{"title":"Brucella canis: a clinical review and rationalising risk","authors":"Glynn Woods","doi":"10.1002/inpr.416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Background</b>: After a letter published by the chief veterinary officer in February 2021 highlighted an increase in the number of positive <i>Brucella canis</i> dogs, the frequency of <i>B canis</i> testing in the UK has increased substantially. To date, roughly 160 positive cases have been reported by the APHA. Amid growing unease, veterinary teams have implemented practice protocols to mitigate risk associated with this non-endemic, zoonotic infection. Although well-meaning, blanket policy and inappropriate application of serological tests can negatively impact client and patient welfare while fuelling health anxiety among staff. The combination of increased pet travel, increased popularity of importing dogs and a lack of centralised border requirements for dogs, means <i>B canis</i> is likely to be increasingly encountered and warrants regular, evidence-based discussion to empower the profession and preserve canine welfare.</p><p><b>Aim of the article</b>: This article summarises the clinically relevant issues surrounding <i>Brucella canis</i>, focussing on epidemiology, transmission, human health and safety, clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment. Governmental recommendations and recent risk assessments by the Human Animal Infection and Risk Surveillance group are drawn on where appropriate. Moreover, the article aims to instil confidence in veterinary personnel when rationalising <i>B canis</i> infection risk, and help to ensure that canine and staff health are protected.</p>","PeriodicalId":54994,"journal":{"name":"in Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/inpr.416","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: After a letter published by the chief veterinary officer in February 2021 highlighted an increase in the number of positive Brucella canis dogs, the frequency of B canis testing in the UK has increased substantially. To date, roughly 160 positive cases have been reported by the APHA. Amid growing unease, veterinary teams have implemented practice protocols to mitigate risk associated with this non-endemic, zoonotic infection. Although well-meaning, blanket policy and inappropriate application of serological tests can negatively impact client and patient welfare while fuelling health anxiety among staff. The combination of increased pet travel, increased popularity of importing dogs and a lack of centralised border requirements for dogs, means B canis is likely to be increasingly encountered and warrants regular, evidence-based discussion to empower the profession and preserve canine welfare.
Aim of the article: This article summarises the clinically relevant issues surrounding Brucella canis, focussing on epidemiology, transmission, human health and safety, clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment. Governmental recommendations and recent risk assessments by the Human Animal Infection and Risk Surveillance group are drawn on where appropriate. Moreover, the article aims to instil confidence in veterinary personnel when rationalising B canis infection risk, and help to ensure that canine and staff health are protected.
期刊介绍:
In Practice is published 10 times a year and provides continuing educational material for veterinary practitioners. It includes clinical articles, written by experts in their field and covering all species, providing a regular update on clinical developments, and articles on veterinary practice management. All articles are peer-reviewed. First published in 1979, it now provides an extensive archive of clinical review articles.
In Practice is produced in conjunction with Vet Record, the official journal of the British Veterinary Association (BVA). It is published on behalf of the BVA by BMJ Group.