Objective—To determine demographic characteristics of dogs from the upper Midwest infected with Anaplasma phagocytophilum and identify clinical and clinicopathologic abnormalities and response to treatment.
Design—Retrospective case series and owner telephone survey.
Animals—34 dogs with granulocytic anaplasmosis.
Procedures—Records were reviewed for information on signalment, history, physical examination findings, clinicopathologic and serologic findings, and treatment. Owners were contacted by telephone within 4 months after dogs were discharged.
Results—Median age was 8 years. Distribution of month of diagnosis was bimodal, with 15 dogs examined during May or June and 11 others examined during October or November. Camping and hiking were the most frequently reported tick exposure activities. Lethargy (25/34) and anorexia (21/34) were the most common initial complaints, fever was the most common clinical sign (27/32), and thrombocytopenia was the most common clinicopathologic abnormality (21/22). Fifteen of 20 dogs were seropositive for antibodies against A phagocytophilum. Doxycycline was prescribed for 31 dogs, and clinical signs and fever resolved within 3 to 5 days. Median time for platelet count to return to reference limits was 7 days. No owners reported clinical sequelae when contacted after dogs were discharged.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that granulocytic anaplasmosis should be suspected in dogs in endemic areas examined because of fever, lethargy, or thrombocytopenia, especially in dogs examined during the late spring or early fall. Treatment with doxycycline was successful in resolving clinical signs and thrombocytopenia.
Procedures—Surveys were used to collect data on demographics, personal characteristics, injury occurrences in the 12 months prior to survey completion, and injury consequences. Annual injury rates were estimated on the basis of demographic and work-related characteristics. Risk of injury associated with various factors was estimated by calculation of incidence rate ratios, controlling for multiple factors.
Results—465 of 873 eligible CVTs reported 1,827 injury events (total and bite injury rates, 237 and 78 injuries/100 persons/y). Primary injury sources were cats and dogs, and most injuries occurred during animal restraint or treatment. Self-reported most severe injuries involved bites; cuts, lacerations, or scratches; bruises or contusions; and abrasions. Injury consequences included treatment and restricted work activity. Risk of work-related injury was lower for CVTs who worked < 40 h/wk than for those who worked ≥ 40 h/wk. The risk was higher for CVTs working in small animal or mixed mostly small animal facilities and lower for those working in mixed large and small animal facilities, commercial or industry operations, and government or regulatory facilities, compared with CVTs in colleges or universities. Handling 4 to > 6 (vs < 4) animal species during the 12 months prior to the survey and belief that injuries are not preventable were also associated with higher risk of injury.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Several factors associated with the risk of work-related injury among CVTs were identified. Beyond these risk factors, investigation of additional exposures is integral to relevant intervention strategies.
Procedures—A questionnaire was mailed to CVTs who previously participated in a survey regarding work-related injuries and did (cases; 301 surveys sent) or did not (controls; 567) report qualifying work-related animal bite injuries in the preceding 12 months. Descriptive statistics were summarized. Demographic and work-related variables for the month preceding the bite injury (for cases) or a randomly selected month (controls) were assessed with univariate analysis (489 CVTs) and multivariate analysis of a subset of 337 CVTs who worked in small or mixed mostly small animal facilities.
Results—Responses were received from 176 case and 313 control CVTs. For the subset of 337 CVTs, risk of bite injury was higher for those < 25 years of age (OR, 3.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84 to 7.94) than for those ≥ 35 years of age, for those who had worked < 5 years (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.63 to 6.45) versus ≥ 10 years in any veterinary facility, and for those who handled ≥ 5 species/d (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.74) versus < 3 species/d. Risk was lower for CVTs who handled < 10 versus ≥ 20 animals/d (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.71).
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Several work-related factors were associated with the risk of work-related bite injury to CVTs. These findings may serve as a basis for development of intervention efforts and future research regarding work-related injuries among veterinary staff.
Objective—To assess the number of zoonotic disease
outbreaks associated with animal exhibits and
identify published recommendations for preventing
zoonotic disease transmission from animals to people
in exhibit settings.
Design—Literature review and survey of state public
health veterinarians and state epidemiologists.
Procedure—MEDLINE and agriculture databases
were searched from 1966 through 2000. Retrieved
references and additional resources provided by the
authors were reviewed. A survey was sent to state
public health veterinarians and state epidemiologists
to determine whether their states had written
recommendations or guidelines for controlling
zoonotic diseases in animal exhibition venues,
whether their states maintained a listing of animal
exhibitors in the state, and whether they had any
information on recent outbreaks involving animals in
Results—11 published outbreaks were identified.
These outbreaks occurred in a variety of settings
including petting zoos, farms, and a zoological park.
An additional episode involving exposure to a potentially
rabid bear required extensive public health
resources. A survey of state public health veterinarians
identified 16 additional unpublished outbreaks or
incidents. Most states did not have written recommendations
or guidelines for controlling zoonotic diseases
or any means to disseminate educational materials
to animal exhibitors.
Conclusions—Recent outbreaks of zoonotic diseases
associated with contact with animals in exhibition
venues highlight concerns for disease transmission
to public visitors. Only a handful of states have
written guidelines for preventing zoonotic disease
transmission in animal exhibition venues, and published
recommendations currently available focus on
preventing enteric diseases and largely do not
address other zoonotic diseases or prevention of bite
wounds. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224:1105–1109)