RECURRENT EAR MITE ( OTODECTES CYNOTIS ) INFESTATION IN THREE RELATED GROUPS OF PATAGONIAN CAVIES ( DOLICHOTIS PATAGONUM )

A rapid evidence assessment of the potential risk to the environment presented by active ingredients in the UK's most commonly sold companion animal parasiticides

A number of parasiticides are commercially available as companion animal treatments to protect against parasite infestation and are sold in large volumes. These treatments are not intended to enter the wider environment but may be washed off or excreted by treated animals and have ecotoxic impacts. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the existing evidence for the toxicity of the six most used parasiticides in the UK: imidacloprid, fipronil, fluralaner, afoxolaner, selamectin, and flumethrin. A total of 17,207 published articles were screened, with 690 included in the final evidence synthesis. All parasiticides displayed higher toxicity towards invertebrates than vertebrates, enabling their use as companion animal treatments. Extensive evidence exists of ecotoxicity for imidacloprid and fipronil, but this focuses on exposure via agricultural use and is not representative of environmental exposure that results from use in companion animal treatments, especially in urban greenspace. Little to no evidence exists for the ecotoxicity of the remaining parasiticides. Despite heavy usage, there is currently insufficient evidence to understand the environmental risk posed by these veterinary treatments and further studies are urgently needed to quantify the levels and characterise the routes of environmental exposure, as well as identifying any resulting environmental harm.

A scoping review of rodent-borne pathogen presence, exposure, and transmission at zoological institutions

BACKGROUND

Rodents are one of the major taxa most likely to carry zoonotic diseases, harboring more than 85 unique zoonotic pathogens. While the significance of rodents' capacity to carry and transmit disease has been characterized in urban settings, the zoo environment is particularly unique given the overlap of collection, free-living, and feeder rodents as well as non-rodent collection animals, staff, and visitors.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

This scoping review examines reports of rodent-borne pathogen detection or transmission in zoo settings extracted from the literature. Papers were included in the final analysis if there was evidence of presence or exposure to a pathogen in a rodent at a zoological institution.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Publications were included from PubMed, CAB Abstracts and Biological Abstracts searched in August 2019.

CHARTING METHODS

Data extracted from publications on pathogen presence/exposure included publication identifiers, study identifiers, infectious agent identifiers, rodent identifiers, and non-rodent collection animal identifiers. Extraction from papers with evidence of disease transmission included number of rodents involved in transmission, non-rodent collection animal species and numbers, and job title of humans involved, diagnostic tests performed, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Aggregate literature examined included 207 publications presenting evidence of pathogen presence and/or exposure in rodents across 43 countries in over 140 zoological institutions. A total of 143 infectious agent genera were identified, comprising 14 viral genera, 31 bacterial genera, 83 parasitic genera, and 15 fungal genera. Of these infectious agents, over 75 % were potentially zoonotic. The most common disease-causing agent genera identified were Leptospira, Toxoplasma, Salmonella, and Yersinia. Additional screening for evidence of pathogen transmission across species yielded 30 publications, indicating an area for future investigation to better inform surveillance and management priorities in order to reduce exposure, infection, and transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzing the breadth of rodent species and pathogens identified at zoos highlights the unique opportunity zoos have to be at the forefront of the early detection and identification of novel hosts and geographic ranges of rodent-borne pathogens with high impact on both endangered species and people. The overlap of these populations at zoos exemplifies the importance of considering One Health when prioritizing surveillance and risk mitigation of rodent reservoirs at zoos.