astounding when you consider that less than 0.1% of the general population in the Netherlands carries MRSA. When they started testing horses coming into the clinic, they found that 9.3% of horses were carriers when they arrived. Weekly sampling of all hospitalized horses over a five-week period determined that 43% of all horses in the hospital carried MRSA at one point or another during their stay. Additionally, 53% of environmental surface samples were positive for MRSA, which is really not surprising if that many people and horses are carriers.

If horses keep coming into a facility carrying MRSA and people keep getting colonized, MRSA is hard to control. These experiences led the equine hospital at Utrecht to implement more stringent infection control practices to try to contain the problem, but the high MRSA rate in their referral population is going to pose a continual risk.

MRSA outbreaks in horses aren’t new. They’ve been reported by a few hospitals (including ours) and occur in many, many, (many!) more without ever being published. Since MRSA is present in the horse population, equine hospitals are at continual risk of MRSA outbreaks. If a large percentage of horses in the general population are carriers, the risk of outbreaks is higher.

MRSA is clearly a problem in horses in many areas. It’s important to realize that it’s a problem in the general population, not just horses in hospitals. Equine hospitals can amplify the spread of MRSA, but ultimately a lot (if not most) MRSA-positive horses originate from farms, not clinics or hospitals. Equine hospitals need solid infection control programs to reduce  the risk of outbreaks, but the risk will never be completely eliminated. Farms need good infection control programs to reduce the risk of spread of MRSA between horses and between farms, as well as from horses to people (and back). Antibiotics need to be used prudently since antibiotic use is a risk factor for MRSA carriage and infection.

More information about MRSA in horses can be found on the equIDblog Resources page.

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 26-Sep-09.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

More from the ASM-ESCMID MRSA in animals meeting…

Dr. Joe Rubin presented some data on antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteria from dogs and people in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (Canada). The bacterial isolates came from dogs carrying S. aureus and from dogs infected with MRSA. When you look at the resistance patterns of the S. aureus isolates from the carrier dogs (these are an indicator of what’s around in the general population, and they can cause infections given the right circumstance), resistance was uncommon. Multidrug resistance was present in the methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) isolates, as expected.

Saskatoon’s an interesting area in terms of resistant bacteria. Various studies from the University of Saskatchewan have reported very low antibiotic resistance rates in bacteria from animals. Certainly, they have some problems like everywhere else, but I find some of their data quite remarkable. They can have a lot more confidence in the use of various first-line antibiotics compared to other regions where resistance is more common and drug options are more limited. I’m not really sure why this is the case.

• Maybe it has to do with the fact that there is less animal movement between Saskatchewan and other regions where there are more resistance problems.
• Maybe the low population density in Saskatchewan plays a role.
• Maybe multidrug resistant bacteria don’t like the frigid Saskatchewan winter (or the fact that there’s no NHL team in the province).
• Maybe they use antibiotics in animals in a much more controlled manner.

Trying to figure out why resistance rates in Saskatchewan tend to be lower would be useful because it might provide some information about how to reduce the risks in other regions.

So, if you’re in Saskatoon and your pet gets an infection, take some consolation in the fact that there’s probably a lower risk that you’re dealing with a resistant bacterium and that your first-line antibiotics will probably work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm in London (UK) for the ASM-ESCMID conference on methicillin-resistant staphylococci in animals: veterinary and public health consequences. I’ll provide various updates on interesting presentations over the next few days.

Dr. Armando Hoet from the Ohio State University (OSU) presented data on MRSA screening of dogs admitted to the OSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital. They sampled a subset of dogs admitted to the hospital every month over the course of a year.

• 5.7% of the dogs were identified as MRSA carriers. That’s a pretty impressive (and concerning) number. We know that a small percentage of dogs and cats in the general population are positive, but I’ve generally assumed the rate of carriage to be around 1-4%. However, you have to consider the study population whenever you look at numbers like this. Sixty-eight percent of the positive dogs were referral cases, meaning they had had previous contact with the veterinary healthcare system, may have been treated previously with antibiotics and may have had other diseases that increased the risk of MRSA.
• Ownership by people in the human or veterinary healthcare fields were risk factors for infection.  This is not very surprising since such owners would be more likely to pick up MRSA at work and bring it home to infect their pets.

Hopefully the true percentage of dogs in Ohio carrying MRSA is lower than this. Presumably, the rate of MRSA carriage by healthy dogs that are not owned by high-risk people is quite a bit lower. Regardless, it shows that MRSA can be found in a reasonable percentage of animals in the study area (as well as presumably other areas) and that good infection control practices are needed in veterinary hospitals to reduce the risk of transmission.

More information about MRSA can be found in on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This comic, based on actual (and unfortunately common) events, was developed by Los Angeles County Veterinary Public Health. It's a good example of novel ways of communication regarding zoonotic diseases. More information from Los Angeles County Veterinary Public Health (and apparently future editions of Rabies Tales) can be found on their website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

In April, I wrote about an ongoing rabies outbreak in the popular tourist destination of Bali. Because of widespread rabies in stray dogs and fatal human infections, there were calls for the government to take aggressive action and for tourists to be aware of the risk. Apparently, things haven't improved much since then.

At least 9 people have died of rabies in Bali in slightly over a year. That's completely unacceptable for a preventable disease.

The latest victim (whose father-in-law died of rabies in August) was from an area that has not been officially declared as being part of the epidemic, so it has not received much government support. She was bitten by a stray dog in August. In any rabies-endemic area (even in the absence of an outbreak), that's clearly an indication for post-exposure treatment. However, she did not receive post-exposure treatment until 15 days after the bite, by which point it was obviously ineffective.

• Rabies post-exposure treatment must be started as soon as possible. If you wait until signs of rabies are present, death is almost certain.
• Be informed and be your own advocate. The family in this case may very well have pushed for post-exposure treatment, but it's critical to look out for yourself. If you have potentially been exposed to rabies, make sure you get treated.
• If you are going to Bali, don't be paranoid about rabies. Be smart. Avoid any contact with dogs (especially strays) and other wildlife. If you are bitten, get medical care immediately. If the animal isn't identified and quarantined for 10 days to make sure it doesn't have signs of rabies, you need post-exposure treatment. If you can't get it in Bali, get out and get to somewhere where you can be properly treated.
• If you are traveling to Bali (or any other rabies-endemic area) with the intention of working with wild or stray animals (especially dogs), get vaccinated before you go.
• More aggressive rabies control and education (including physician education) efforts are needed in Bali. Clearly, this outbreak is not under control and the fact that the latest death occurred in a new region suggests that this problem could be spreading.

More information about rabies can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a vet, I've been bitten by a wide range of animal species. When people talk about animal bites, they usually think about dogs and cats. Horses can (and do) bite as well. Most horse bites are probably playful nips that hurt a little yet don't cause major problems, but some bites can cause serious injuries and infections can result.

A recent paper in the Journal of Agromedicine (Langley and Morris 2009), with the rather unwieldy title of "That Horse Bit Me: Zoonotic Infections of Equines to Consider after Exposure Through the Bite or the Oral/Nasal Secretions". Bites apparently account for 3-4.5% of the approximately 100 000 annual emergency room visits in the US that are associated with horses. The authors of the paper review infections associated with bites and contact with organisms in the mouth and nose of horses.

A large number of bacteria have been associated with horse bite infections in people, including Actinobacillus, Streptococcus, Psuedomonas and Staphylococcus species. Some viruses can theoretically be transmitted by bites, but there's little evidence that this actually happens.

Although viruses are not of as much of a concern overall, rabies needs to be considered in every bite from a mammal. We pay a lot of attention to rabies with dogs, cats and wildlife, but it often gets ignored with horses. While I'm not aware of any reports of rabies transmission from horses to humans by a bite, it could happen.  Fortunately, rabies is rare in horses so the likelihood of exposure from this species is very low. However signs of rabies aren't always obvious initially, and rabies in horses may mimic other diseases. Sometimes, rabies looks like colic, and human exposure through bites or other contact is possible when handling, evaluating and treating affected horses.

Unlike with dogs and cats, there are no clearly defined protocols for dealing with bites from horses. Any dog or cat that bites a person is supposed to be quarantined for 10 days. The reason for this is if the animal is rabid and the disease is advanced enough for the animal to be capable of spreading rabies virus, it would invariably develop signs of rabies and die within this time period. We don't have similar guidelines for horses. I suspect the 10 day observation period would be adequate but we don't have good data. The paper states that in Kentucky, a 14 day observation period has been used by the state Department of Public Health.

At the conclusion of the paper, the authors make a few important general recommendations for reducing the risk of disease transmission from bites and oral or nasal secretions of horses:

• Use good general hygiene, especially hand hygiene, after any contact with horses.
• Use gloves and gown or lab coat when examining horses in a veterinary clinic or hospital. (This might be overkill for all horses. We don't require gloves for every horse contact, just contact with mucous membranes (e.g. mouth, nose), wounds, incision sites and other high-risk areas. I think bare hands are fine for general contact as long as there is good attention to handwashing after.)
• Consider mask and goggles if the horse is coughing or sneezing.
• Develop standard operating procedures for handling sick horses.
• Use isolation when needed.

I'd add a few more points:

• Avoid bites. Pay attention to what you are doing around horses to reduce the risk of being bitten. Do not encourage playful behaviours (e.g. nipping) that could lead to bites.
• If you are bitten and it breaks the skin, clean the site thoroughly with soap and water. If there is significant trauma, or if the bite is over a joint, hand, foot, or a prosthetic device, you should see a doctor immediately because antibiotics are most likely indicated. If you have a weakened immune system, you should be evaluated by a doctor after any bite.
• Avoid contact with the horse's mouth or nose if you have skin lesions. Cuts and scrapes can allow bacteria to enter your body and cause infections. If you have a cut on your hand, make sure it is covered with a glove or waterproof dressing if you are going to have contact with the horse's mouth or something that came from its mouth (e.g. a bit).

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 02-Sep-09.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In response to recent problems with attacks by stray cats and concerns about rabies exposure, Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey, is planning to round up all the stray cats they can catch. Cats will be monitored in rented trailers for 60 days, and any cats that do not have signs of rabies will be adopted out (after being vaccinated and spayed/neutered). It's perhaps overly optimistic that all cats will be adoptable, since not all strays (especially older cats) are going to be appropriate for household pets, but they will hopefully find good homes for many of these cats.

While this program could be beneficial in some ways, let's hope a lot of thought has been put into it. This type of mass roundup and confinement is quite likely going to result in high transmission of many infectious diseases that circulate in the stray cat population. Hopefully there are plans for proper initial health assessment of captured cats, isolation of cats showing signs of infectious disease, cohorting of different groups to reduce the risk of disease transmission and use of good general infection control practices. Without these, they are asking for major problems.  Unfortunately, infection control is often not considered in situations like this until a major disease outbreak is already underway.

The 60 day quarantine period may raise questions, but it's a reasonable approach. If they were doing a formal rabies quarantine, it would be six months. The maximum incubation period for rabies in cats is not known, but it can be very long in humans in rare instances. Realistically, 60 days is a pretty good quarantine period under these circumstances. You can't be 100% certain that an animal isn't incubating rabies after 60 days, but it becomes very unlikely and I wouldn't be concerned after 60 days. Sixty days is also a good amount of time to identify (and hopefully address) any other major health issues.

Another issue that needs to be considered is ongoing population control efforts such as continued catching and adopting of strays, catching and neutering strays, and educational efforts to encourage people to have their cats spayed or neutered and discourage them from feeding strays. A lot of time and money can be put into a big one-time effort, but this town might end up in exactly the same stray cat situation in a year or two if nothing else is done.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rabies baiting is a common and effective way of controlling rabies in some wildlife populations, particularly skunks, raccoons and foxes. It involves dropping edible rabies vaccine, by airplane or by hand, into targeted areas. Millions of rabies baits are used across North America and baiting programs have been cited as a key aspect of wildlife rabies control. In one year, 1.3 million baits were dropped in targeted areas of Southern Ontario alone over a two-month period. A good series of pictures of rabies baiting is available here.

Rabies baits are usually a small rectangular block comprised of something that smells or tastes attractive to the targeted wildlife into which a liquid vaccine has been added. Some use fish meal and fish oil to attract wildlife. Others use combinations of fats, icing sugar, vegetable oil and artificial marshmallow flavour (don't ask me why - I'm certain there's a reason but I don't know if they've done taste-testing).

Often, the local public is notified in advance of the drops being made, and it is recommended that kids be closely supervised outdoors for a week or so to ensure they don't come into contact with the baits. It is also often recommended to keep pets indoors or on leash during the same period. (Pets are much more likely to be exposed to and to eat the vaccine than kids). It's also recommended that you wash your hands thoroughly if you have contact with a bait.

Rabies baits are quite safe, and these recommendations shouldn't cause concern. It's a case of being overly cautious. The baits are safe to touch, but it is still recommended that you don't touch them (if nothing else, they may make your hands smell pretty bad). Ingestion of a rabies bait by a person or pet is also unlikely to cause a problem. Any adverse affects are more likely to occur due to the non-vaccine component of the bait, particularly because of the typically high fat content. Ingestion of a lot of baits could certainly cause vomiting or diarrhea in a dog, just like ingestion of large amounts of other inappropriate foods.

Some groups recommend that you contact Poison Control if your pet has been exposed to a bait, but I'm not sure what they'd do in such a case. Other groups ask you to report to them that a pet ingested the bait, likely so they can consider exposure of people and pets when determining target areas for the next year. There's similar variation in recommendations if a person ingests the vaccine. Often it is recommended that public health be notified so they can record it, but it's very unlikely anything would be done.

On a related note, you cannot use rabies baits as a free way to vaccinate your pet. It might work, but there is no way to know, and if your pet is exposed, it would be considered unvaccinated if it was not properly vaccinated by a veterinarian with an appropriate dog/cat vaccine.

Image from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Rabies/2ColumnSubPage/275904.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We've written various posts about raccoons, raccoon latrines and concerns about the raccoon roundworm (Baylisascaris procyonis). I received a question today about how to keep raccoons from coming back after a latrine has been identified and cleaned. It's a good question, and one without a simple answer.  I've looked through various sources and have found a wide range of recommendations. (Whenever I see such a wide-ranging list of recommendations, I wonder whether anything actually works.)

Home remedies include:

• Sprinkling pure soap flakes on the lawn and watering thoroughly
• Mixing bone meal in garden soil
• Sprinkling diluted tabasco sauce over fruits and vegetables (wash before eating, as you should anyway!)
• Lighting up the area where raccoons are a problem

Various commercial deterrent compounds are available, such as one that apparently has the scent of a coyote, or one that's a combination of vinegar, pepper and sulfur.

Another approach is motion-sensitive deterrents. Motion-sensor-based lights can be useful since raccoons often come rooting around in the evening or overnight, and lights that turn on when they approach could be effective. These would require a power source, which could be limiting in some places like sheds. Similarly, motion-sensor based systems that spray water or citronella (sometimes used to keep cats out of certain areas or off countertops) could be useful. Battery-operated units could be used anywhere. (Here's a link to one. I've never used it but it shows you what I'm talking about). There are also motion sensors that hook up to hoses.

One problem with deterring raccoons is their intelligence. They can often find ways around deterrents, or adapt to them. Along with any attempts to actively deter the raccoons, it is also important to try to reduce the desire of the raccoon to come to the location. If there is a good food source or other desirable attraction, the raccoon will probably try harder to stay around. Tightly covering garbage cans and removing other possible food sources (e.g. food for outdoor cats) are important steps. Making sure neighbours (or other family members) aren't feeding the raccoons is also important, because food is a great motivator.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you live in the suburbs of Chicago (or probably many other cities as well), chances are pretty good that you live close to a raccoon latrine. Raccoons like to defecate in specific areas (raccoon latrines) which can become highly contaminated with eggs of Baylisascaris procyonis, the raccoon roundworm. Human disease caused by this parasite is rare, but when it occurs, it can be devastating. Infected raccoons can shed around 20 000 Baylisacaris eggs per gram of feces (see image right), and the eggs can survive for long periods in the environment, so it's easy to see how biohazardous a raccoon latrine could be.

A study in the upcoming edition of Emerging Infectious Diseases (Page et al) looked at 119 backyards in the Chicago suburbs. Latrines were found in 51% of yards, with up to six latrines per yard! Baylisascaris eggs were found in samples collected from 23% of latrines. The likelihood of having a latrine in the yard was lower in houses farther away from forested areas. No other factors were identified as associated with the presence of a latrine, however there was a trend towards increased likelihood if a food source (e.g. bird feeder) was present.

The fact that raccoon latrines are so common and that a high percentage of raccoons shed Baylisascaris should raise concern, and emphasize the need for good hygiene. At the same time, the rarity of disease despite the widespread presence of infected raccoons should be remembered. You don't get infected by walking by a raccoon latrine, you get infected by ingesting (swallowing) the parasite. Avoiding this is simple, and as the folks at Barfblog (a food safety blog) would say, the key is: "Don't eat poop". Simple measures can reduce the risk, such as avoiding contact with raccoon feces and washing your hands after being in potentially contaminated areas. Young kids are at highest risk because they are more likely to put things in their mouths, so keeping children away from areas potentially contaminated by raccoon feces is important, along with good attention to hand hygiene.

Since raccoon latrines are an obvious source of infection and many (of the limited number of) human cases have been where latrines were close to childrens' play areas, eliminating latrines is also a good idea. Details on cleaning up latrines are available in an earlier Worms & Germs post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A horse in Harford county Maryland has been euthanized because of rabies. The horse first starting showing signs of disease in mid-July, which manifested as "striking changes in behaviour." The report doesn't say when the horse died, but animals typically die within a few days of the onset of neurological disease. The horse was transferred to the New Bolton Center where rabies was diagnosed. Subsequent testing showed it was a raccoon rabies strain, although that does not mean that a raccoon was the actual source of infection.

Public health officials implemented a 45 day quarantine of the farm. Stray cats (about 25) were caught and euthanized. Fortunately, the family pets were properly vaccinated and have received booster shots (plus presumably a period of observation at home... a much better situation than if they were not vaccinated).

People that had contact with the horse have received rabies post-exposure treatment. This includes one person who had to be tracked down overseas.

Harford County Health Department spokesperson Bill Wiseman said "There was never a risk to public safety. This incident was a great example of public health work in action and cooperation between local, state and in this case, international authorities." I don't buy the statement that there was no risk to public health. While the risk of rabies transmission from infected horses is very low, it's not zero. Rabid horses have killed people because of their abnormal and sometimes aggressive behaviour. Further, the fact that this horse had rabies means that it got it from something. Rabies can have a long incubation period so it's not guaranteed that it acquired it on the farm, but you have to be prudent and assume that there is infected wildlife in the area that could pose a risk for other animals or people. Public health authorities managed the situation well and reduced the public health risks, but there were certainly still risks.

Rabies vaccination is highly effective. There is no statement about whether this horse was adequately vaccinated but it's unlikely. Proper vaccination would likely have prevented this horse's death, as well as the death of the stray animals, cost of vaccination of people, cost of veterinary care for this horse, quarantine of the farm and the associated financial and emotional costs. A dose of vaccine that costs a few dollars could have saved thousands of dollars and emotional stress.

Rabies is a rare disease in horses but its severity means it should not be ingored. Vaccinate your horses.

This Worms & Germs blog entry was originally posted on equIDblog on 14-Aug-09.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It seems like whenever a hit TV show or movie features an animal, there's concern about the "101 Dalmatians effect," whereby there's a mad rush to get the animal for a pet. When 101 Dalmatians was a hit movie, there was a huge spike in sales of this rather unusual breed - a breed which is certainly not for everyone. This results in unqualified breeders and puppy mills churning out marginal or poor quality pets and people getting a pet that really doesn't suit them. The end result can be a lot of disappointment, heartache and abandoned pets. This pattern has been repeated with various other breeds and animal species, and there is concern that the same will happen with guinea pigs as a result of the new Disney movie G-Force.

In terms of human health, guinea pigs are relatively benign. Bites and scratches are probably the biggest concern, and are often the result of improper handling. Bites can become infected from bacteria in the guinea pig's mouth or from bacteria on the person's skin. Allergies are also a potential problem. The number of diseases that are known to be transmitted by them is relatively small, and the risk of disease transmission is rather low.

Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) is a concern with all rodents. It typically only causes disease in people with compromised immune systems, but can result in fatal infection. The risk of a guinea pig carrying this virus is likely greatest in animals from large rodent breeding facilties and when there is contact with wild rodents.

Ringworm is perhaps the most common infection that people get from guinea pigs (apart from infections following bites). Even healthy guinea pigs can carry the fungus that causes this disease.

Guinea pigs can carry Salmonella, but they are quite susceptible to infection and usually get quite sick. The risk of a healthy guinea pig shedding Salmonella, especially for a prolonged period, is pretty low. The risk is presumably greatest shortly after purchase.

Rabies is always a potential problem in mammals but the risk is very low with small rodents such as guinea pigs. (Very low isn't zero though, since hamsters have been sources of potential rabies exposure).

There are other potential problems too, but they are all quite rare.

The keys to reducing the risk of infection are:

• Purchase a guinea pig that looks healthy, is eating well, has no skin lesions or diarrhea, and is active and alert. Ideally, purchase an animal from a local breeder as opposed to a store that might have obtained the animal from a large breeder, via an animal warehouse, hundreds or thousands of miles away.
• Learn how to properly handle a guinea pig to reduce the risk of bites and scratches, as well as injury to the animal.
• Keep pet guinea pigs away from wild rodents.
• Use good general hygiene. Wash your hands after handling the guinea pig and after contact with bedding.
• Thoroughly wash any bites or scratches.
• Take particular care in the period shortly after purchase.
• Even though the cost of the guinea pig is less than the cost of a vet visit, a veterinary examination is important when the animal is sick. Apart from our ethical responsibility to take care of our pets, it's important to make sure that illness isn't caused by a disease that can be transmitted to people.

More information about the diseases mentioned above is available on the Worms & Germs Resources page. While we don't have a specific guinea pig info sheet yet, much of the information on the hamster information sheet also applies to guinea pigs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I received a flyer from Zoologix, a company that offers various (typically unvalidated and unproven) PCR tests for animals. The flyer headline was "Pets can carry MRSA - but testing can help."

Testing in certain situations is useful, but this is almost always limited to diagnosis of animals with active infections (i.e. they're sick). PCR is not a good way to make such a diagnosis, because the test doesn't tell you anything about the bacterium's susceptibility to other antibiotics. Screening of pets just to determine whether or not they carry MRSA is rarely needed, and currently there is no evidence that PCR is a reasonable test for this.

There are no validated PCR tests for MRSA in animals. We looked at using a human test in horses and it failed miserably. There are validated tests for use in people, and they are quite good: they accurately identify MRSA and differentiate it from other methicillin-resistant staphylococci and from methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. That's critical, because you have to know what a positive test really means.

I called the company and asked what the test actually detects. They said it detects the mecA gene, the gene that confers methicillin-resistance to staphylococci such as S. aureus. However, this gene can be present in other staphylococci that can be found in many  healthy dogs and cats (10-30% in some studies). It does not actually detect MRSA and a large percentage of samples that give positive results will be false positives. The tests that are used in humans are specifically designed to look at two things in combination: whether S. aureus is present and whether it has the mecA gene (methicillin-resistance). This is the right approach because it excludes all those other false positives. Detecting mecA alone is completely useless. It's interesting that the flyer states "PCR testing is fast, effective and accurately differentiates MRSA from other bacteria - even other Staph strains." Based on what the company told me over the phone, with regard to the test they're advertising, that's a blatant lie.

This is an example of a combination of bad science and bad ethics. This company has no business marketing this test. It's false advertising, because the test isn't an MRSA test. Their justification for using it is similarly weak. Anyone thinking about using this test should run away quickly! The issues with this test (and others) should also be considered when deciding whether to use this company for any tests.

More (and accurate) information about MRSA can be found on the Worms & Germs Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brucellosis can be a pretty nasty disease. Most people with brucellosis are infected through ingestion of contaminated food or contact with infected farm animals. Brucella abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis are the most common bacterial species involved. However, there is also another Brucella species, B. canis, which (as the name implies) is associated with dogs. Human infections with B. canis are much less commonly diagnosed than those caused by other Brucella species, but it is possible that this infection actually occurs more often than we realize.

Brucellosis can cause a wide range of problems, but most are rather non-specific such as fever, headache, body aches, sweating and back pain. Recurrent, undulating fever is a common sign and can persist for long periods of time. Disease caused by B. canis is similar to that caused by other Brucella species, but one reason this disease may be underdiagnosed is that screening tests for brucellosis do not cross-react with B. canis. Therefore, a physician might suspect brucellosis, but if the initial test (an antibody test) is negative, the physician is likely to move on to investigate other possibile diagnoses. Specific B. canis blood tests or culture of B. canis from blood or infected sites are required for diagnosis. Overall, it's probably still a very rare disease, but one that certain people should be aware of.

Many dogs that are infected with B. canis have no detectable signs of infection. The bacterium can circulate through the body continually or intermittently, and spread from the gentials (where it likes to reside) for years. Some infected dogs show signs of illness. Reproductive problems, including late-term abortion (miscarriage) and decreased fertility are major problems. Fever, lymph node swelling, diskospondylitis (infection in the spine) and other problems can also develop.

The risk of human exposure is highest in people in close contact with breeding animals, particularly people in contact with dogs that miscarry during pregnancy or kennels with reproductive problems. Most reported human infections involve people in close contact with dogs that miscarry. The risk to owners of household pets (especially neutered pets) is presumably very low.

• People who have been exposed to dogs that miscarry and who subsequently develop signs like fever and aches should make sure their physician considers B. canis infection.
• HIgh risk people (very young, elderly, immunocompromised, or pregnant women) should avoid contact with dogs that have miscarried, or dogs from kennels with reproductive problems or known B. canis infection.
• Care should be taken when handling dogs that have miscarried or are in the process of doing so. Gloves should be worn when handling the dog, aborted fetuses and any potentially contaminated items. Uterine (birth) fluids can have very high levels of B. canis.
• Hands should be washed regularly and after removal of gloves.
• If abortion or reproductive problems are identified in a kennel, testing for B. canis should be performed. If present, an eradication program should be started.

More information on brucellosis in dogs can be found in the Worms & Germs archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New research provides more information on the debate about testing and treating of healthy dogs for Giardia. Two abstracts on the subject by researchers at Colorado State University were presented at the recent American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine conference.

In the first study (Clark et al), fecal samples were collected from 220 healthy dogs. Giardia was detected in 11.4% of samples, but no dogs carried assemblages (types) known to cause disease in people.

In the second study (Lappin et al), they evaluated whether treatment of healthy dogs that were shedding Giardia would eliminated the parasite. Sixteen infected dogs were treated with either fenbendazole or nitazoxanide. Eight (50%) of the dogs had to be removed from the study because of adverse effects from treatment! Of the dogs that completed the study, Giardia was still detected in 63% of dogs 34 days after treatment, indicating that the infection wasn't eliminated or that dogs were quickly re-infected.

These studies provide more support of the notion that there is no indication to test or treat healthy dogs for Giardia. Testing makes no sense when the parasite is so common but most infected dogs are healthy, and when strains carried by infected dogs are usually of no consequence to people. Giardia is essentially a normal part of the intestinal microflora in many healthy dogs. Treatment of healthy carriers isn't indicated because it can make dogs sick and because it doesn't work very well.  Remember: above all do no harm.

The bottom line is don't bother testing healthy dogs for Giardia or treating healthy dogs in normal households.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Canada, access to rabies vaccine for animals is restricted to veterinarians (i.e. only vets can buy the product itself and administer it to people's animals). In general, this is an excellent approach because it ensures that the vaccine has been handled and stored appropriately, animals have been vaccinated properly and accurate vaccination records are kept. I certainly wouldn't want rabies vaccine freely available, whereby anyone could buy vaccine, handle it poorly, vaccinate their animal improperly, and yet believe or claim to have a properly vaccinated pet.

The problem with this restriction is the fact that veterinary care is not always available. Specifically, I'm referring remote northern communities that do not have veterinary care on a regular or even a sporadic basis. I received an e-mail the other day from a medical professional in a fly-in First Nations community in Northern Ontario. They have not had a visit from a vet in a while, so the dogs there aren't vaccinated. Unfortunately, a dog was attacked by a wolf recently so it must be considered possibly  exposed to rabies, resulting in euthanasia or long quarantine. The question was about what can be done in those communities to provide rabies vaccine for people's animals. I didn't know, so I inquired with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the federal agency in charge of all-things-rabies.

There are actually provisions in Canadian regulations for situations like this (a provision in the Health of Animals Regulations Section 132.4 (2), if you want to know specifically). This allows rabies vaccine to be sold in accordance with written permission granted by the Minister, in specific circumstances such as in a remote area where veterinary services are not readily available. The provincial veterinary association is typically contacted to determine whether or not there is a veterinarian who could arrange to do the vaccinations. If the provincial association agrees that there is no veterinary service available to the community, then permission can be granted to purchase vaccine. 

It's quite a reasonable and logical approach that allows for access to rabies vaccine when needed, but has enough controls in place to ensure that this can't lead to abuse of the exception. People in remote communities in Canada should be aware of this. Some communities get periodic visits from vets but there are many others such as the one in this case that don't have any direct access to veterinary care, and this is a way of at least providing protection for people and pets against rabies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tularemia has been diagnosed in five dogs and cats in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At least one of the pets has died. Tularemia, sometimes referred to as "rabbit fever" is caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. Infections occur throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere but are much more common in certain regions, such as the central US. This bacterium has received a lot more attention over the past decade because of its potential use as a bioterrorism agent, but infections have been occurring in people and pets for a long time. In North America, the cottontail rabbit, wild hares and some rodents are the main reservoirs. People and other animals get infected through close contact with infected animals (e.g. rabbit hunting) or through bites from blood-feeding insects. 

There was no mention of human cases in the recent report from South Dakota. One of the implications of identifying this disease in pets is that whatever infected the pet could also be a risk for people. If the pets were infected by contact with wild animals, people with similar contact with wild animals could also be exposed. If there is no chance the animals had contact with infected wildlife, then insect-transmission is most likely, and the same could happen to human members of the household (or elsewhere in the area). Therefore, diagnosis of tularemia in a person or pet should put both veterinarians and physicians on the lookout for further cases in all species.

Transmission of tularemia from infected pets to humans is also a concern. This has been reported in numerous instances, most often with cats. There are published reports of transmission from dogs to humans, but these are less convincing than the numerous cat-to-human reports. There's also a report of tularemia transmission from a hamster to a child. The overall risk of transmission is probably low, but tularemia can be spread from pets to people by scratches, bites, and perhaps regular close contact.

You can reduce the risk of your pet being exposed to tularemia by:

• Keeping pets indoors as much as possible. Cats should stay indoors. Dogs should not have uncontrolled outdoor access.
• Dogs should not be allowed to hunt rabbits in areas where tularemia is endemic.
• Animals that venture outside should be checked regularly for ticks and a preventive medicine program for ticks should be in place.
• Routine measures to reduce bites and scratches from dogs and cats should be taken.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There have been a few press articles lately about the Companion Animal Parasite Council (CAPC)'s traveling roadshow on parasitic zoonoses. Measures to increase awareness about zoonotic diseases and encourage appropriate preventive measures are needed, and traveling shows such as this have the potential to reach wide audiences. However, it's important for people to critically assess everything they are told and understand the sources. CAPC produces some excellent educational material but, to my knowledge, it is fully funded by the pharmaceutical industry. That doesn't necessarily mean that CAPC's educational efforts are suspect - people participating with their roadshow have solid credentials, but you do have to critique some of the things CAPC says.

One news article about CAPC's efforts states that "The CDC reports that about 14 percent of the total U.S. population is currently infected with Toxocara, or internal roundworms, contracted from dogs and cats." I don't think that's accurate information. I believe that this is based on seroprevalence data, meaning 14 percent of the population has antibodies against Toxocara. The presence of antibodies means that at some point in life the person's (or animal's) body was exposed to Toxocara and produced antibodies.  It does not mean that these people were ever sick and it certainly does not mean that these people are currently infected. Toxocara can cause serious infections and is a concern in some regions (although it's extremely rare in Ontario), so it warrants some attention, but we need to take a balanced and evidence-based approach.

One common theme in all of the reports that I've read lately is the statement that "The CAPC recommends that pet owners use preventive medicine year-round to control internal and external parasites for the life of their cat or dog, no matter where they live."  There's simply no evidence supporting this broad of a statement. Risks in warm southern climates are not the same as in northern areas with cold winters. Prevalence rates of different parasites vary greatly between regions. There is no evidence supporting year-round deworming of dogs and cats in all regions. Statements like this weaken the other good educational information CAPC has, particularly when you consider their funding source.

Don't disregard educational materials from CAPC or other industry-sponsored groups, just don't accept them as gospel. Critically assess the information, and don't be afraid to ask for facts, or to get information from other sources.

For more information about deworming recommendations for dogs and cats in Canada, see this previous Worms & Germs post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two kids and one adult are undergoing post-exposure treatment for rabies after having contact with an infected kitten. One child saw the stray animal and went to give it some food, and he was bitten in the process. The kitten then proceeded to bite the boy's mother and another child in the neighbourhood. Fortunately, the kitten was taken to animal control and was identified as a rabies suspect. It was euthanized and testing of the brain confirmed it had rabies. Accordingly, the three bitten people are now undergoing post-exposure treatment. Animal control is handing out flyers in the neighbourhood to warn others, as there may be more rabid animals in the area. One particular concern with young kittens is that sometimes multiple animals from the litter are infected, so there may be more cute but deadly kittens in the area.

• Avoid contact with stray animals. That's the best way to avoid getting bitten by one.
• If you are bitten by a stray animal, the animal must be caught and quarantined. If you don't know the rabies status of an animal that has bitten you, you have to consider it rabid and get treated. If you are bitten by a stray or wild animal, call animal control to catch it. If you can safely contain it (e.g. lock it in a garage) without putting other people at risk, do so and then wait for animal control to capture the animal.
• Vaccinate your pets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks