Wilson Amy G, Fehlner-Gardiner Christine, Wilson Scott, Pierce Karra N, McGregor Glenna F, González Catalina, Luszcz Tanya M J
Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Centre of Expertise for Rabies, Ottawa Laboratory Fallowfield, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2022 May 11;2(5):e0000357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000357. eCollection 2022.
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.
家畜可作为人畜共患病病原体跨越野生动物与人类界面的重要传播媒介。然而，关于不同家畜种类及其行为如何影响对人类的人畜共患病风险，相关研究仍然较少。在本研究中，我们调查了2014年至2020年期间在加拿大食品检验局（CFIA）狂犬病实验室送检的蝙蝠与家畜接触的模式。我们的具体目标是研究送检蝙蝠的数量和狂犬病阳性蝙蝠的数量如何因家畜接触类型而变化，以及家猫是室内饲养还是自由放养。CFIA报告了6258份蝙蝠狂犬病检测送检样本，其中分别有41.5%和8.7%的样本有与猫和狗接触的历史。与其他家畜接触的蝙蝠送检样本比例要小得多（0.3%），49.5%的样本没有家畜接触史。对于与猫有关的蝙蝠送检样本，在记录了生活方式的情况下，91.1%与自由放养的猫有关，8.9%与室内猫有关。模型结果表明，有与狗接触历史的蝙蝠狂犬病阳性概率最高（20.2%），其次是没有动物接触史的蝙蝠（16.7%）、自由放养的猫（6.9%）、接触历史不明的猫（6.0%），与非自由放养（室内）猫相关的概率最低（3.8%）。尽管与狗相比，与猫接触的蝙蝠狂犬病患病率较低，但猫与蝙蝠的互动数量累计高出4.8倍，导致来自任何自由放养的户外猫对人类的总体狂犬病暴露风险更大。这项研究表明，自由放养的家猫在人类隐匿性狂犬病暴露中可能扮演着未被充分认识的角色，并且是蝙蝠的重要捕食者。防止猫自由放养是一项具有成本效益且未得到充分利用的狂犬病预防公共卫生建议，它还能协同减轻其他猫相关人畜共患病的健康负担，促进猫的福利和野生动物保护。
