Objectives The aim of this study was to optimize the diagnosis of feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) in a shelter setting by: (1) comparing the results of the canine parvovirus IDEXX SNAP Parvo (SNAP) point-of-care ELISA with a commercial FPV quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) test; (2) assessing whether vomit and anal/rectal swabs could be used for early diagnosis; and (3) clarifying the interpretation of weak-positive SNAP test results. Methods The study included shelter cats and kittens with incomplete or unknown vaccination history that had clinical signs suspicious for feline panleukopenia and fecal SNAP and PCR tests performed within 24 h of onset. Feces, anal/rectal swabs and vomit were tested using SNAP and PCR, with fecal PCR utilized as the reference standard. Results One hundred and forty-five cats were included. Seventeen were diagnosed with FPV infection and 62 were negative; 66 could not be individually designated because they were co-housed. Sensitivity was as follows: fecal SNAP 55% (n = 102; 95% confidence interval [CI] 32–77); swab SNAP 30% (n = 55; 95% CI 7–65); swab PCR 77% (n = 55; 95% CI 46–95); and vomit PCR 100% (n = 17; 95% CI 16–100). Specificity was high (96–100%) for all sample and test types. For PCR-positive fecal samples, true-positive SNAP tests (including weak positives) had significantly higher DNA viral copy numbers than false-negative SNAP tests ( P = 0.0031). Conclusions and relevance The SNAP ELISA should be viewed as an initial diagnostic test to rule in feline panleukopenia. Positive fecal SNAP test results, including weak positives, are highly likely to be true positives in clinically affected animals. Negative results in clinically affected animals are unreliable and should be followed up with PCR testing.

Objectives The aims of this study were to: (1) describe the source, route of surrender and signalment of hoarded cats relinquished to the Toronto Humane Society (THS); (2) document the prevalence of medical conditions by group (place of origin); (3) compare medical conditions between institutional hoarding (IH) and non-institutional hoarding (NIH) environments; and (4) report length of stay (LOS) and outcomes in hoarded and non-hoarded cats. Methods A retrospective, descriptive epidemiological study was performed using THS records from between July 2011 and June 2014. The prevalence of medical conditions was calculated for the different groups. Univariable logistic regression with a random intercept to account for autocorrelation among animals from the same group was used to examine the influence of IH and NIH environments on selected medical conditions. LOS and outcomes were calculated for hoarded and non-hoarded cats. Results Three hundred and seventy-one hoarded cats from 14 sources were included. The majority (n = 352/371) were surrendered voluntarily, many with the assistance of a community intermediary. Upper respiratory infection (URI) was the most common medical condition (38% of cats), followed by dermatological disease (30%). The prevalence of medical conditions varied substantially between groups. The odds of URI at intake (odds ratio [OR] 4.35, P = 0.044) and chronic URI (OR 23.70, P <0.0001) were significantly greater for IH compared with NIH. Adoption rates, euthanasia rates and LOS were similar for hoarded and non-hoarded cats. Conclusions and relevance The different prevalence of medical conditions in groups of hoarded cats indicates a continuum of harm and severity in animal hoarding. Hoarded cats can have LOS and live release rates comparable with non-hoarded cats. Cats from IH were significantly more likely to have chronic URI. This study highlights the need for a greater focus on IH, as well as the role of community intermediaries and the potential for a harm reduction approach to animal hoarding.

No abstract

No abstract

The health and welfare of wild animals are of increasing concern, yet there are very few large-scale data syntheses examining how causes of wildlife morbidity and mortality vary across time, space, and taxa. Records for 18,540 animals submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) (2009–19) and 144,846 animals admitted to 19 wildlife rehabilitation centers (WRCs) (2015–19) were evaluated to 1) identify the main causes of morbidity and mortality for Canadian wildlife and 2) assess the utility and complementarity of these two data sources to further our understanding of wildlife health. The CWHC cases (mortality) were examined by pathologists and grouped by the presence or absence of five diagnostic categories: trauma, emaciation, infection or inflammation, toxicity, and other. These CWHC animals were also classified as “killed due to real or perceived human-wildlife conflict” based on finder history. The WRC admissions were categorized by health issue (according to intake records) and based on reported or observed situational reasons for admission: parental loss, unsafe or unsuitable location, nest or habitat disturbance, illegal possession, and abnormal behavior. For both datasets, the main reason for submission or admission was trauma (44 and 48%, respectively), especially vehicle collisions (7 and 11%) and window or building strikes (5 and 7%). Many other WRC admissions were due to parental loss (28%), cat attacks (6%), and immature animals being found in unsafe or unsuitable locations (6%). Most other CWHC mortalities were caused by infections (27%) and emaciation (23%). Relatively few birds, amphibians, and reptiles submitted to CWHC were killed due to human-wildlife conflict, but 22% of mammals were killed for this reason, highlighting the taxonomic differences in the perceived threat of wildlife to finders, and therefore their response. Together, these data sources highlight key issues impacting the health and welfare of wild animals in Canada.