Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Co-infections common in dogs with clinical leishmaniosis
By Attipa, Charalampos et al.·Published in BMC veterinary research·2019·Bristol Veterinary School and Langford Vets, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Associations between clinical canine leishmaniosis and multiple vector-borne co-infections: a case-control serological study.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with clinical leishmaniosis, a disease caused by a parasite, were found to have a higher risk of being co-infected with a type of bacteria called Ehrlichia canis. In a study of 47 dogs with leishmaniosis, 36% tested positive for this bacteria, compared to only 16% of healthy control dogs. This suggests that dogs suffering from leishmaniosis should be tested not just for the parasite but also for Ehrlichia co-infection. Early detection and treatment of these additional infections can help improve the health of affected dogs.
People also search for: dog leishmaniosis treatment · Ehrlichia canis symptoms in dogs · testing for dog co-infections
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dogs that have clinical leishmaniosis (ClinL), caused by the parasite Leishmania infantum, are commonly co-infected with other pathogens, especially vector-borne pathogens (VBP). A recent PCR-based study found that ClinL dogs are more likely to be additionally infected with the rickettsial bacteria Ehrlichia canis. Further information on co-infections in ClinL cases with VBP, as assessed by serology, is required. The research described in this report determined if dogs with ClinL are at higher risk of exposure to VBP than healthy control dogs using a case-control serology study. RESULTS: Of the 47 dogs with ClinL, anti-E. canis/ Ehrlichia ewingii antibodies were detected in 17 (36.2%), anti-Anaplasma phagocytophilum/Anaplasma platys antibodies in 5 (10.6%) and antigen for Dirofilaria immitis in 2 (4.3%). Of the 87 control dogs, anti-E. canis/E. ewingii antibodies were detected in 14 (16.1%) and anti-A. phagocytophilum/A. platys antibodies in 2 (2.3%). No anti-Borrelia burgdorferi antibody tests were positive. No statistical differences between the ClinL dogs and control dogs regarding lifestyle or use of ectoparasitic prevention, were identified. The ClinL was significantly associated with anti-E. canis/E. ewingii antibodies (odds ratio = 2.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.3-6.7, P = 0.010) compared to controls by both multivariable logistic regression and structural equation modelling. CONCLUSIONS: It was demonstrated that an increased risk for E. canis/E. ewingii seropositivity is present in dogs with ClinL compared to clinically healthy control dogs, despite similar ectoparasitic prevention use and lifestyle. Based on these findings it is suggested that dogs with ClinL should not only be tested for E. canis co-infection using PCR but also serologically for E. canis/E. ewingii.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31533745/