Canine helminthiases and associated risk factors in Kigali city, Rwanda

Abstract

Background Despite that canine helminthiases pose a public health risk to humans and livestock, the prevalence of canine helminthiases in Rwanda is unknown. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of canine helminthiases and to identify the risk factors of such infections in Kigali, the capital city of Rwanda. A cross-sectional study involved 93 dogs selected across Kigali city. Faecal samples were collected from clinically healthy dogs and eggs worms were identified using McMaster technique. Risk factors for canine helminthiases were analysed by multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. Results The overall prevalence of intestinal helminthiases in dogs was 39.8%. The most prevalent species was Ancylostoma spp (32.3%, n = 93). About 41.9% (n = 31) of dogs suffering from ancylostomosis and/or toxocarosis had high egg counts per gram (EPG) of faeces (≥ 550). Approximately 97.3% (n = 37) of dogs infected with helminths had mono-infection. Logistic regression analysis showed that dog's age and location were significantly associated with the prevalence of canine helminthiases. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of dogs suffering from helminthiases was more than 61% lower in dogs dewormed once to twice a year compared to those who were never dewormed. The AOR was more than 42% lower for restricted dogs compared to non-restricted ones. Conclusions All the identified helminths are zoonotic and they pose a public health risk to humans. There is urgent need of awareness among dog owners on the role of dogs in transmitting zoonotic helminthiases to other animals and humans as well as effective control measures.

Canine Gastrointestinal Nematodiases and Associated Risk Factors in Kigali City, Rwanda

“…Dog owners were explained about this study and signed written consent before participating. Data were successfully collected from 93 dogs, and a questionnaire was used to collect data on dogs (age, sex, breeds, and location) and on dog keeping practices (frequency of deworming, feeding practices, and control of dog movements) [34]. Faecal samples were collected directly from the rectum using a gloved finger and kept in faecal jars.…”

“…The data collected and analysed to support the findings of this study are included in the article. The questionnaire used during the data collection is available at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-26155/v4, and the source is cited at a relevant place within the text as a reference [34].…”