Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-jcfbx Total loading time: 0.358 Render date: 2022-01-26T12:08:23.472Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Hatay province, Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

M. Yaman
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mustafa Kemal, 31040Hatay, Turkey
M. Guzel*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Mustafa Kemal, 31040Hatay, Turkey
I.S. Koltas
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cukurova, 01330Adana, Turkey
M. Demirkazik
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cukurova, 01330Adana, Turkey
H. Aktas
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cukurova, 01330Adana, Turkey
*
*Fax: +90 3262455704 E-mail: muratguzel05@gmail.com

Abstract

The present study was conducted to determine the prevalence of canine dirofilariosis in Hatay province, south of Turkey. A total of 269 blood samples were collected from owned dogs in this multi-centre survey between March and July 2006. Blood samples were examined by modified Knott and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques to detect circulating microfilariae and antigens of Dirofilaria immitis, respectively. Seventy out of 269 dogs (26.0%) were positive for D. immitis. However, 61.4% of positive dogs had occult infection. The prevalence of canine dirofilariosis was heterogeneous in Hatay province, with higher values in shoreline (33.0%) and riverside (30.9%) areas followed by the lowland (25.5%) or mountainous (15.2%) areas. No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to sex (females, 33.3%; males, 24.4%, P>0.05). When evaluating the prevalence of D. immitis by age, the highest prevalence was observed in dogs older than 4 years of age. Large breeds (29.6%) and the dogs living outdoors (30.2%) showed a higher prevalence in comparison to small breeds (21.4%) and the dogs living indoors (10.5%), respectively. In conclusion, according to the results of this study canine dirofilariosis had a high prevalence in Hatay province. Therefore, prophylaxis against heartworm is advisable to decrease the incidence of canine dirofilariosis.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agaoglu, Z., Akgul, Y., Ceylan, E. & Akkan, H. (2000) The incidence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs in Van province. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Yüzüncü Yıl 11, 4143.Google Scholar
Alves, L.C., de Almeida Silva, L.V., Faustino, M.A., McCall, J.W., Supakonderj, P., Labarthe, N.W., Sanchez, M. & Caires, O. (1999) Survey of canine heartworm in the city of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 94, 587590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aranda, C., Panyella, O., Eritja, R. & Castella, J. (1998) Canine filariasis: importance and transmission in the Baix Llobregat area, Barcelona (Spain). Veterinary Parasitology 77, 267275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atas, A.D., Ozcelik, S. & Saygi, G. (1997) Sivas sokak köpeklerinde görülen helmint türleri, bunların yayılısı ve halk sağlıgı yönünden önemi. Acta Parasitologica Turcica 21, 305309.Google Scholar
Atkins, C.E. (2003) Comparison of results of three commercial heartworm antigen test kits in dogs with low heartworm burdens. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 222, 12211223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balıkci, E. & Sevgili, M. (2005) Seroprevalance of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs in Elazig and vicinity. Firat University Journal of Health Science 19, 103106.Google Scholar
Butts, J.A. (1979) Survey for Dirofilaria immitis in Mecklenburg country, North Carolina. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 174, 10881089.Google Scholar
Coskun, S.Z., Tinar, R., Akyol, C.V., Aydin, L. & Demir, C. (1992) Efficacy of ivermectin against Dirofilaria immitis microfilariae in naturally infected dogs. Uludag University Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 11, 121128.Google Scholar
Cringoli, G., Rinaldi, L., Veneziano, V. & Capelli, G. (2001) A prevalence survey and risk analysis of filariosis in dogs from the Mt. Vesuvius area of southern Italy. Veterinary Parasitology 102, 243252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genchi, C., Rinaldi, L., Cascone, C., Mortarino, M. & Cringoli, G. (2005) Is heartworm disease really spreading in Europe? Veterinary Parasitology 133, 137148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, J.R., Georgi, M.E. & Theodorides, V.J. (1990) Parasitology for veterinarians. 5th edn.412 pp. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Hatsushika, R., Okino, T., Shimizu, M. & Ohyama, F. (1992) The prevalence of dog heartworm [Dirofilaria immitis] infection in stray dogs in Okayama, Japan. Kawasaki Medicine Journal 18, 7583.Google Scholar
Klotins, K.C., Martin, S.W., Bonnett, B.N. & Peregrine, A.S. (2000) Canine heartworm testing in Canada. Are we being effective? Canadian Veterinary Journal 41, 929937.Google ScholarPubMed
Labarthe, N. & Guerrero, J. (2005) Epidemiology of heartworm: What is happening in South America and Mexico? Veterinary Parasitology 133, 149156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labarthe, N., Almosny, N., Guerrero, J. & Araujo, D.A.M. (1997) Description of the occurrence of canine dirofilariosis in the State of Rio de Janerio, Brazil. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 92, 4751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H.S. (1993) Survey of canine heartworm disease in Taegu area. Journal of Korean Veterinary Medicine Association 29, 2527.Google Scholar
Marquardt, W.C., Demaree, R.S. & Grieve, R.B. (2000) Parasitology and vector biology. pp. 464469. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Martini, M., Capelli, G., Poglayen, G., Bertotti, F. & Turilli, C. (1996) The validity of some haematological and ELISA methods for the diagnosis of canine heartworm disease. Veterinary Research Communications 20, 331339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matola, Y.G. (1991) Periodicity of Dirofilaria immitis microfilariae in a dog from Muheza district, Tanzania. Journal of Helminthology 65, 7678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menda, J.A. (1989) Transplacental migration of Dirofilaria immitis microfilariae. Comparative Animal Practice 19, 1820.Google Scholar
Montoya, J.A., Morales, M., Ferrer, O., Molina, J.M. & Corbera, J.A. (1998) The prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain (1994–1996). Veterinary Parasitology 75, 221226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, C.T., McCall, J.W., Rubin, S.B., Buzhardt, L.F., Dorion, D.W., Graham, W., Longhofer, S.L., Guerrero, J., Robertson-Plouch, C. & Paul, A. (2005) Guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infection in dogs. Veterinary Parasitology 133, 255266.Google ScholarPubMed
Oge, H., Doganay, A., Oge, S. & Yildirim, A. (2003) Prevalence and distribution of Dirofilaria immitis in domestic dogs from Ankara and vicinity in Turkey. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrifte 110, 6972.Google ScholarPubMed
Oncel, T. & Vural, G. (2005) Seroprevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in stray dogs in Istanbul and Izmir. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 29, 785789.Google Scholar
Rawlings, C.A., Dawe, D.L., McCall, J.W., Keith, J.C. & Prestwood, A.K. (1982) Four types of occult Dirofilaria immitis infection in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 180, 13231326.Google ScholarPubMed
Reifur, L., Thomaz-Soccol, V. & Montiani-Ferreira, F. (2004) Epidemiological aspects of filariosis in dogs on the coast of Parana state, Brazil: with emphasis on Dirofilaria immitis. Veterinary Parasitology 122, 273286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosa, A., Ribicich, M., Betti, A., Kistermann, J.C., Cardillo, N., Basso, N. & Hallu, R. (2002) Prevalence of canine dirofilariosis in the city of Buenos Aires and its outskirts (Argentina). Veterinary Parasitology 109, 261264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahin, T., Sevgili, M. & Camkerten, I. (2004) Incidence of Dirofilaria spp. in dogs in Sanliurfa province. Acta Parasitologica Turcica 28, 140142.Google Scholar
Selby, L.A., Corwin, R.M. & Hayes, H.M. (1980) Risk factors associated with canine heartworm infection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 176, 3336.Google ScholarPubMed
Simsek, S., Utuk, A.E., Koroglu, E. & Rishniw, M. (2008) Serological and molecular studies on Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Turkey. Journal of Helminthology 82, 181186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, K.H., Lee, S.E., Hayasaki, M., Shiramizu, K., Kim, D.H. & Cho, K.W. (2003) Seroprevalence of canine dirofilariosis in South Korea. Veterinary Parasitology 114, 231236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tasan, E. (1984) Elazığ kırsal yöre kopeklerinde helmintlerin yayılışı ve insan sağlığı yönünden önemi. Doga Bilim Dergisi 8, 160167.Google Scholar
Theis, J.H., Stevens, F., Thedoropoulos, G. & Ziedins, A.C. (1999) Studies on the prevalence and distribution of filariasis in dogs from Los Angeles County, California (1996–1998). Canine Practice 24, 816.Google Scholar
Turkish State Meteorological Service (2008) Available at websitehttp://www.dmi.gov.tr/2006/english/eng-cities.aspx?secimNo = 37 (accessed 2 November 2008)..Google Scholar
Vezzani, D., Eiras, D.F. & Wisnivesky, C. (2006) Dirofilariasis in Argentina: historical review and first report of Dirofilaria immitis in a natural mosquito population. Veterinary Parasitology 136, 259273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voyvoda, H. & Pasa, S. (2004) Prevalence of Leishmania infantum and Dirofilaria immitis infection in dogs in Aydin province and the town of Selcuk, Izmir, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 28, 11051111.Google Scholar
Watson, A.D.G., Testoni, F.G. & Porges, W.L. (1973) A comparison of microfilariae isolated from canine blood by the modified Knott's test and a filter method. Australian Veterinary Journal 49, 2830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim, A. (2004) The prevalence of filarial agents in dogs in Ankara and vicinity. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University 51, 3540.Google Scholar
Yildirim, A., Ica, A., Atalay, O., Duzlu, O. & Inci, A. (2007) Prevalence and epidemiological aspects of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Kayseri Province, Turkey. Research in Veterinary Science 82, 358363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Hatay province, Turkey
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Hatay province, Turkey
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Hatay province, Turkey
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *