Download Title. Arial 72 pt. Red letters with shadow. Authors

Environmental and Group Health Risk Factors for Feline Upper Respiratory Disease Complex in Animal Shelters
Carrie Jenkins, Stephanie Byers, Claudia J Baldwin, DVM, MS, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University.
Sandra Newbury, DVM, Kate F Hurley, DVM, MPVM, Koret Shelter Medicine Program, University of California, Davis.
Abstract
Introduction
Feline Upper Respiratory Disease Complex (FURDC) is a common and infectious
multi-factorial disease syndrome that is either enzootic or epizootic in many animal
shelters. Previous research on multiple cat environments has focused primarily on
stress and welfare.3,5,7 Shelter conditions are often crowded, with varying levels of
sanitation and stress, creating a perfect environment for inoculation, amplification,
and recrudescence of infectious disease. Most cats present apparently healthy.
Previous studies evaluating infectious disease transmission confirmed that disease
transmission in shelters and shelter-like environments is rapid and efficient.6
Production models have demonstrated that specific management practices and
environmental conditions on farms are significantly correlated to disease and
decreased production in identifiable patterns.4 Many farms can quantify the
relationship between expenses to reduce disease and the corresponding production
benefit. Equivalent tools for shelters and other multiple cat populations would be
invaluable.
In this study, FURDC incidence and severity in two Iowa Animal Shelters was
used as a marker for evaluating shelter health management practices. The purpose
of this pilot study, done in conjunction with studies by Dr. Kate Hurley, Director of the
Koret Shelter Medicine Program, and Dr. Sandra Newbury, National Shelter
Medicine Extension Veterinarian, University of California, Davis, was to evaluate
relationships between selected environmental risk factors and the occurrence of
FURDC in animal shelters using tools borrowed from production medicine models.
Image 2. Mucopurulent nasal discharge on a cotton ball
from a cat at Shelter A.
Image 1. Kittens at Shelter B.
Oneway Analysis of Average # Cage Moves vs. Shelter
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A*
B
Shelter
# Cage Moves
Question: Do management practices and environmental factors impact the
development of Feline Upper Respiratory Disease Complex (FURDC) in shelters?
Hypothesis: Environmental factors and management decisions within a shelter are
risk factors for the development of clinical signs of respiratory disease.
Objectives: 1) To apply modern methods for evaluating animal health used in the
livestock industry to cats in shelter environments. 2) To assess relationships
between environmental factors in animal shelters and feline group health using
FURDC as a model. FURDC incidence and severity will be used as a marker for
evaluating shelter health management practices. 3) To evaluate and compare viral,
bacterial, and bacteria-like pathogens infecting groups of shelter cats during
enzootic and epizootic episodes of disease.
Results: The two shelters studied had very different management practices and
incidence of disease. Some environmental factors were significantly different
between the two shelters. Both commonly had mixed Staphlyococcus and
Streptococcus spp. isolated from the shelter environment but some bacteriological
findings were unique to each shelter. Patterns of oropharyngeal and conjunctival
bacterial growth from cats at each shelter were different as well. Mycoplasma spp.
bacteriology and real time PCR, virology, and further statistical analysis are
pending.
Conclusions: Both shelters had some unique environmental and management
challenges. Incidence of disease was markedly different between shelters Careful
review of management practices, including sanitation, disinfection, and population
control, is warranted. When all bacteriology and virology tests are completed, a
more complete picture of pathogen presence in each shelter will be available, and
strategies to decrease incidence of FURDC can be developed.
Results and Discussion
Room
Adoption
Variables
Shelter A
Shelter B
Population Density
1.10
1.03
Temperature (°C)*
24.6
22.5
Relative Humidity (%)
69.2
65.9
0.35
1.24
Temperature (°C)*
24.5
22.5
Relative Humidity (%)
69.5
71.5
Population Density*
0.41
0.84
Temperature (°C)*
24.2
22.6
Relative Humidity (%)
65.5
66.8
Stray Holding Population Density*
Isolation
Table 3. Average values for environmental variables in each room of the
shelters. Population density is the number of cats divided by the room volume,
in this case presented as a single value, which is the number of cats per 100
cubic feet.
* Values differed significantly (p < .0001).
Figure 1. Comparison of cage moves between shelters. The green line
is the mean, and the blue lines are the standard deviation.
* Values differed significantly (p < .0001).
References
# Cats in Study Period
Shelter A
Shelter B
Total
64
87
Methods
Adopted
27
8
Personnel at two Iowa Animal Shelters were interviewed and shadowed to
document management practices. Husbandry was evaluated for stress reduction and
potential for fomite transmission of disease. Housing factors were evaluated for
comfort and ability to express natural behaviors. Daily shelter visits were done for 28
consecutive days at a set time in reference to cleaning and feeding. Clinical signs of
FURDC and duration of disease were recorded for each cat. Population density was
calculated in each cat room. Cage moves for each cat were recorded and evaluated.
Temperature and relative humidity were evaluated daily, along with decibel levels.
Cats from each shelter showing clinical signs of respiratory disease were physically
examined for presence of ocular, nasal and oral lesions, and a severity score—based
on clinical signs and symptoms—was recorded. Standardized treatment was then
provided based on the severity score. Sponges and swabs were used to sample the
environment for Mycoplasma spp., Chlamydophila spp. and Bordetella bronchiseptica.
Conjunctival and oropharyngeal swab samples were collected from 6 cats from shelter
A and 5 cats from shelter B with clinical signs of respiratory disease. Contributing
pathogens for FURDC were evaluated for bacteria at the ISU Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory. At a later date, samples were collected from different cats at the shelters
for viral studies at the University of California, Davis.
Data was analyzed using the JMP 6.0.0 statistical package. A standard t-test was
used to determine significant differences in several variables between the two
shelters. Further statistical analysis is pending.
Returned to Owner
2
2
Fostered
1
0
Died
0
2
Euthanized
1
29
Table 1. Comparison of cat numbers between shelters.
FURDC
Shelter A
Shelter B
Total Incidents
27
11
Repeat Incidents
4
1
URI Severity (Avg Score)*
1.07
0.55
Ocular Severity (Avg Score)
0.85
0.82
Duration (Avg Days)
7.85
6.67
Table 2. Comparison of FURDC incidence and severity between
shelters.
* Values differed significantly (p = .0080).
1. Bannasch MJ, Foley JE. Epidemiologic evaluation of multiple respiratory
pathogens in cats in animal shelters. J Feline Med Surg. Apr
2005;7(2):109-119.
2. Binns SH, Dawson S, Speakman AJ, Gaskell CJ, Hart CA, Morgan KL,
Gaskell RM. Prevalence and risk factors for feline Bordetella
bronchiseptica infection. Vet Rec. May 22 1999;144(21):575-580.
3. Carlstead K, Brown JL, Strawn W. Behavioral and physiologic correlates
of stress in laboratory cats. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1993;38:143-158.
4. Lago A, McGuirk SM, Bennett TB, Cook NB, Nordlund KV. Calf
respiratory disease and pen microenvironments in naturally ventilated calf
barns in winter. J Dairy Sci. Oct 2006;89(10):4014-4025.
5. McCobb EC, Patronek GJ, Marder A, Dinnage JD, Stone MS.
Assessment of stress levels among cats in four animal shelters. JAVMAJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Feb 15
2005;226(4):548-555.
6. Pederson NC, Sato R, Foley JE, Poland AM. Common virus infections in
cats, before and after being placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline
enteric coronavirus. J Feline Med Surg. 2004;6(2):83-88.
7. Rochlitz I, Podberscek AL, Broom DM. Welfare of cats in a quarantine
cattery. Vet Rec. Jul 11 1998;143(2):35-39.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the participating shelters, Joann Kinyon, Jennifer Corbin,
Dianne Ritz, and Deb Moses.
Supported by The Maddie’s Fund®, The Pet Rescue Foundation
Veterinary Summer Scholar Research Program, The College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University
Some management practices were similar between shelters but others were very
different. Shelter space devoted to cats was similar between the two shelters. Cage
size varied within the shelters, and not all cages had resting perches. Cats were not
always able to stretch out to rest, and placement of food, water, and litter pans was
closer than ideal. Cleaning and disinfecting agents and practices also varied between
shelters. Both shelters used a practice of cleaning with cat in residence, although
Shelter A would at times move cats into a common room during cleaning. Figure 1
compares the mean number of cage moves per cat during the period of study, with a
significantly greater number of moves in Shelter A (p < .0001). Movement of cats in the
shelter environment is necessary at times to clean soiled cages, but devising a way to
avoid placing cats in a common use area, where pathogens can be transmitted, would
be ideal. Use of hand washing or a hand sanitizer in between handling of every cat may
also reduce transmission of pathogens. Re-evaluation of cage moves would seem to be
indicated, as this practice may contribute to increased stress and induction of infection
or recrudescence of infectious agents responsible for FURDC.
Table 1 shows the number of cats in each shelter during the 28 day study period.
Shelter A took in fewer cats, had an adoption rate of 42% and a 2% euthanasia rate.
Shelter B had an adoption rate of 9% and a rate of euthanasia of 33%. The average
length of stay, determined using the subset of cats released during the study, was 36.7
and 19.2 days for Shelter A and Shelter B, respectively. This was statistically significant
(p = .0174).The longest length of stay for Shelter A was 132 days, and for Shelter B was
161 days. There was also a difference in the amount of space for cat housing, with
Shelter B having 21% less cubic feet than Shelter A. Image 1 is typical of shelters
during the summer months when large numbers of litters present to shelters. During the
28 days of the study, there were often more kittens than adult cats in one of the
shelters. Control of population is necessary to avoid overcrowding, which leads to
stress and increased numbers and volume of pathogens. Health of the population is
then compromised. Limiting intake, increasing adoption, shortening the length of stay,
and euthanasia rather than treatment of cats with FURDC to avoid overcrowding, are all
ways to maintain population health.
At the onset of the study, Shelter A had 14 cats symptomatic from FURDC whereas
Shelter B had 3. Table 2 shows data over the 28 days of study. Shelter A had a greater
incidence and greater repeat incidence of FURDC. The average severity score was
statistically significant, with severity scoring higher at Shelter A (p = .0080). Image 2
displays mucopurulent nasal discharge typical of FURDC with a bacterial component.
During this study, shelter cats with FURDC were treated based on clinical scoring and
the treatment was standardized. Health within Shelter A improved over the course of
the study.
Table 3 displays population density, temperature, and relative humidity in the cat
rooms at both shelters during the course of study. Population density (# of cats/100
cubic feet) was significantly lower in 2 of 3 rooms at Shelter A compared to Shelter B
(p < .0001). The temperature in all cat rooms in Shelter A was significantly greater than
that of Shelter B (p < .0001). Noise level data were not included in the table, but were
not significantly different between the shelters and ranged from 36.6-76.9 dBA. The
temperatures in Shelter A were at the upper end of the recommended range for shelters
(20-23.9 °C), but this is more of an animal comfort issue than disease issue.
Of the 35 environmental samples, 14 had no bacterial growth. Bacteria were
harvested from 21 environmental samples, including mixed Staphylococcus and
Streptococcus spp., Chryseobacterium harvested from a cat perch and a chair in one
room at Shelter A, Pseudomonas spp. from several locations at Shelter B (some
species of which can cause bacterial pneumonia), and Aspergillus fumigatus, which is
common in the natural environment but can be potentially pathogenic in immunocompromised animals.
Of the 21 conjunctival and oropharyngeal swabs from cats, 9 had no growth.
Bacteria were harvested from 12 swabs, including mixed Staphylococcus and
Streptococcus spp., Pasteurella multocida from 1 cat from each shelter,
Arcanobacterium pyogenes from three cats at Shelter B, and Bordetella bronchiseptica
from two cats at Shelter A. P. multocida is part of the normal flora in the nasal, gingival,
and tonsillar regions of many cats but can cause bacterial bronchopneumonia in
animals with relative immuno-incompetence. A. pyogenes is commonly found in
abscesses, although no abscesses were noted while swabbing. A certain amount of
Bordetella bronchiseptica is to be expected in a shelter environment, particularly if cats
are housed near dogs due to cross-species transmission. If protected and kept moist,
the bacterium can survive in the environment for weeks. In a British study, 11% of 740
cats sampled were shedding B. bronchiseptica, while 18% of our 11 cats sampled
cultured positive from throat swabs.2 When checked at a later date, both cats had been
adopted and neither were showing any symptoms. Mycoplasma spp. bacteriology and
real time PCR and virology results are pending.
We plan to provide observations and recommendations for both shelters. Each
shelter has individual challenges, and with a careful review and modification of
management practices these issues can be addressed.