Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Parasitologica

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.160
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.185

CiteScore 2016: 1.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.532
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.721

Online
ISSN
1896-1851
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 61, Issue 3 (Sep 2016)

Issues

Prevalence and risk factors associated with endoparasitosis of dogs and cats in Espírito Santo, Brazil

Diefrey Ribeiro Campos
  • Veterinarian, Graduate Program in Veterinary Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo. Brazil. CAPES Fellow
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Luanna Castro Oliveira / Daniele Fassina de Siqueira / Lívia Reisen Perin / Nayara Camatta Campos / Karina Preising Aptekmann
  • Veterinarian, Dr. Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Isabella Vilhena Freire Martins
  • Corresponding author
  • Veterinarian, Dr. Federal Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Espírito Santo. Alto Universitário s/n, Guararema PO Box 16, Alegre - ES 29500–000, Brazil
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-07-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0072

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and risk factors for the occurrence of endoparasitosis in dogs and cats in Espírito Santo, Brazil. For the study, 345 dogs and 160 cats were examined. Faecal samples from the animals were collected, and owners were interviewed about their handling of their animals. For the diagnosis of the infections, the Willis-Molley, simple centrifugal flotation and formalin-ether sedimentation techniques were performed. The data found in the tests were tabulated and analysed with a chi-square test (p <0.05), and calculation of odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals of 95% were then performed to determine the association between the variables and the outcome of stool examinations. The prevalence of parasites was 59% for dogs and 54% for cats. The genus Ancylostoma was the most prevalent (45%). Supplying filtered water, not feeding raw foods, standardisation of a defecation site and cleaning up the faeces reduced the chances of developing intestinal parasites. An increased frequency of deworming was also shown to be a protective factor; specifically animals which received anthelmintic more than once a year had a lower predisposition for intestinal parasites.

Keywords: Faecal exams; intestinal parasites; pets; prevalence; risk factors; worms

References

  • Blaszkowska J., Wojcik A., Kurnatowski P., Szwabe K. 2013. Geohelminth egg contamination of children’s areas in the city of Lodz (Poland). Veterinary Parasitology, 192, 228–233. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bresciani K.D.S., Ishizaki M.N., Kaneto C.N., Montano T.R.P., Perri S.H.V., Vasconcelos R.O., Do Nascimento A.A. 2008. Parasitary frequency and intensity of gastroenteric helmints in dogs in Araçatuba´S urban area, SP. Ars Veterinária, 24, 181–185. DOI: (In Portuguese)CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Coelho W.M.D., Amarante A.F.T., Soutello R.V.G., Meireles M.V., Bresciani K.D.S. 2009. Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples of cats in Andradina City, São Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria, 18, 46–49. DOI: (In Portuguese)CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dall´Agnol L.P., Otto M.A., Da Silva A. S., Monteiro S.G. 2010. Gastrointestinal parasites in naturally infected cats in the municipality of Santa Maria in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Acta Veterinária Brasilica, 4, 181–184 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar

  • Eguia-Aguilar P., Cruz-Reyes A., Martinez-Maya J.J. 2005. Ecological analysis and description of the intestinal helminths present in dogs in Mexico City. Veterinary Parasitology, 127, 139–146. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fortes E. 1987. Parasitologia Veterinaria. Sullivan, Porto Alegre. pp. 455Google Scholar

  • Funada M.R., Pena H.F.J., Soares R.M., Amaku M., Gennari S.M. 2007. Frequency of gastrointestinal parasites in dogs and cats referred to a veterinary school hospital in the city of São Paulo. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinària e Zootecnia, 59, 1338–1340Google Scholar

  • Gajadhar A.A., Allen J.R. 2004. Factors contributing to the public health and economic importance of waterborne zoonotic parasites. Veterinary Parasitology, 126, 3–14. DOI: (In Portuguese)CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gawor J., Borecka A. 2015. Risk of soil-transmitted helminth infections on agritourism farms in central and eastern Poland. Acta Parasitologica, 60, 716–72. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gennari S.M., Kasai N., Pena H.F.J., Cortez A. 1999. Occurrence of protozoa and helminths in faecal samples of dogs and cats from São Paulo city. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science, 36, 87–91. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gracenea M., Gómez M.S., Torres J. 2009. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in shelter dogs and cats in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain). Acta Parasitologica, 54, 73–77. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kopp S.R., Kotze A.C., Coleman G.T. 2008. Application of in vitro anthelmintic sensitivity assays to canine parasitology: Detecting resistance to pyrantel in Ancylostoma caninum. Veterinary Parasitology, 152, 284–293. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kopp, S.R., Kotze A.C., McCarthy J.S., Coleman G.T. 2007. High-level pyrantel resistance in the hookworm Ancylostoma caninum. Veterinary Parasitology, 143, 299–304. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lorenzini G., Tasca T., De Carli G.A. 2007. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs and cats under veterinary care in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research, 2, 137 – 145 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar

  • Magnaval J.F., Glickman L.T., Dorchies P. 1994. Toxocariasis a major helminth zoonosis. Revue de Médecine Vetérinaire, 145, 611–627. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mircean V., Titilincu A., Vasile C. 2010. Prevalence of endoparasites in household cat (Felis catus) populations from Transylvania (Romania) and association with risk factors. Veterinary Parasitology, 171, 163–166 DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Mundim T.C.D., Oliveira Júnior S.D., Rodrigues D.C., Cury M.C. 2004. Frequency of helminthes parasites in cats of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia, 56, 562–563 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar

  • Nareaho A., Puomio J., Saarinen K., Jokelainen P., Juselius T., Sukura A. 2012. Feline intestinal parasites in Finland: prevalence, risk factors and anthelmintic treatment practices. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 14, 378–383. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Palmer C.S., Thompson R.C., Traub R.J., Rees R., Robertson I.D. 2008. National study of the gastrointestinal parasites of dogs and cats in Australia. Veterinary Parasitology, 151, 181–190Google Scholar

  • Oliveira-Sequeira T., Amarante A.F.T., Ferrari T.B., Nunes L.C. 2002. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs from Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Veterinary Parasitology, 103, 19–27. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pereira M. G. 1995. Epidemiologia: teoria e prática. Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro. pp. 596Google Scholar

  • Pivoto F.L., Lopes L.F.D., Flores F.S.F., Vogel S.A.B., Sangioni L.A. 2013. Occurrence of gastrointestinal parasites and parasitism risk factors in domestic cats in Santa Maria, RS, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 43, 1453–1458 (In Portuguese)Google Scholar

  • Pullola T., Vierimaa J., Saari S., Vinala A.M., Nikander S. 2006. Canine intestinal helminths in Finland: Prevalence, risk factors and endoparasite control practices. Veterinary Parasitology, 140, 321–326. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ramirez-Barrioes R.A., Barboza-Mena G., Munoz J., Angulo-Cubillan F., Hernandez E., Gonzalez F., Escalona F. 2004. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs under veterinary care in Maracaibo, Venezuela. Veterinary Parasitology, 121, 11–20. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ribeiro L.M., Dracz R.M., Mozzer L.R., Lima W.S. 2013. Soil contamination in public squares in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, by canine Parasites in diferente developmental stages. Revista Intituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 55, 229–231. DOI: (In Portuguese)CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Ritchie L.S. 1948. An ether sedimentation technique for a routine stool examinations. Bulletin of the United States Army Medical Departament, 8, 326Google Scholar

  • Robertson I.D., Irwin P.J., Lymbery A.J., Thompson R.C.A. 2000. The role of companion animals in the emergence of parasitic zoonoses. Institute Journal Parasitology, 30, 1369–1377. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Romano N., Soo C.L., Nan J.Y., Tiong K.T., Roslan M.A., Kek H.C., Shafie A., Wan Y.W.S., Arine F.A., Rohela M., Yvonne L.A. L. 2014. Gastrointestinal parasites in rural dogs and cats in Selangor and Pahang states in Peninsular Malaysia. Acta Parasitologica, 59, 737–744. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Serra C.M.B., Uchôa C.M.A., Coimbra R.A. 2003. Parasitological study with faecal samples of stray and domiciliated cats (Felis catus domesticus) from the Metropolitan Area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 36, 331–334. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sloss M.W., Zajac A.M., Kemp, R.L. 1999. Parasitologia Clínica Veterinária. Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 198Google Scholar

  • Soulsby E.J.L. 1987. Parasitologia y enfermedades parasitarias en los animales domésticos. Interamericana, México, pp. 823Google Scholar

  • Stalliviere F.M., Bellato V., Souza A.P.de, Sartor A.A., Moura A.B.de, Rosa L.D. 2009. Ectoparasites and intestinal helminthes in Felis catus domesticus from Lages city, SC, Brazil and social-economical and cultural aspects of owners of family pets. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária, 18, 26–31. DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traversa D. 2012. Pet roundworms and hookworms: A continuing need for global worming. Parasites & Vectors, 5, 91. DOI: CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Urquhart G.M., Armour J., Duncan J.L., Dunn A.M., Jennings F.W. Parasitologia Veterinária. 2a. Ed.. Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro. 1998. pp. 306Google Scholar

  • Vasconcellos M.C., Barros J.S.L., Oliveira C.S. 2006. Intestinal parasitic helminths in institutionalized dogs of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40, 321–323. DOI: (In Portuguese)CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Willis H.H. 1921. A simple levitation method for the detection of hookworm ova. Medical Journal of Australia, 8, 375–376Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-08-19

Revised: 2016-02-01

Accepted: 2016-03-09

Published Online: 2016-07-21

Published in Print: 2016-09-01


Citation Information: Acta Parasitologica, ISSN (Online) 1896-1851, ISSN (Print) 1230-2821, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0072.

Export Citation

© W. Stefański Institute of Parasitology, PAS. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in