Serologic Evidence of Leptospirosis in a Southern Arizona Coyote Population

Drewek, John; Noon, T. H.; Trautman, Robert J.; Bicknell, E J

doi:10.7589/0090-3558-17.1.33

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have found much lower evidence of exposure to leptospirosis (Trainer and Knowlton, 1968;Holzman et al, 1992;Gese et al, 1997). Drewek et al (1981), however, reported that 44% of coyotes in another Arizona study tested positive for leptospirosis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Morbidity—mortality Factors and Survival of an Urban Coyote Population in Arizona

Grinder

Krausman

2001

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The health of coyotes (Canis latrans) in urban areas has not been studied. Our objectives were to assess the health of coyotes in Tucson (Arizona, USA) by determining the prevalence of antibodies to selected pathogens, estimating survival rates, and identifying sources of mortality. We drew blood from 22 coyotes to evaluate the prevalence of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) antigens, and antibodies to canine distemper virus (CDV), infectious canine hepatitis (ICH), canine parvovirus (CPV), and seven serovars of Leptospira interrogans. We trapped and radiocollared 19 coyotes to determine survival rates. We performed necropsies on 19 coyotes to quantify their general health, the presence of internal and external parasites, and causes of mortality. No coyotes tested positive for heartworm antigens. The prevalence of antibody to CDV, ICH, and CPV was 27, 50, and 100%, respectively. Twenty-seven percent of coyotes tested positive for one of five serovars of L. interrogans. The diseases for which coyotes in Tucson possessed antibodies appear to be enzootic in the population. The annual survival rate of coyotes was 0.72. Eleven necropsied coyotes were killed by cars, five coyotes were hit by cars, two were killed by a trapper, and the cause of death for one coyote was unknown. Coyotes in Tucson appear to be exposed to the viral, bacterial, and parasitic infections common in many coyote populations, but humans are the major source of mortality.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Morbidity—mortality Factors and Survival of an Urban Coyote Population in Arizona

Grinder

Krausman

2001

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Transmission to carnivores can occur via exposure to contaminated urine or feeding on infected prey (Reilly et al, 1970). Recognized freeranging canid hosts include red fox (Clark, 1960), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus; Clark et al, 1961), and coyote (Marler et al, 1979;Drewek et al, 1981).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serologic Survey for Selected Disease Agents in Wolves (Canis Lupus) From Alaska and the Yukon Territory, 1984–2000

Zarnke

Hoef

DeLong

2004

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wolves (Canis lupus) were captured in several geographic areas of Alaska (USA) and the Yukon Territory (Canada) during 1984-2000. Blood was collected from 1,122 animals. Sera were tested for antibodies against infectious canine hepatitis virus (ICH), canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus (CPV), Francisella tularensis, and serovars of Leptospira interrogans. Antibody prevalence for ICH was Ͼ84% for all areas. Area-specific prevalences of antibodies ranged from 12% to 70% for CPV, from 0% to 41% for CDV, and from 4% to 21% for F. tularensis. There was no evidence of CDV exposure at the two southernmost locations in Alaska. Prevalence of antibodies for ICH increased slightly during the 16-yr course of the survey. There was essentially no evidence of exposure to L. interrogans. Prevalences of antibodies for both CPV and CDV were age-specific, with higher values in the adult cohort compared with the pup cohort. There were no sex-specific differences in prevalence of antibodies for any of the five disease agents.

show abstract

Clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological features of a community-wide outbreak of canine leptospirosis in a low-prevalence region (Maricopa County, Arizona)

Iverson¹,

Levy²,

Yaglom³

et al. 2021

javma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To describe clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological features of an outbreak of leptospirosis in dogs in Maricopa County, Ariz, from January 2016 through June 2017. ANIMALS 71 case and 281 control dogs. PROCEDURES Cases were classified as confirmed, probable, suspect, or not a case on the basis of medical record data that fulfilled clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological criteria. Potential exposures were assessed by owner survey. For the case-control investigation, control dogs were recruited through owner completion of a July 2017 survey. Summary statistics and ORs for case dog lifestyle factors were reported. RESULTS 54 dogs were classified as confirmed and 17 as probable cases. For 4 dogs of a household cluster (5 confirmed and 3 probable), the highest microscopic agglutination titer was for serovar Djasiman (Leptospira kirschneri detected by PCR assay), and for 13 dogs of a community outbreak (49 confirmed and 14 probable cases), the highest titer was for serovar Canicola (Leptospira interrogans detected by PCR assay). The 44 case dogs included in the case-control investigation were 7.7 (95% CI, 3.5 to 16.7) and 2.9 times (95% CI, 1.3 to 6.6) as likely as control dogs to have visited dog daycare or to have been kenneled overnight at a boarding facility, respectively, 30 days prior to the onset of clinical signs or diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Diagnostic and epidemiological findings indicated 2 outbreaks. Transmission where dogs congregated likely propagated the community outbreak. Outbreaks of leptospiral infections can occur in regions of low prevalence, and a dog's exposure to areas where dogs congregate should be considered when making Leptospira vaccination recommendations.

show abstract

Serologic Evidence of Leptospirosis in a Southern Arizona Coyote Population

Cited by 5 publications

References 8 publications

Morbidity—mortality Factors and Survival of an Urban Coyote Population in Arizona

Morbidity—mortality Factors and Survival of an Urban Coyote Population in Arizona

Serologic Survey for Selected Disease Agents in Wolves (Canis Lupus) From Alaska and the Yukon Territory, 1984–2000

Clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiological features of a community-wide outbreak of canine leptospirosis in a low-prevalence region (Maricopa County, Arizona)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About