Next Article in Journal
Invasive Research on Non-Human Primates—Time to Turn the Page
Next Article in Special Issue
Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum Infections in Stray Cats and Dogs in the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau Area, China
Previous Article in Journal
Prandial Correlations and Structure of the Ingestive Behavior of Pigs in Precision Feeding Programs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/ani11103000
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Survey of Intestinal Helminths of Dogs in Slovakia with an Emphasis on Zoonotic Species

by
Júlia Jarošová
1,*,
Daniela Antolová
1,
Branislav Lukáč
2 and
Aladár Maďari
2
1
Institute of Parasitology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Hlinkova 3, 040 01 Košice, Slovakia
2
Small Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Košice, Komenského 73, 041 81 Košice, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(10), 3000; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11103000
Submission received: 14 September 2021 / Revised: 8 October 2021 / Accepted: 15 October 2021 / Published: 19 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Parasites in Dogs and Cats)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Dogs are the most popular pet animals worldwide; however, frequent and close contact with people increases the risk of transmission of different zoonotic parasites. As the occurrence of intestinal parasites in the dog population is affected by several factors, understanding the epidemiology of zoonotic parasitic infections is important to minimize the risks for humans. This study presents results about the prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in seven different groups of dogs (pet, shelter, guard, working, and hunting dogs, as well as dogs from segregated Roma settlements) in Slovakia. Out of 495 faecal samples collected between 2016 and 2021, eggs of intestinal helminths were detected in 134 (27.1%) samples. Altogether, six different species/genera/families, namely, Toxocara canis (14.7%), Toxascaris leonina (1.6%), Trichuris vulpis (6.3%), Capillaria spp. (1.4%), Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (8.3%), and taeniid eggs (4.0%), were recorded. Infection with Echinococcus multilocularis was confirmed in 2.2% of dogs and 0.4% of the animals were infested with Taenia hydatigena. The results showed that the occurrence of intestinal helminths is quite frequent in the majority of analyzed dog groups, with a close correlation between the occurrence of intestinal helminths and availability of veterinary care and anthelmintic therapy.

Abstract

Dogs are the most popular pets worldwide; however, close contact with people increases the risk of transmission of different zoonotic parasites. This study aims to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in dogs in Slovakia. A total of 495 faecal samples collected from pet, shelter, guard, working (police), and hunting dogs, as well as dogs from segregated Roma settlements between 2016 and 2021, were examined using flotation and molecular methods. Eggs of intestinal helminths were detected in 134 (27.1%) samples. Microscopically, six different species/genera/families, namely, Toxocara canis (14.7%), Toxascaris leonina (1.6%), Trichuris vulpis (6.3%), Capillaria spp. (1.4%), Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (8.3%), and taeniid eggs (4.0%), were recorded. Molecular analyses revealed infection with Echinococcus multilocularis in 2.2% of dogs and 0.4% of the animals were infected with Taenia hydatigena. The results showed a correlation between the occurrence of intestinal helminths and the availability of veterinary care, as dogs from Roma settlements and shelter dogs were the most often infected (66.7% and 39.2%, respectively). On the other hand, working animals were in the best health condition, with only 2.5% being positive. The relatively frequent occurrence of zoonotic species points to the constant need for preventive measures and regular deworming of dogs.

1. Introduction

Dogs are the most popular pets worldwide, and except for many direct or material benefits when used, e.g., as guard, shepherd, hunting, or therapeutic dogs, they also provide their owners many positive psychological benefits [1]. However, close contact between dogs and people also increases the risk of transmission of different zoonotic diseases [2,3].
The number of dogs living in close proximity to humans can contribute to a high rate of soil and grass contamination with infective parasitic stages in leisure, recreational, public, and urban areas [4]. Parasitic elements, like eggs, larvae, and oocysts excreted via canine faeces, can survive over a long time and remain infective in the environment under different conditions. Therefore, the environmental faecal contamination of public areas is a global health problem that is difficult to control [5,6,7]. Several endoparasites of dogs such as Toxocara canis, Ancylostoma caninum, Dipylidium caninum, and Echinococcus spp., as well as some other taeniid species and Uncinaria spp., can cause infections in humans [8,9].
In recent decades, the occurrence of intestinal parasites in the dog population has been affected by several factors. As canned dog food cannot be a source of double-host parasites, these species have gradually disappeared from the dog population [10]. On the other hand, the risk of transmitting parasitic diseases increases with the more frequent contact of dogs with free-living carnivores or with the possibility of catching rodents. Therefore, hunting dogs, stray dogs, or dogs that live outside may face a higher risk of being infected [11,12]. Moreover, the effort to return to the former/original form of the dog diet has appeared recently and a growing number of dog owners have started to feed their dogs with raw meat, meat products, and bones, the so-called raw meat-based diet [13,14]. Thus, the risk of transmission of parasitic species that can be spread via raw meat has increased again.
Understanding the epidemiology of zoonotic parasitic infections is important for minimizing the risks for humans [15]. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in dogs in Slovakia.

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 495 dog faecal samples were collected from different localities in Slovakia between 2016 and 2021. The samples were obtained from pet dogs (n = 194), shelter dogs (n = 97), dogs from segregated Roma settlements (n = 45), hunting dogs (n = 67), guard dogs (n = 13), and working dogs (n = 79).
The category “pet dogs” encompassed animals kept in households for companionship or other animals kept under the supervision of the owner, with restricted and controlled movement in the countryside. The dogs were not dewormed at least three months before sampling. The group of “shelter dogs” comprised stray, lost, abandoned, or surrendered animals that had been caught and put into shelters. Faecal samples from shelter dogs were taken before deworming after they came to the shelters. Animals assigned to “dogs from segregated Roma settlements” were usually kept under poor hygienic conditions without proper veterinary control and usually roaming freely all over the settlements and their surroundings. The category of “hunting dogs” included animals kept by hunters. Animals assisted hunters in finding, pursuing, and retrieving game during hunting. These dogs could be in contact with free-living carnivores and are often allowed to catch rodents. The category “working dogs” encompassed mostly animals specifically trained to assist police (i.e., police dogs). “Guard dogs” were kept to protect property, mostly in companies or factories. These animals were kept under the supervision of handlers, usually with controlled movement over a fenced-in area. The dogs were not dewormed at least three months before sampling.
After collection, the faecal samples were transported to the laboratory where they were stored at +4 °C before analysis. The parasitological examination was performed within 48 hours. Samples were investigated for the presence of propagative stages of endoparasites using a modified Faust’s flotation method [16]. All eggs found were identified according to their morphological characteristics under light microscopy. As the eggs of Ancylostoma caninum and Uncinaria stenocephala are very similar and hardly distinguishable by microscopy, hookworm eggs found in the study are reported as Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. eggs.

2.1. Molecular Analyses

Twenty faecal samples positive for taeniid eggs were analysed by PCR-derived methods. To disrupt the parasite eggshells, faecal samples were homogenized in a Qiagen TissueLyser 85210 (Retsch, Haan, Germany) using 5 mm stainless steel beads for 6 min (30 Hz). After this step, the genomic DNA was isolated using the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. PCR reactions were performed using the 5× FIREPol® Master Mix Ready to Load (SOLIS Biodyne, Tartu, Estonia). For detection of Echinococcus spp. tapeworms, a nested PCR reaction was used. Amplification of the partial 12S rRNA gene was performed using specific primers; for the first step primers, P60-for and P375-rev designed by Dinkel et al. [17] were used. To detect E. multilocularis, the second step was performed with the Em-nest-for and Em-nest-rev primers designed by Dyachenko et al. [18]. For E. granulosus sensu stricto (s.s.), the primer pair E.g.ss1for and E.g.ss1rev, and for E. canadensis, the primers E.g.cs1for and E.g.cs1rev were used [19]. To detect other taeniid species, amplification of a 471 bp region of the nad1 gene was applied with the JB3 and JB4.5 primer set, as described by Bowles and McManus [20].

2.2. Statistical Analyses

The prevalence values of parasitic infection in dogs were provided with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The Chi-squared (χ2) test was used to test the differences among the prevalence of parasitic species and the occurrences of parasites in dog categories, with a value of p < 0.05 considered significant. The statistical analyses were performed using the Quantitative Parasitology on the Web software [21].

3. Results

Out of 495 dog faecal samples, the presence of the propagative stages of parasites was detected in 134 samples, representing an overall prevalence of 27.1%. Microscopically, six different species/genera/families of intestinal helminths were detected in the examined animals, namely, Toxocara canis (14.7%), Toxascaris leonina (1.6%), Trichuris vulpis (6.3%), Capillaria spp. (1.4%), Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (8.3%), and taeniid eggs (4.0%) (Table 1).
Molecular analyses of samples positive to taeniid eggs revealed infection with Echinococcus multilocularis in 11 (2.2%) dogs and 2 animals (0.4%) were infected with Taenia hydatigena. None (0.0%) of the animals were infected with E. granulosus s.s. or E. canadensis.
Parasitic species with zoonotic potential, namely, T. canis, Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., and E. multilocularis, were identified in 22.0% of dog faeces.
The prevalence of T. canis was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the prevalence of other parasites. A significantly higher positivity was also recorded when comparing the occurrence of Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. with T. leonina, Capillaria spp., Echinococcus spp., and taeniid species prevalence.
A total of 102/495 (20.6%) dogs were infected by only one parasite species. Mixed infections caused by two or three parasitic species were discovered in 4.6% (23/495) and 1.8% (9/495) of animals, respectively (Table 2). The most frequent was the T. canis/T. vulpis and Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp./T. vulpis combination that occurred in six and five dogs, respectively. Mixed infections caused by three helminth species was most often (in four dogs) caused by T. canis, Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., and T. vulpis.
Intestinal parasites were most commonly detected in dogs from segregated Roma settlements in which the prevalence (66.7%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in all the other groups (pet, shelter, guard, working, and hunting dogs). The most frequently observed parasite in this group was Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (35.5%), followed by T. canis (31.1%), Taenia spp. (13.3%), and T. vulpis (13.3%). The most frequent occurrence of mixed infections was also recorded in this category (11/45), with T. canis/Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. being the most common combination.
In the population of shelter dogs, six parasitic species—T. canis (27.8%), T. leonina (1.0%), T. vulpis (9.3%) Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (15.5%), E. multilocularis (1.0%), and Taenia spp. (1.0%)—were detected. Shelter dogs were infected more often than pet and working dogs (p < 0.05), but there were no significant correlations with guard or hunting animals.
The most parasitic species were identified in “pet dogs”, namely, T. canis, T. leonina, T. vulpis, Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., Capillaria spp., E. multilocularis, T. hydatigena, and Taenia spp., with a total of 46 (23.7%) positive animals.
The overall positivity of guard and hunting dogs was similar, reaching 23.1% and 22.4%, respectively.
Working dogs were less frequently infected (p < 0.05) than the dogs of all other categories. One dog (1.3%) was infected with Toxocara canis and one (1.3%) with Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (Table 1).

4. Discussion

Most of the dog intestinal helminths identified in the present study are cosmopolitan in their distribution, but the prevalence of each species was affected by the conditions under which the animals were kept. The overall prevalence of intestinal endoparasites was 27.1%, revealing a relatively frequent occurrence of parasitic infections. Toxocara canis, Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., and Trichuris vulpis were the most prevalent species, reaching 14.7%, 8.3%, and 6.3% prevalence, respectively. Altogether, 22.0% of dogs were infested with zoonotic species, namely, T. canis, Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., and Echinococcus multilocularis. Human Toxocara infection occurs after the accidental ingestion of embryonated eggs from the environment or larvae from undercooked tissues of infected paratenic hosts. Toxocariasis manifests in a range of clinical syndromes, which include visceral and ocular larva migrans, neurotoxocariasis, and covert toxocariasis [22]. A. caninum has been reported to have the potential to cause eosinophilic enteritis, cutaneous larva migrans, or neuroretinitis [23,24]. Similarly, U. stenocephala can cause cutaneous larva migrans in humans [25,26,27]. Although in Slovakia, human cases of cutaneous larva migrans have so far been reported mostly as imported [28,29,30], the 8.3% overall prevalence of Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. recorded in our study highlights the risk of autochthonous infection.
The less frequent—however, regarding human health, the most dangerous—zoonotic parasite recorded in this study was E. multilocularis (2.2%). It causes alveolar echinococcosis, a severe human infection that arises after the accidental ingestion of infective eggs from the contaminated environment, and leads to serious health problems connected primarily with metacestode proliferation in the liver. Without careful clinical management, the disease has a poor prognosis and can result in the death of the patient [31,32]. The non-detection of Dipylidium caninum is likely to be related to the poor sensitivity of coproscopy for the detection of this parasite species. Taking into account also the capability of proglotids of moving several inches per hour, the presence/absence of D. caninum is not considered to be valid in this survey.
In terms of the use of dogs, the most commonly infected were dogs from segregated Roma settlements, where the overall prevalence of parasitic infections reached 66.7%. In this group, seven different species of parasites—T. canis, T. leonina, T. vulpis, Capillaria spp., Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., E. multilocularis, and Taenia spp.—were detected. In these dogs, mixed infections were also most common. The high prevalence of parasites observed in this population may be easily explained, as these animals do not undergo any health control measures and often starve, and thus catch rodents or feed on garbage, which presents a frequent supplementation source to their diet. In dogs from segregated Roma settlements, the most frequently observed parasite was Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp., with 35.5% positivity. The second most prevalent species was T. canis (31.1%). A dog infected with adult worms of T. canis eliminates thousands of eggs each day [33]. In Roma settlements, a large number of people live together with domestic animals. Within the vicinity of such settlements, animal excrements and human faeces concentrate without any appropriate sanitary control [34]. Therefore, the high prevalence of T. canis represents a significant risk for the circulation of infection among animals and its spread to people. A significantly higher risk of human Toxocara infection in segregated Roma settlements was confirmed in the study of Antolová et al. [35], who recorded 22.1% seropositivity to Toxocara in 429 Roma inhabitants of segregated settlements, while only 4 (1.0%) out of 394 samples derived from the non-Roma population were found to be positive. A similar trend was also recorded in Roma children, in whom 40.3% seropositivity (29/67) was recorded, in contrast to only one positive child (2.3%) from the non-Roma population [36].
Shelter dogs were also commonly infected, with parasite eggs observed in 39.2% of faecal samples. As these dogs usually do not receive attention from their owner or do not even have an owner, and in most cases, rarely or never receive antiparasitic treatment, they are at a higher risk of being infected by intestinal parasites. In this category, the most prevalent and also zoonotic parasites were T. canis (27.8%) and Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. (15.5%), and E. multilocularis was also detected in one (1.0%) animal. As dogs in shelters are often free-ranging before arriving at the facility, environmental contamination with parasite eggs has likely already occurred over a fairly dispersed area, resulting in the presence of infectious stages that also pose a risk of infection to owned dogs [37]. A similar prevalence of T. canis (28.1%) was reported in Slovakia in dogs from shelters in the study of Szabová et al. [11], but the occurrence of Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp. eggs was higher (26.8%) at that time.
In our study, the overall prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs was 23.2%. In this group of dogs, seven parasitic species, namely, T. canis (11.3%), T. leonina (2.1%), T. vulpis (5.7%), Capillaria spp. (2.1%), T. hydatigena (1.0%), E. multilocularis (2.6%), and Taenia spp. (1.5%), were detected. The relatively frequent occurrence of parasites in pet dogs may be related to the fact that, especially in villages, these animals are often fed raw meat and have the opportunity to catch rodents. Nonetheless, many pet dogs do not receive consistent veterinary care.
The lower prevalence of parasites in guard and working dogs may be related to the controlled movement of the animals. Moreover, police (working) dogs are predominantly fed with commercial dog food, are regularly dewormed, and are under veterinary control.

5. Conclusions

The results of the presented study showed that the occurrence of intestinal helminths is quite frequent in the majority of the analysed dog groups. A close correlation between the availability of veterinary care and anthelmintic therapy was recorded, as dogs from Roma settlements and shelter dogs were positive the most often. On the other hand, working (police) animals were in the best health conditions in terms of helminthic infections. The relatively frequent occurrence of zoonotic species points to the constant need for preventive measures and regular deworming of dogs.

Author Contributions

J.J., D.A., B.L. and A.M. were involved in the collection of samples and evaluation of results. J.J. and D.A. were responsible for laboratory examination of samples and evaluation of data. J.J. and D.A. contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was supported by the by the Science Grant Agency VEGA project No. 2/0107/20.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Parasitology SAS (protocol code EK/05/2015, 30 November 2015).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McConnell, A.R.; Brown, C.M.; Shoda, T.M.; Stayton, L.E.; Martin, C.E. Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 1239–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Fuentes, R.; Cárdenas, J.; Aluja, A. Cálculo de la población canina en la Ciudad de México, determinación de sus condiciones de atención y su destino. Vet. México 1981, 12, 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruz-Reyes, A. Zoonosis parasitarias. In Microbiología y Parasitología Médicas; Tay, Z., Ed.; Méndez Editores: Coyoacán, Mexico, 1994; p. 989. [Google Scholar]
  4. Traversa, D.; di Regalbono, A.F.; Di Cesare, A.; La Torre, F.; Drake, J.; Pietrobelli, M. Environmental contamination by canine geohelminths. Parasite Vector 2014, 7, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Habluetzel, A.; Traldi, G.; Ruggieri, S.; Attili, A.R.; Scuppa, P.; Marchetti, R.; Esposito, F. An estimation of Toxocara canis prevalence in dogs, environmental egg contamination and risk of human infection in the Marche region of Italy. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 113, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lee, A.C.; Schantz, P.M.; Kazacos, K.R.; Montgomery, S.P.; Bowman, D.D. Epidemiologic and zoonotic aspects of ascarid infections in dogs and cats. Trends Parasitol. 2010, 26, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Poglayen, G.; Marchesi, B. Urban faecal pollution and parasitic risk: The Italian skill. Parassitologia 2006, 48, 117–119. [Google Scholar]
  8. Svobodová, V.; Konvalinková, J.; Svoboda, M. Coprological and serological findings in dogs and cats with giardiosis and cryptosporidiosis. Acta Vet. Brno 1994, 63, 257–262. [Google Scholar]
  9. Deplazes, P.; Eichenberg, R.M.; Grimm, F. Wildlife-transmitted Taenia and Versteria cysticercosis and coenurosis in humans and other primates. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2019, 9, 342–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Votýpka, J.; Kolářová, I.; Horák, P. O parazitech a lidech; Triton: Praha, Czech Republic, 2018; 348p. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  11. Szabová, E.; Juriš, P.; Miterpáková, M.; Antolová, D.; Papajová, I.; Šefčíková, H. Prevalence of zoonotic important parasites in dog population from the Slovak Republic. Helminthologia 2007, 44, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Antolová, D.; Reiterová, K.; Miterpáková, M.; Dinkel, A.; Dubinský, P. The first finding of Echinococcus multilocularis in dogs in Slovakia: An emerging risk for spreading of infection. Zoonoses Public Hlth 2008, 56, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Freeman, L.M.; Chandler, M.L.; Hamper, B.A.; Weeth, L.P. Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat–based diets for dogs and cats. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2013, 243, 1549–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Morelli, G.; Bastianello, S.; Catellani, P.; Ricci, R. Raw meat-based diets for dogs: Survey of owners’ motivations, attitudes and practices. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dubná, S.; Langrová, I.; Nápravník, J.; Jankovská, I.; Vadlejch, J.; Pekár, S.; Fechtner, J. The prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Prague, rural areas, and shelters of the Czech Republic. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 145, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mojžišová, J.; Goldová, M. Infekčné a Parazitárne Choroby psov., 2nd ed.; Universtity of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy in Košice: Košice, Slovak Rebublic, 2011; 97p. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  17. Dinkel, A.; von Nickisch-Rosenegk, M.; Bilger, B.; Merli, M.; Lucius, R.; Romig, T. Detection of Echinococcus multilocularis in the definitive host: Coprodiagnosis as an alternative to necropsy. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998, 36, 1871–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Dyachenko, V.; Beck, E.; Pantchev, N.; Bauer, C. Cost-effective method of DNA extraction from taeniid eggs. Parasitol. Res. 2008, 102, 811–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dinkel, A.; Njoroge, E.M.; Zimmermann, A.; Wälz, M.; Zeyhle, E.; Elmahdi, I.E.; Mackenstedt, U.; Romig, T. A PCR system for detection of species and genotypes of the Echinococcus granulosus-complex, with reference to the epidemiological situation in eastern Africa. Int. J. Parasitol. 2004, 34, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bowles, J.; McManus, D.P. NADH dehydrogenase 1 gene sequences compared for species and strains of the genus Echinococcus. Int. J. Parasitol. 1993, 23, 969–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Reiczigel, J.; Marozzi, M.; Fabian, I.; Rozsa, L. Biostatistics for parasitologists—A primer to quantitative parasitology. Trends Parasitol. 2019, 35, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Macpherson Calumn, N.L. The epidemiology and public health importance of toxocariasis: A zoonosis of global importance. Int. J. Parasitol. 2013, 43, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Prociv, P.; Croese, J. Human enteric infection with Ancylostoma caninum: Hookworms reappraised in the light of a “new” zoonosis. Acta Trop. 1996, 62, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hawdon, J.M.; Wise, K.A. Ancylostoma caninum and Other Canine Hookworms. In Dog Parasites Endangering Human Health Parasitology Research Monographs; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 13, pp. 147–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Astrup, A. Uncinaria stenocephala as a cause of skin disorder in a human. Ugeskr. Laeger 1945, 107, 1001. (In Danish) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Hochedez, P.; Caumes, E. Hookworm-Related Cutaneous Larva Migrans. J. Travel Med. 2007, 14, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rodriguez-Morales, A.J.; González-Leal, N.; Montes-Montoya, M.C.; Fernández-Espíndola, L.; Bonilla-Aldana, D.K.; Azeñas-Burgoa, J.M.; Diez de Medina, J.C.; Rotela-Fisch, V.; Bermudez-Calderon, M.; Arteaga-Livias, K.; et al. Cutaneous Larva Migrans. Curr. Trop. Med. Rep. 2021, 8, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rosoľanka, R.; Nováková, E. Larva migrans cutanea—An imported skin disease and possibilities of treatment. Praktický lékař 2016, 96, 149–151. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  29. Bánovčin, P.; Rosoľanka, R.; Šimeková, K.; Szilágyiová, M.; Masná, J. Imported skin parasitosis. Cas Lek Cesk Summer 2018, 157, 208–210. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  30. Nemšovská, J.; Švecová, D. Kutánna larva migrans-importovaná parazitárna infekcia. [Cutaneous larva migrans-imported parasitic infection.]. Čes-slov Derm 2018, 93, 174–178. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  31. Eckert, J.; Deplazes, P. Biological, epidemiological, and clinical sspects of echinococcosis, a zoonosis of increasing concern. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 17, 107–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Šimeková, K.; Rosoľanka, R.; Szilágyová, M.; Antolová, D.; Nováková, E.; Novák, M.; Laca, Ľ.; Sadloňová, J.; Šoltýs, J. Alveolar echinococcosis of the liver with a rare infiltration of the adrenal gland. Helminthologia 2021, 58, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Genchi, C.; Di Sacco, B.; Gatti, S.; Sangalli, G.; Scaglia, M. Epidemiology of human toxocariasis in Northern Italy. Parassitologia 1990, 32, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Pipíková, J.; Papajová, I.; Šoltys, J.; Schusterová, I.; Kočišová, D.; Toháthyová, A. Segregated settlements increased risk for the parasite infections spread in Northeastern Slovakia. Helminthologia 2017, 54, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Antolová, D.; Jarčuška, P.; Janičko, M.; Madarasová-Gecková, A.; Halánová, M.; Čisláková, L.; Kalinová, Z.; Reiterová, K.; Škutová, M.; Pella, D.; et al. Seroprevalence of human Toxocara infections among the Roma and non-Roma population of Eastern Slovakia: Cross sectional study. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 2249–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Fecková, M.; Antolová, D.; Zaleśny, G.; Halánová, M.; Štrkolcová, G.; Goldová, M.; Weissová, T.; Lukáč, B.; Nováková, M. Seroepidemiology of human toxocariasis in selected population groups in Slovakia: A cross-sectional study. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1107–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Little, S.E.; Johnson, E.M.; Lewis, D.; Jaklitsch, R.P.; Payton, M.E.; Blagburn, B.L.; Bowman, D.D.; Moroff, S.; Tams, T.; Rich, L.; et al. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs in the United States. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 166, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Occurrence of intestinal helminths in dogs based on their origin.
Table 1. Occurrence of intestinal helminths in dogs based on their origin.
Helminth SpeciesPet Dogs
n = 194
(N/%)		Shelter Dogs
n = 97
(N/%)		Dogs from Segregated Roma Settlements
n = 45 (N/%)		Guard Dogs
n = 13
(N/%)		Working Dogs
n = 79
(N/%)		Hunting Dogs
n = 67
(N/%)		Total
n = 495
(N/%)		95% CI
Toxocara canis *22/11.327/27.814/31.13/23.01/1.36/9.073/14.711.7–18.2
Toxascaris leonina4/2.11/1.02/4.40/0.00/0.01/1.58/1.60.7–3.2
Trichuris vulpis11/5.79/9.36/13.30/0.00/0.05/7.531/6.34.3–8.8
Capillaria spp.4/2.10/0.02/4.40/0.00/0.01/1.57/1.40.6–2.9
Ancylostoma/Uncinaria spp.*9/4.615/15.516/35.50/0.01/1.30/0.041/8.36.2–11.4
Taeniid species8/4.12/2.16/13.31/7.80/0.03/4.520/4.02.5–6.2
Echinococcus multilocularis *3/1.51/1.03/6.61/7.80/0.03/4.511/2.21.1–3.9
Echinococcus canadensis *0/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00.0–0.6
Echinococcus granulosus s.s *0/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00.0–0.6
Taenia hydatigena2/1.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.02/0.40.1–1.2
Taenia spp.3/1.51/1.03/6.60/0.00/0.00/0.07/1.40.6–2.9
Dipylidium caninum *0/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.00/0.0
Totally Infected **
95% CI		46/23.7
17.5–29.8		38/39.2
29.4–49.6		30/66.7
51.1–80.0		3/23.1
5.0–53.8		2/2.5
0.3–8.9		15/22.4
13.1–34.2		134/27.1
23.2–31.2
n—number of examined; N—number of positive; %—prevalence; 95% CI—95% confidence interval; * zoonotic species; ** some animals suffered from mixed infection.
Table
Table 2. Occurrence of mixed infections in dogs.
Table 2. Occurrence of mixed infections in dogs.
Occurrence of Mixed InfectionPet Dogs
n = 194
(N/%)		Shelter Dogs
n = 97
(N/%)		Dogs from Segregated Roma Settlements
n = 45 (N/%)		Guard Dogs
n = 13
(N/%)		Working Dogs
n = 79
(N/%)		Hunting Dogs
n = 67
(N/%)		Total
n = 495
(N/%)		95% CI
One helminth species36/18.529/29.919/42.22/15.42/2.514/20.9102/20.617.1–24.4
Two helminth species8/4.16/6.27/15.61/7.70/0.01/1.523/4.72.9–6.9
Three helminth species2/1.03/3.14/8.90/0.00/0.00/0.09/1.80.83–3.4
n—number of examined; N—number of positive; %—prevalence; 95% CI—95% confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jarošová, J.; Antolová, D.; Lukáč, B.; Maďari, A. A Survey of Intestinal Helminths of Dogs in Slovakia with an Emphasis on Zoonotic Species. Animals 2021, 11, 3000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11103000

AMA Style

Jarošová J, Antolová D, Lukáč B, Maďari A. A Survey of Intestinal Helminths of Dogs in Slovakia with an Emphasis on Zoonotic Species. Animals. 2021; 11(10):3000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11103000

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jarošová, Júlia, Daniela Antolová, Branislav Lukáč, and Aladár Maďari. 2021. "A Survey of Intestinal Helminths of Dogs in Slovakia with an Emphasis on Zoonotic Species" Animals 11, no. 10: 3000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11103000

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop