Comparisons of Clinical Findings and Serological Data in the Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniosis

This study aimed to evaluate clinical signs related with canine leishmaniosis (CanL) and to determine their relation with serological results in the differential diagnosis of this disease in dog populations. A total of 253 dogs from houses and a dog shelter in Kuşadası, an endemic region for leishmaniosis, were investigated for clinical signs related to CanL. Sera collected from the study group were examined by indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA), whole ELISA and rK39 ELISA tests for the serological diagnosis. Popliteal lymph node aspiration materials were examined for the parasitological diagnosis. Clinical signs were separated into two groups as cutaneous and visceral signs and no clinical signs were observed in 51.7% (131/253) of the dogs, while 48.3% (122/253) of the dogs had at least one sign. A total of 42 dogs [29 (23.7%) in the symptomatic and 13 (9.9%) in the asymptomatic group] were diagnosed as CanL serologically and/or parasitologically. Two strains were isolated and identified as Leishmania infantum MON-1. There was no correlation between IFAT titers and the number of the clinical signs (P > 0.05; R square = 0.002). Weight loss was found to be the most common sign of CanL while epistaxis was the least common but specific sign. The seropositivity ratio of CanL is 16.6% (42/253) among dogs in the region and clinical signs were found to be helpful for suspecting CanL but at least one serological and/or parasitological method should be performed for the accurate and differential diagnosis in the dogs. Our findings also showed that the one-third of the dogs in an endemic area for CanL could be asymptomatic.

Comparisons of Clinical Findings and Serological Data in the Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniosis

This study aimed to evaluate clinical signs related with canine leishmaniosis (CanL) and to determine their relation with serological results in the differential diagnosis of this disease in dog populations. A total of 253 dogs from houses and a dog shelter in Kuşadası, an endemic region for leishmaniosis, were investigated for clinical signs related to CanL. Sera collected from the study group were examined by indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA), whole ELISA and rK39 ELISA tests for the serological diagnosis. Popliteal lymph node aspiration materials were examined for the parasitological diagnosis. Clinical signs were separated into two groups as cutaneous and visceral signs and no clinical signs were observed in 51.7% (131/253) of the dogs, while 48.3% (122/253) of the dogs had at least one sign. A total of 42 dogs [29 (23.7%) in the symptomatic and 13 (9.9%) in the asymptomatic group] were diagnosed as CanL serologically and/or parasitologically. Two strains were isolated and identified as Leishmania infantum MON-1. There was no correlation between IFAT titers and the number of the clinical signs (P > 0.05; R square = 0.002). Weight loss was found to be the most common sign of CanL while epistaxis was the least common but specific sign. The seropositivity ratio of CanL is 16.6% (42/253) among dogs in the region and clinical signs were found to be helpful for suspecting CanL but at least one serological and/or parasitological method should be performed for the accurate and differential diagnosis in the dogs. Our findings also showed that the one-third of the dogs in an endemic area for CanL could be asymptomatic.

___

  • Gradoni, L.M.: Canine reservoir of zoonotic visceral leishmaniosis in the Mediterranean area: Epidemiology and control. Information Circular, WHO Mediterranean Zoonoses Control Center, Greece. 1995. 2.
  • Lanotte, G., Rioux, J.A., Perieres, J., Vollhardt, J.: Ecologie des
  • leishmanioses dans le sud de la France. 10-Les formes avolutives
  • de la leishmaniose viscerale canine. Elaboration d'une typologie
  • bioclinique a finalite epidemiologique. Ann. Parasitol. Hum.
  • Comp., 1979; 54: 277-295. 3. Lappin, M.R.: Protozoal and Miscellaneous Infections. In: Ettinger S.J., Feldman E.C., Eds. Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine. WB Saunders Company, 5th Edition, 2000; 415.
  • Blavier, A., Keroack, S., Denerolle, P.H., Goy-Thollot, I.,
  • Chabanne, L., Cadore, J.L., Bourdoiseau, G.: Atypical forms of canine leishmaniosis. Vet. J., 2001; 162: 108-120.
  • Harith, A.E., Slappendel, R.J., Reiter, I., Van Knapen, F., De Korte, P., Huigen, E., Kolk, A.H.J.: Application of a direct agglutination test for detection of specific anti-Leishmania antibodies in the canine reservoir. J. Clin. Microbiol., 1989; 27: 2252-2257.
  • Abranches, P., Silva-Pereira, M.C.D., Conceiao-Silva, F.M.,
  • Santos-Gomes, G.M., Janz, J.G.: Canine Leishmaniosis: pathological and ecological factors influencing transmission of infection. J. Parasitol., 1991; 77: 557-561.
  • Oskam, L., Slappendel, R.J., Beijer, E.G.M., Kroon, N.C.M., Van Ingen, C.W., Özensoy, S., Özbel, Y., Terpstra, W.J.: Dog-DAT: a direct agglutination test using stabilized, freeze-dried antigen for the serodiagnosis of canine visceral leishmaniosis. FEMS Imm. Med. Microbiol., 1996; 16: 235-239.
  • Özensoy, S., Özbel, Y., Turgay, N., Alkan, M.Z., Gül, K., Gilman- Sachs, A., Chang, K.P., Reed, S.G., Özcel, M.A.: Serodiagnosis and epidemiology of visceral leishmaniosis in Turkey. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 1998; 59: 363-369.
  • Ferrer LM.: Clinical aspects of canine leishmaniasis. Canine
  • Leishmaniasis: an update. Proceedings of the International Canine Leishmaniasis Forum, Barcelona Spain. 1999; 6-10.
  • Özensoy Töz, S., Ertabaklar, H., Özbel, Y., Balcıoğlu, I.C., Yıldızlı, N., Alkan, M.Z.: Seroprevalance of canine visceral leishmaniasis in Kufladasi / Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 2005; 29: 23-26.
  • Moritz, A., Steuber, S., Greiner, M.: Clinical follow-up examination after treatment of canine leishmaniosis. Tokai J. Exp. Clin. Med., 1999; 23: 279-283.
  • Paranhos-Silva, M., Freitas, L.A.R., Santos, W.C., Grimaldi, G.Jr., Pontes-De-Carvalho, L.C., Oliveira-Dos-Santos, A.J.: A cross- sectional serodiagnostic survey of canine leishmaniosis due to Leishmania chagasi. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 1996; 55: 39-44.
  • Berrahal, F., Mary, C., Roze, M., Berenger, A., Escoffier, K., Lamouroux Dunan, S.: Canine Leishmaniosis: Identification of asymptomatic carriers by PCR and immunoblotting. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 1996; 55: 273-277.
  • Özbel, Y., Oskam, L., Özensoy, S., Turgay, N., Alkan, M.Z., Jaffe, C.L., Özcel, M.A.: A survey on canine leishmaniosis in western Turkey by parasite, DNA and antibody detection assays. Acta Trop., 2000; 74: 1-6.
  • Gönül, R., Arun, S.S., Dodurka, T., Handemir, E.: Bir köpekte Leishmania infantum olgusu. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 2002; 26: 689-694.
  • Strauss-Ayali, D., Baneth, G.: Canine visceral leishmaniosis. In: Carmichael L. Ed. Recent Advances in Canine Infectious Disease. International Veterinary Information Service (www.ivis.org), Ithaca, New York, USA. 2000.