4.4 Article

Breed and Sex Risk Factors for Canine Babesiosis in South Africa

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1186-1189

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.00779.x

关键词

Babesia; Babesiosis; Breed; Canine; Risk factor; South Africa

资金

  1. Roslin Clinical Pump Priming Award
  2. BBSRC [BBS/E/D/05191133] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/D/05191133] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In South Africa, canine babesiosis typically is an acute disease in susceptible individuals and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Despite the importance of the disease, there have been no large studies that have examined the influence of breed and sex on disease susceptibility. Hypothesis: Toy breeds have a lower risk of babesiosis than working dogs. Animals: A total of 1,222 dogs diagnosed with canine babesiosis and 11,484 noninfected dogs presented to the Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital's small animal outpatient clinic between 2004 and 2010. Methods: Retrospective study. Results: Intact male, neutered male, and neutered female dogs had a significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with canine babesiosis compared to intact female dogs. Five of the 6 Toy breeds had significantly lower odds of being diagnosed with canine babesiosis than did the reference breed, Labrador Retrievers. In contrast, none of the 8 working dog breeds had significantly lower odds compared to the reference breed. Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Intact male, neutered male, and neutered female dogs were at increased risk of canine babesiosis compared to intact female dogs. Several dog breeds, notably Toy breeds, had a lower risk of babesiosis in a hospital population of dogs in South Africa. The mechanism or mechanisms by which Toy breeds are protected from developing canine babesiosis may be related to genetic background or environmental exposure and deserves further study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据