Bat rabies in Washington State: Temporal-spatial trends and risk factors for zoonotic transmission (2000-2017)

Assessing the extent and public health impact of bat predation by domestic animals using data from a rabies passive surveillance program

Domestic animals can serve as consequential conveyors of zoonotic pathogens across wildlife-human interfaces. Still, there has been little study on how different domestic species and their behaviors influence the zoonotic risk to humans. In this study, we examined patterns of bat encounters with domestic animals that resulted in submission for testing at the rabies laboratories of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) during 2014-2020. Our goals were specifically to examine how the number of bats submitted and the number of rabies positive bats varied by the type of domestic animal exposure and whether domestic cats were indoor or free-roaming. The CFIA reported 6258 bat submissions for rabies testing, of which 41.5% and 8.7% had encounter histories with cats and dogs, respectively. A much smaller fraction of bat submissions (0.3%) had exposure to other domestic animals, and 49.5% had no domestic animal exposure. For the bat submissions related to cats, and where lifestyle was noted, 91.1% were associated with free-roaming cats and 8.9% with indoor cats. Model results indicated the probability of a rabies-positive bat was the highest with a history of dog association (20.2%), followed by bats with no animal exposure (16.7%), free-roaming cats (6.9%), cats with unspecified histories (6.0%) and the lowest probability associated with non-free-roaming (indoor) cats (3.8%). Although there was lower rabies prevalence in bats associated with cats compared to dogs, the 4.8 fold higher number of cat-bat interactions cumulatively leads to a greater overall rabies exposure risk to humans from any free-roaming outdoor cats. This study suggests that free-roaming owned cats may have an underappreciated role in cryptic rabies exposures in humans and as a significant predator of bats. Preventing free-roaming in cats is a cost-effective and underutilized public health recommendation for rabies prevention that also synergistically reduces the health burden of other feline-associated zoonotic diseases and promotes feline welfare and wildlife conservation.

Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2019

OBJECTIVE

To provide epidemiological information on animal and human cases of rabies occurring in the United States during 2019 and summaries of 2019 rabies surveillance for Canada and Mexico.

ANIMALS

All animals submitted for laboratory diagnosis of rabies in the United States during 2019.

PROCEDURES

State and territorial public health departments and USDA Wildlife Services provided data on animals submitted for rabies testing in the United States during 2019. Data were analyzed temporally and geographically to assess trends in domestic and wildlife rabies cases.

RESULTS

During 2019, 53 jurisdictions submitted 97,523 animal samples for rabies testing, of which 94,770 (97.2%) had a conclusive (positive or negative) test result. Of these, 4,690 tested positive for rabies, representing a 5.3% decrease from the 4,951 cases reported in 2018. Texas (n = 565 [12.0%]), New York (391 [8.3%]), Virginia (385 [8.2%]), North Carolina (315 [6.7%]), California (276 [5.9%]), and Maryland (269 [5.7%]) together accounted for almost half of all animal rabies cases reported in 2019. Of the total reported rabid animals, 4,305 (91.8%) were wildlife, with raccoons (n = 1,545 [32.9%]), bats (1,387 [29.6%]), skunks (915 [19.5%]), and foxes (361 [7.7%]) as the primary species confirmed with rabies. Rabid cats (n = 245 [5.2%]) and dogs (66 [1.4%]) accounted for > 80% of rabies cases involving domestic animals in 2019. No human rabies cases were reported in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The overall number of animal rabies cases decreased from 2018 to 2019. Laboratory diagnosis of rabies in animals is critical to ensure that human rabies postexposure prophylaxis is administered judiciously.

Zoonotic Risk: One More Good Reason Why Cats Should Be Kept Away from Bats

Bats are often unfairly depicted as the direct culprit in the current COVID-19 pandemic, yet the real causes of this and other zoonotic spillover events should be sought in the human impact on the environment, including the spread of domestic animals. Here, we discuss bat predation by cats as a phenomenon bringing about zoonotic risks and illustrate cases of observed, suspected or hypothesized pathogen transmission from bats to cats, certainly or likely following predation episodes. In addition to well-known cases of bat rabies, we review other diseases that affect humans and might eventually reach them through cats that prey on bats. We also examine the potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, from domestic cats to bats, which, although unlikely, might generate a novel wildlife reservoir in these mammals, and identify research and management directions to achieve more effective risk assessment, mitigation or prevention. Overall, not only does bat killing by cats represent a potentially serious threat to biodiversity conservation, but it also bears zoonotic implications that can no longer be neglected.

Australian Bat Lyssavirus: Analysis of National Bat Surveillance Data from 2010 to 2016

Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) was first described in 1996 and has been regularly detected in Australian bats since that time. While the virus does not cause population level impacts in bats and has minimal impacts on domestic animals, it does pose a public health risk. For this reason, bats are monitored for ABLV and a national dataset is collated and maintained by Wildlife Health Australia. The 2010–2016 dataset was analysed using logistic regression and time-series analysis to identify predictors of infection status in bats and the factors associated with human exposure to bats. In common with previous passive surveillance studies, we found that little red flying-foxes (Pteropus scapulatus) are more likely than other species to be infected with ABLV. In the four Australian mainland species of flying-fox, there are seasonal differences in infection risk that may be associated with reproductive cycles, with summer and autumn the seasons of greatest risk. The risk of human contact was also seasonal, with lower risk in winter. In line with other studies, we found that the circumstances in which the bat is encountered, such as exhibiting abnormal behaviour or being grounded, are risk factors for ABLV infection and human contact and should continue be key components of public health messaging. We also found evidence of biased recording of some types of information, which made interpretation of some findings more challenging. Strengthening of “One Health” linkages between public health and animal health services at the operational level could help overcome these biases in future, and greater harmonisation nationally would increase the value of the dataset.

Increased detection of rabies virus in bats in Ceará State (Northeast Brazil) after implementation of a passive surveillance programme

The intensification of dog, cat and livestock vaccination campaigns significantly reduced rabies cases in humans and domestic animals in Ceará State, Brazil. However, sylvatic animals-bats (order Chiroptera), wild canids, raccoons and non-human primates- remain as reservoirs for the virus. Our hypothesis is that surveillance and monitoring of rabies virus in bats, especially passive surveillance, is of fundamental importance, besides the implementation of health education and strengthening of surveillance actions in humans exposed to aggressions. Thus, we assessed the occurrence of rabies virus in animals focusing on bats, before and after launching of the Sylvatic Rabies Surveillance Program in 2010. Surveillance data from the 184 municipalities of Ceará State were analysed, collected during the periods 2003-2010 (active surveillance) and 2011-2016 (passive surveillance), respectively. A total of 13,543 mammalian samples were received for rabies diagnosis from 2003 to 2016. Of these, 10,960 were from dogs or cats (80.9%), 1,180 from bats (8.7%), 806 from other sylvatic animals (foxes, marmosets, raccoons; 6.0%) and 597 from herbivores (cattle, goats, sheep, equines, pigs; 4.4%). A total of 588 (4.3%) samples were positive for rabies. About 8.4% (99/1,180) of the bat samples were infected with rabies virus, 92 (92.9%) of these were from non-haematophagous bat species and 7 (7.1%) from haematophagous species. The number of bat samples received and infection rates increased considerably, after a shift from active surveillance (9/355 [2.5%] samples positive), to passive surveillance (90/825 [10.9%] samples positive). Surveillance of rabies virus in bats is fundamental for human and domestic animal health in Ceará State. Bats have to be considered as targets in surveillance and control programmes. Virus lineages should be characterized to increase knowledge on transmission dynamics of sylvatic rabies virus to domestic animals and the human population, and to provide additional evidence for planning and implementation of improved control measures.