Epidemiology Comparison of Parvovirus Cases at Two Pennsylvania Animal Shelters: 2006-2009

Leann Wolf, Department of Biological Sciences, York College of PA

Dr. Mathur, Mentor

•Parvovirus is a canine pathogen that is spread through canine feces and can survive in varying conditions (Pritie 2004). Symptoms of canine parvovirus include bloody stool, diarrhea, lethargy, and dehydration.

•Dogs that are infected with canine parvovirus who are unvaccinated and untreated have a 91% mortality rate (Pritie 2004). There is a combination vaccine available to help prevent canine parvovirus; however due to economic unavailability and the ignorance many people have towards the proper vaccinations of dogs many dogs go unvaccinated.

•The DHLPP combination vaccine protects against five separate diseases in canines including: Distemper, Hepatitis, Leptospirosis, Parainfluenza, and Parvovirus (www.sfgov2.org).

•Canine parvovirus (CPV) will vary with how hard or how fast it will effect a dog but unvaccinated dogs with low immunity will be more susceptible and have more difficulty fighting the virus (Pritie 2004).

•Due to the overcrowding and close contact in shelters it is easier for fecal matter to be transmitted from dog to dog and puts shelters at a higher risk of contamination of canine parvovirus (Miller and Hurley 2009).

•There has been a trend seen in canine parvovirus disease cases in relation to seasons of the year and breeds; however no known studies have looked at the database methods and recording techniques in animal shelters. Because there is no known standard database or method of recording canine parvovirus cases in animal shelters and in veterinary facilities it makes prevalence and statistics difficult to accurately be collected. With little studies done that present prevalence and statistics regarding different variables of canine parvovirus many people do not take CPV as seriously as they should.

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES•To compare the prevalence of canine parvovirus at two Pennsylvanian animal shelters.•To analyze the current database methods, seasonal infection and breed prevalence related to parvovirus at the two Pennsylvanian animal shelters.

METHODS

RESULTS CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LITERATURE CITED

FUTURE WORK

I would like to thank the Humane Society of Berks County and the Humane League of Lancaster for their continual help and use of shelter resources. Also Carolyn Mathur for being a helpful mentor..

City Positive Parvoa Incomeb Populationc

         

Reading 91 26,698 81,183

Lancaster   50 29,770 54,779

a # of cases over four year period

b Median household income from US Census Bureau 1999

c from the US Census Bureau released in 2006

Table 1. A comparison of parvovirus incidence, income, and population in two cities where the shelters were located from 2006-2009.

Table 2. Comparison between pit bull dog parvovirus cases and non-pit breeds in total yearly population from 2006-2009.

                 

Shelter- Humane Society of Berks County            

               

Year Pit Bull Breed Non-Pit Bull Breed            

2009 10/1,106 (0.009%) 8/1,106 (0.007%)            

2008 22/1, 419 (0.016%) 11/1,419 (0.007%)            

2007 17/2, 035 (0.008%) 6/2,305 (0.002%)            

2006 9/2,158 (0.004%) 8/2,158 (0.003%)            

                 

Shelter-Humane League of Lancaster            

Year Pit Bull Breed Non-Pit Bull Breed            

2009 4/3,076 (0.0013%) 5/3,076 (0.0016%)            

2008 15/3,337 (0.004%) 6/3,337 (0.0017%)            

2007 5/3,102 (0.0016%) 5/3,102 (0.0016%)            

2006 5/3,298 (0.0015%) 5/3,298 (0.0015%)            

•Database proposal- Work on developing and getting the resources to begin a database, or even just a standard technique, that shelters and veterinary facilities can use to record parvovirus.•Education-Continue developing tools and conducting research to show people the importance of vaccines, as well as developing educational programs to help raise money for clinics that provide parvovirus vaccines.•Other senior thesis idea for future students-To examine the different variants of emerging strains of parvovirus to compare to different areas to aid in prevention.

http://www.digital-topo-maps.com/county-map/pennsylvania.shtmlhttp://www.aspcapro.org/canine-parvovirus.php http://www.virology.wisc.edu/virusworld/viruslist.php?virus=cpv

1. Used SAGE nonprofit software at each shelter

2. Found yearly total number of dogs from each year, 2006-2009, by using the yearly census on SAGE

3. A specific time interval (i.e. Jan 1, 2006-Dec 31-2006) was able to be put into the Sage software program and all files of

incoming dogs from that time frame were listed

4. After finding the section of dogs (all animals were grouped together) looked at general info on spreadsheet- key words such as E & D (euthanized and disposed), DOA (dead on arrival), sick, sick incoming, or died were noted by specific number each animal is

assigned when enters the shelter

5. After each file noted were searched individually by putting that number in the search bar-multiple places in notes that

could have specified an infected dog with parvovirus or symptoms matching

7. If case noted bloody diarrhea, vomiting, or lethargy it was noted as possible parvovirus

6. If notes stated a parvovirus test was conducted and positive, or just noted positive for parvovirus,

that was recorded

8. The dogs identification number, breed, or left sex, age, date deceased shelter, and any other notes

available were recorded

9. Chi-sq and fishers exact test contingency analyses used for comparing variables

There was a significant difference in the number of parvovirus cases at the two comparing shelters

With the different variables of location, number of incoming dogs, and accessibility between the two shelters this information is able to show a comparison that could help to demonstrate the need of more generalized databases for disease control in animal shelters.

When looking at income and population, the shelter that had the most cases of parvovirus over the four year period had a higher population and lower median household income compared to the other shelter

Can potentially be explained by less available money for people to afford annual vaccines as well as a larger population size to try to educate and allow access for everyone to have the opportunity to get vaccines for their dogs.

At both shelters the highest average prevalence was found to be in the summer, which is agreement with associated literature. This also shows there needs to be more educational tools focused on protecting their pets in the summer months especially.

Pit Bull Dogs were the most prevalent breed of dog infected with parvovirus at both shelters, which is one of the breeds the associated literature mentioned as most susceptible breeds to be infected with parvovirus, but is also the most common breed of dog to be in any shelter.

The sample size was potentially smaller than it could have been had there been a more definitive way to search for parvovirus cases, as well as better documentation of symptoms and tests, a better system of recording at shelters and veterinary clinics

Parvovirus Cases in Dogs from Two Pennsylvanian Animal Shelters Overthe Course of Four Years Compared to the Month of Infection

January

Febru

ary

Marc

h

April

May

JuneJuly

August

Septem

ber

Octo

ber

November

Decem

ber0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 2. Parvovirus incidence was combined for both shelters and was divided into the months ofinfection. After combining both shelters total parvovirus cases for each month in GraphPad Prismsoftware it was found that July had the greatest number of cases with 38 and February had thelowest number of cases with 2.

Nu

mb

er o

f D

ogs

Infe

cted

wit

h P

arvo

viru

s

Number of Cases of Parvovirus Per Year at Two AnimalShelters

2006 2007 2008 20090

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Humane Society of Berks County

Humane League of Lancaster

Figure 1- The difference in positive parvovirus cases at the two shelters from2006-2009, for each year both shelters were compared by using Chi-Squareanalyses and included each shelters positive cases to not positive cases overthe four year span. There was a significant difference for each year involvingthe number of parvovirus cases compared at the two different shelters foundusing a contingency table from Instat-3 Software; 2006 had a P-value=0.0032;2007 had a P-value<0.0001; 2008 had a P-value<0.001, 2009 had aP-value<0.008.

*

Ca

ses

of

Pa

rvo

viru

s

Comparison Between Pit Bull and Non-Pit BullParvovirus Cases: 2006-2009 at Two

Pennsylvania Animal Shelters

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Humane Society of Berks County

Humane League of Lancaster County

Pit Bull Dog Breed

Non-Pit Bull Dog Breed

Figure 3. Compares the positive parvovirus cases at each shelter separatedby Pit Bull and non Pit Bull breed. There is a greater number of Pit Bull

Dogs positive for parvovirus at both shelters, but the comparison is found tonot be statistucally significant using a contingency table with Fiser's exact

test, having a two-tail P-value=0.588.

Number of Dogs

Example of SAGE software program used at both shelters for collecting parvovirus cases – photo taken from Humane Society of Berks County SAGE software

Miller, L and Hurley, K. 2009. Infectious Disease Management in Animal Shelters. Wiley-Blackwell, Singapore.

Pritie, J. 2004. Canine parvoviral enteritis: a review of diagnosis, management, and prevention. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 14:167-176. Available from: Academic Search Premier.

Animal Care and Control." SFGov. City and County of San Francisco, 2010. Web. 5 March 2010. <http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1342>.