Why can't we be friends? Exploring factors associated with cat owners' perceptions of the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households

Most research examining cat behavior in multi-cat households lacks focus on one group size. This gap in knowledge reduces generalizability of research findings to specific compositions of cats in multi-cat households. Given that many cat-owning households in Canada and the US are comprised of two cats, the following study used a cross-sectional survey to explore cat owners' perceptions of the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households in Canada and the US. A total of 6,529 owners of two cats completed the online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and a logistic regression model used to assess various explanatory variables (i.e., household, management, and cat-specific factors) associated with participants perceiving their cats' relationship as negative. The logistic regression model showed that owners of two-cat households are more likely to perceive their cats' relationship as negative if both cats are spayed females, adult or mature, have a large gap in age, not related, one or both have access to the outdoors, or show aggression toward people or other animals in the home. Having multiple litterbox and feeding areas were also associated with a more negative cat-cat relationship. Overall, the complex interplay, directionality, and temporality of these factors requires further investigation for a full understanding of how to improve the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households. More research is needed to provide evidence-based recommendations for managing and supporting a positive cat-cat relationship in the home

Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, ‘What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?’ Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

Current methods of mouse euthanasia : refinements and aversion

Mice are routinely euthanized by gradual-fill carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas or with isoflurane; the aim of my thesis was to assess refinements to these procedures. The first study assessed the CO₂ method of euthanasia with the aim of minimizing the duration of dyspnea without exposing mice to painful concentrations (>40% CO₂). Various CO₂ flow rates (20, 30, 40, 50% cage vol/min) were used to examine the duration between the onset of dyspnea (identified by laboured breathing) and insensibility (identified by recumbency, loss of the righting reflex or loss of the pedal withdrawal reflex). The interval between the onset of dyspnea and loss of the righting reflex averaged 38.2 ± 2.4 s versus 59.2 ± 2.4 s, using 50% and 20% cage vol/min fill rates, respectively. Thus even at the highest flow rate tested mice experienced more than 30 s of dyspnea, suggesting other methods of euthanasia should be used when possible. The second study examined the same three measures of insensibility during the isoflurane method of euthanasia, with the aim of identifying when it is safe to switch to a high flow rate of CO₂, without subjecting conscious animals to painful concentrations. The results suggested that the onset of recumbency and loss of the righting reflex are not safe indicators of insensibility when using induction with isoflurane; continued induction with 5% isoflurane carried by 17% cage vol/min of oxygen for a minimum of 79 s after the appearance of recumbency is advised before switching to a high flow rate of CO₂. The final study in this thesis used a light-aversion test to examine mouse aversion to: 1) 20% gradual-fill CO₂, 2) 5% isoflurane administered using a vaporizer, and 3) 5% isoflurane administered using the drop-method. Mice chose to remain in the dark chamber longer when exposed to isoflurane administered using a vaporizer compared to both CO₂ and isoflurane drop. Mice were also more likely to become recumbent in the dark side when exposed to the isoflurane vaporizer versus other methods. These results indicate that isoflurane delivered by a vaporizer is a humane refinement for the euthanasia of laboratory mice.Land and Food Systems, Faculty ofGraduat

Compassion Fatigue and Coping Mechanisms of Laboratory Animal Professionals from Europe, China, and Japan.

Laboratory animal professionals (LAP) may experience situations that contribute to compassion fatigue (CF). The goal of this research was to better understand CF in LAP in and across employment categories. Surveys were distributed through LAP organizational listservs in the European Union (EU), China, and Japan, and results were analyzed to identify CF prevalence, personal and work-related factors, coping mechanisms, and beneficial work-support programs. Independent χ²-tests compared personal and work-related factors and feelings of CF. Feelings of CF and coping mechanisms were compared with personality scores using independent sample t tests. There were 302 respondents from the EU, 39 from China, and 77 from Japan. Over half of respondents from the EU (52%) and China (56%) reported experiencing CF (52%), with fewer (32%) reporting CF in Japan. No major differences were found based on employer type. Personality scores were significantly related to feelings of CF and preferred coping mechanisms. Work-related factors that contributed to feelings of CF in over half of respondents included staffing levels, workplace relationships, and availability of programs geared to address CF. Across regions, talking to someone, physical activity, getting away from work, and self-care were effective coping mechanisms in over 50% of respondents. Fewer than 30% of respondents indicated that their place of employment had CF support programs, and even fewer (8% to 28%) indicated that these programs were helpful. The study results suggest that to be effective, employer CF programs for LAP should consider providing quiet places at work and programs for self-care, promoting physical and mental health and social support systems, and establishing opportunities to memorialize animals

Use of nonaversive handling and training procedures for laboratory mice and rats: Attitudes of American and Canadian laboratory animal professionals

Nonaversive or low stress handling techniques can reduce fear and stress in research rodents, ultimately improving study data quality. Uptake of low stress handling has been slow in the USA and Canada. In this study we explored the understanding, experience, and attitudes toward low stress handling of rats and mice in laboratory animal professionals from the USA (US) and Canada (CA). Participants (n = 40) were recruited for a standardized interview and job categories were divided into veterinary/PhD level roles (doctoral level; DL) and non-veterinary/non-PhD level roles (non-doctoral level, NDL) (US: 23, DL: 9, NDL: 14; CA: 17, DL: 8, and NDL: 9). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using NVIVO. Two research assistants independently coded themes for each question and consolidated responses based on commonality. Laboratory animal professionals understood the benefits of low stress handling and training techniques with rats and mice, stating reduced stress, better data, and improved welfare, with CA participants more likely to mention animal welfare as a benefit, and DL more likely to mention improved research data and reduced stress. Participants across demographic groups indicated improved job satisfaction and decreased stress as the positive impacts low stress handling would have on their positions. The primary perceived barriers to low stress handling implementation were researcher attitudes, the time needed to implement and use these techniques, and training personnel to use the techniques properly and consistently. To promote refinement of handling of rats and mice, more educational opportunities on the benefits and implementation of low stress handling techniques need to be provided to laboratory animal professionals, as well as to researchers

Why can't we be friends? Exploring factors associated with cat owners' perceptions of the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households

Most research examining cat behavior in multi-cat households lacks focus on one group size. This gap in knowledge reduces generalizability of research findings to specific compositions of cats in multi-cat households. Given that many cat-owning households in Canada and the US are comprised of two cats, the following study used a cross-sectional survey to explore cat owners' perceptions of the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households in Canada and the US. A total of 6,529 owners of two cats completed the online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and a logistic regression model used to assess various explanatory variables (i.e., household, management, and cat-specific factors) associated with participants perceiving their cats' relationship as negative. The logistic regression model showed that owners of two-cat households are more likely to perceive their cats' relationship as negative if both cats are spayed females, adult or mature, have a large gap in age, not related, one or both have access to the outdoors, or show aggression toward people or other animals in the home. Having multiple litterbox and feeding areas were also associated with a more negative cat-cat relationship. Overall, the complex interplay, directionality, and temporality of these factors requires further investigation for a full understanding of how to improve the cat-cat relationship in two-cat households. More research is needed to provide evidence-based recommendations for managing and supporting a positive cat-cat relationship in the home

Is training necessary for efficacious use of the Glasgow Feline Composite Measure Pain Scale?

ObjectiveThe Glasgow Feline Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-F) is a validated cat pain assessment tool for clinical use. No research has examined how training impacts use of this tool. Thus, we examined whether seminar-style training improves the identification of cat pain when using the CMPS-F. Veterinarians (n = 17) and non-veterinarian staff (n = 33; N = 50) were recruited to participate.ProcedureSeminars included: i) pre-training use of the CMPS-F to score cat videos with varying degrees of pain; ii) cat pain assessment training; and iii) post-training use of the CMPS-F. Participant CMPS-F ratings were compared to experts' ratings of the same videos. Average CMPS-F scores and analgesic decision ratings were compared pre-and post-training.ResultsMost participants were female non-veterinarian staff who had not heard of the CMPS-F. Participant and expert analgesic decision-making did not differ pre- (P = 1.0) and post-training (P = 0.1). In addition, analgesic decision-making was similar between participants and experts for all but 3/20 videos.Conclusion and clinical relevanceSeminar training may not be necessary for efficacious use of the CMPS-F. Further research is needed to explore strategies for improving awareness of cat pain assessment tools and increasing in-clinic use