Diseases in free-ranging bats from Germany

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The emergence of important viral diseases and their potential threat to humans has increased the interest in bats as potential reservoir species. Whereas the majority of studies determined the occurrence of specific zoonotic agents in chiropteran species, little is known about actual bat pathogens and impacts of disease on bat mortality. Combined pathological and microbiological investigations in free-ranging bats are sparse and often limited by small sample sizes. In the present study about 500 deceased bats of 19 European species (family <it>Vespertilionidae</it>) were subjected to a post-mortem examination followed by histo-pathological and bacteriological investigations. The bat carcasses originated from different geographical regions in Germany and were collected by bat researchers and bat rehabilitation centers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pathological examination revealed inflammatory lesions in more than half of the investigated bats. Lung was the predominantly affected organ (40%) irrespective of bat species, sex and age. To a lesser extent non-inflammatory organ tissue changes were observed. Comparative analysis of histo-pathology and bacteriology results identified 22 different bacterial species that were clearly associated with pathological lesions. Besides disease-related mortality, traumatic injuries represented an additional major cause of death. Here, attacks by domestic cats accounted for almost a half of these cases.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The present study shows that free-ranging bats not only serve as a reservoir of infectious agents, they are also vulnerable to various infectious diseases. Some of these microbial agents have zoonotic potential, but there is no evidence that European bats would pose a higher health hazard risk to humans in comparison to other wildlife.</p

Antibody response to feline panleukopenia virus vaccination in healthy adult cats

Objectives According to prior studies, between 25.0% and 92.8% of adult cats have antibodies against feline panleukopenia virus (FPV) and thus are likely protected against FPV infection. It is, however, unknown how healthy adult cats with different antibody titres react to FPV vaccination in the field. Therefore, the aim of the study was to measure antibody titres in healthy adult cats within a period of 28 days after vaccination against FPV and to evaluate factors that are associated with a lack of adequate response to vaccination. Methods One hundred and twelve healthy adult cats were vaccinated with a vaccine against FPV, feline herpesvirus and feline calicivirus. Antibodies against FPV were determined before vaccination (day 0), on day 7 and day 28 after vaccination by haemagglutination inhibition (HI). A HI titre > 1:40 was defined as protective. An adequate response to vaccination was defined as a four-fold titre increase. Uni- and multivariate statistical analysis was used to determine factors associated with an adequate response. Results Pre-vaccination antibody titres of > 1:40 were present in 64.3% (72/112;95% confidence interval [CI] 55.1-72.6). Only 47.3% (53/112;95% CI 37.8-57.0) of cats had an adequate response to vaccination. Factors associated with an adequate response to vaccination were lack of previous vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 15.58;95% CI 1.4-179.1;P = 0.035), lack of antibodies (> 1:40) prior to vaccination (OR 23.10;95% CI 5.4-98.8;P 1:160) had an at least four-fold increase in FPV antibody titres, measurement of antibodies rather than regular revaccinations should be performed. Thus, evaluation of FPV antibody titre in cats with previous vaccinations against FPV are recommended prior to revaccination

Antibody Response to Canine Adenovirus-2 Virus Vaccination in Healthy Adult Dogs

Background: Re-vaccination against canine adenovirus (CAV) is performed in ≤3-year-intervals but its necessity is unknown. The study determined anti-CAV antibodies within 28 days of re-vaccination and factors associated with the absence of antibodies and vaccination response. Methods: Ninety-seven healthy adult dogs (last vaccination ≥12 months) were re-vaccinated with a modified live CAV-2 vaccine. Anti-CAV antibodies were measured before vaccination (day 0), and after re-vaccination (day 7, 28) by virus neutralization. A ≥4-fold titer increase was defined as vaccination response. Fisher’s exact test and multivariate regression analysis were performed to determine factors associated with the absence of antibodies and vaccination response. Results: Totally, 87% of dogs (90/97; 95% CI: 85.61–96.70) had anti-CAV antibodies (≥10) before re-vaccination. Vaccination response was observed in 6% of dogs (6/97; 95% CI: 2.60–13.11). Time since last vaccination (>3–5 years, OR = 9.375, p = 0.020; >5 years, OR = 25.000, p = 0.006) was associated with a lack of antibodies. Dogs from urban areas were more likely to respond to vaccination (p = 0.037). Conclusion: Many dogs had anti-CAV pre-vaccination antibodies, even those with an incomplete vaccination series. Most dogs did not respond to re-vaccination. Based on this study, dogs should be re-vaccinated every 3 years or antibodies should be determined

Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Test for Pre-Vaccination Testing to Detect Antibodies against Canine Adenoviruses in Dogs

(1) Background: Antibody testing is commonly used to assess a dog’s immune status. For detection of antibodies against canine adenoviruses (CAVs), one point-of-care (POC) test is available. This study assessed the POC test´s performance. (2) Methods: Sera of 198 privately owned dogs and 40 specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs were included. The reference standard for detection of anti-CAV antibodies was virus neutralization (VN) using CAV-1 and CAV-2 antigens. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) of the POC test were assessed. Specificity was considered most important. (3) Results: Prevalence of CAV-1 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (182/238) in all dogs, 92% (182/198) in the subgroup of privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Prevalence of CAV-2 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (181/238) in all dogs, 91% (181/198) in privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Specificity for detection of CAV-1 antibodies was lower (overall dogs, 88%; privately owned dogs, 56%; SPF dogs, 100%) compared with specificity for detection of CAV-2 antibodies (overall dogs, 90%; privately owned dogs, 65%; SPF dogs, 100%). (4) Conclusions: Since false positive results will lead to potentially unprotected dogs not being vaccinated, specificity should be improved to reliably detect anti-CAV antibodies that prevent infectious canine hepatitis in dogs

Comparison of Four Commercially Available Point-of-Care Tests to Detect Antibodies against Canine Parvovirus in Dogs

Measuring antibodies to evaluate dogs’ immunity against canine parvovirus (CPV) is useful to avoid unnecessary re-vaccinations. The study aimed to evaluate the quality and practicability of four point-of-care (POC) tests for detection of anti-CPV antibodies. The sera of 198 client-owned and 43 specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs were included; virus neutralization was the reference method. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) were calculated. Specificity was considered to be the most important indicator for POC test performance. Differences between specificity and sensitivity of POC tests in the sera of all dogs were determined by McNemar, agreement by Cohen’s kappa. Prevalence of anti-CPV antibodies in all dogs was 80% (192/241); in the subgroup of client-owned dogs, it was 97% (192/198); and in the subgroup of SPF dogs, it was 0% (0/43). FASTest® and CanTiCheck® were easiest to perform. Specificity was highest in the CanTiCheck® (overall dogs, 98%; client-owned dogs, 83%; SPF dogs, 100%) and the TiterCHEK® (overall dogs, 96%; client-owned dogs, 67%; SPF dogs, 100%); no significant differences in specificity were observed between the ImmunoComb®, the TiterCHEK®, and the CanTiCheck®. Sensitivity was highest in the FASTest® (overall dogs, 95%; client-owned dogs, 95%) and the CanTiCheck® (overall dogs, 80%; client-owned dogs, 80%); sensitivity of the FASTest® was significantly higher compared to the one of the other three tests (McNemars p-value in each comparison: <0.001). CanTiCheck® would be the POC test of choice when considering specificity and practicability. However, differences in the number of false positive results between CanTiCheck®, TiterCHEK®, and ImmunoComb® were minimal

Antibody Response to Canine Parvovirus Vaccination in Dogs with Hypothyroidism Treated with Levothyroxine

(1) Background: No information is available on how dogs with hypothyroidism (HypoT) respond to vaccination. This study measured pre- and post-vaccination anti-canine parvovirus (CPV) antibodies in dogs with HypoT treated with levothyroxine and compared the results to those of healthy dogs. (2) Methods: Six dogs with HypoT and healthy age-matched control dogs (n = 23) were vaccinated against CPV with a modified-live vaccine. Hemagglutination inhibition was used to measure antibodies on days 0, 7, and 28. The comparison of the vaccination response of dogs with HypoT and healthy dogs were performed with univariate analysis. (3) Results: Pre-vaccination antibodies (≥10) were detected in 100% of dogs with HypoT (6/6; 95% CI: 55.7–100) and in 100% of healthy dogs (23/23; 95% CI: 83.1–100.0). A ≥4-fold titer increase was observed in none of the dogs with HypoT and in 4.3% of the healthy dogs (1/23; CI95%: <0.01–22.7). Mild vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) were detected in 33.3% of the dogs with HypoT (2/6; 95% CI: 9.3–70.4) and in 43.5% (10/23; 95% CI: 25.6–63.2) of the healthy dogs. (4) Conclusions: There was neither a significant difference in the dogs’ pre-vaccination antibodies (p = 1.000), or vaccination response (p = 0.735), nor in the occurrence of post-vaccination VAAEs (p = 0.798). The vaccination response in dogs with levothyroxine-treated HypoT seems to be similar to that of healthy dogs

Prevalence of Neutralizing Antibodies to Canine Distemper Virus and Response to Vaccination in Client-Owned Adult Healthy Dogs

Re-vaccinations against canine distemper virus (CDV) are commonly performed in 3-year intervals. The study’s aims were to determine anti-CDV antibodies in healthy adult dogs within 28 days of vaccination against CDV, and to evaluate factors associated with the presence of pre-vaccination antibodies and with the antibody response to vaccination. Ninety-seven dogs, not vaccinated within 1 year before enrollment, were vaccinated with a modified live CDV vaccine. A measurement of the antibodies was performed before vaccination (day 0), on day 7, and 28 after the vaccination by virus neutralization. A response to vaccination was defined as a ≥4-fold titer increase by day 28. Fisher’s exact test was used to determine factors associated with a lack of antibodies and vaccination response. In total, 94.8% of the dogs (92/97; CI 95%: 88.2–98.1) had antibodies (≥10) prior to vaccination. A response to vaccination was not observed in any dog. Five dogs were considered humoral non-responders; these dogs neither had detectable antibodies before, nor developed antibodies after vaccination. Young age (<2 years) was significantly associated with a lack of pre-vaccination antibodies (p = 0.018; OR: 26.825; 95% CI: 1.216–1763.417). In conclusion, necessity of re-vaccination in adult healthy dogs should be debated and regular vaccinations should be replaced by antibody detection

Antibody Response to Canine Parvovirus Vaccination in Dogs with Hyperadrenocorticism Treated with Trilostane

It is unknown how dogs with hyperadrenocorticism (HAC) respond to vaccination. This study measured antibodies against canine parvovirus (CPV) in dogs with HAC treated with trilostane before and after CPV vaccination, and compared the immune response to that from healthy dogs. Eleven dogs with HAC, and healthy age-matched control dogs (n = 31) received a modified-live CPV vaccine. Antibodies were determined on days 0, 7, and 28 by hemagglutination inhibition. Univariate analysis was used to compare the immune response of dogs with HAC and healthy dogs. Pre-vaccination antibodies (≥10) were detected in 100% of dogs with HAC (11/11; 95% CI: 70.0–100) and in 93.5% of healthy dogs (29/31; 95% CI: 78.3–99.2). No ≥4-fold increase in antibody titer was observed in dogs with HAC while in 22.6% of healthy dogs, a ≥4-fold titer increase was observed (7/31; 95% CI: 11.1–40.1). Mild vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) were detected in 54.5% of dogs with HAC (6/11; 95% CI: 28.0–78.8) and in 29.0% of healthy dogs (9/31; 95% CI: 15.9–46.8). There was neither a significant difference in presence of pre-vaccination antibodies (p = 1.000), or response to vaccination (p = 0.161), nor in the occurrence of VAAEs (p = 0.158). Immune function of dogs with HAC treated with trilostane seems comparable to that of healthy dogs

The Task Force Initiative: Local Interventions at the Department Level—A Key Component of a Multi-tiered Approach to Promote Institutional Change

This NIH Transforming Academic Culture (NIH-TAC) trial is a multi-level coordinated intervention to enhance institutional culture, increase academic productivity, and improve job satisfaction for women faculty. This poster details a task force initiative in which each department and division reviewed their current practices and policies to recommend and implement change. This particular task force resulted in a list of interventions which were disseminated and implemented throughout the institution