Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:38:40.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epidemiology of canicola fever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. I. M. McIntyre  and
H. E. Seiler
W. I. M. McIntyre
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh University School of Veterinary Studies and the Public Health Department, Edinburgh
H. E. Seiler
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh University School of Veterinary Studies and the Public Health Department, Edinburgh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The results of an investigation into the incidence of canicola fever amongst owners of dogs infected with L. canicola is described.

Visits were made to forty-six households in which infected dogs lived. Altogether 137 household contacts were examined and blood samples from 99 or 72·3 % were tested for agglutination against L. canicola. All the sera proved negative.

A detailed classification of the kinds and conditions of housing and of householders is given.

Some of the difficulties in explaining the relationship between the disease in dogs and man are discussed; the results of the present survey and the experience with some reported cases of human canicola fever show that there is great variation in the risk of infection to owners and others hving in the same house with diseased dogs.

Some other source of infection common to man and dog is possible.

It is recommended that in the light of present knowledge greater attention should be paid to the preventive aspect and that more propaganda should be directed to make dog owners aware of the possibilities of infection and of the importance of observing hygienic principles when handling dogs and particularly when dealing with dejecta.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1953 , pp. 330 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

References

Baber, M. D. & Stuart, R. D. (1946). Lancet, 2, 594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, J. C. (1951 a). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. no. 10, 258.Google Scholar
Broom, J. C. (1951 b). Brit. med. J. 2, 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, J. C. & MacIntyre, A. B. (1948). Vet. Rec. 60, 487.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. M. G., Macrae, J., Manderson, W. G., Sumner, K. C. & Broom, J. C. (1950). Brit. med. J. 1, 336.Google Scholar
Joe, A. & Sangster, G. (1951). Edinb. med. J. 58, 140.Google Scholar
Laurent, L. J. M., Norris, T. ST, M.Starks, J. M. Starks, J. M., Broom, J. C. & Alston, J. M. (1948). Lancet, 2, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcintyre, W. I. M. & Montgomery, G. L. (1952). J. Path. Bact. 64, 145.Google Scholar
Stuart, R. D. (1946). Vet. Rec. 58, 131.Google Scholar
Tiffany, E. J. & Martorana, N. F. (1942). Amer. J. Hyg. 36, 195.Google Scholar
Weetch, R. S., Colquhoun, J. & Broom, J. C. (1949). Lancet, 1, 906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar