Advertisement

Parasites & Vectors

, 12:145 | Cite as

A review on the occurrence of companion vector-borne diseases in pet animals in Latin America

  • Ricardo G. MaggiEmail author
  • Friederike Krämer
Open Access
Review
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 14th Symposium on Canine Vector-Borne Diseases (CVBD)

Abstract

Companion vector-borne diseases (CVBDs) are an important threat for pet life, but may also have an impact on human health, due to their often zoonotic character. The importance and awareness of CVBDs continuously increased during the last years. However, information on their occurrence is often limited in several parts of the world, which are often especially affected. Latin America (LATAM), a region with large biodiversity, is one of these regions, where information on CVBDs for pet owners, veterinarians, medical doctors and health workers is often obsolete, limited or non-existent. In the present review, a comprehensive literature search for CVBDs in companion animals (dogs and cats) was performed for several countries in Central America (Belize, Caribbean Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico) as well as in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana (British Guyana), Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela) regarding the occurrence of the following parasitic and bacterial diseases: babesiosis, heartworm disease, subcutaneous dirofilariosis, hepatozoonosis, leishmaniosis, trypanosomosis, anaplasmosis, bartonellosis, borreliosis, ehrlichiosis, mycoplasmosis and rickettsiosis. An overview on the specific diseases, followed by a short summary on their occurrence per country is given. Additionally, a tabular listing on positive or non-reported occurrence is presented. None of the countries is completely free from CVBDs. The data presented in the review confirm a wide distribution of the CVBDs in focus in LATAM. This wide occurrence and the fact that most of the CVBDs can have a quite severe clinical outcome and their diagnostic as well as therapeutic options in the region are often difficult to access and to afford, demands a strong call for the prevention of pathogen transmission by the use of ectoparasiticidal and anti-feeding products as well as by performing behavioural changes.

Keywords

Companion vector-borne diseases (CVBDs) Dog Cat Occurrence Vector Latin America (LATAM) Prevalence 

Abbreviations

AHS

American Heartworm Society

CVBD

companion vector-borne disease

LATAM

Latin America

LB

Lyme borreliosis

TroCCAP

Tropical Council of Companion Animal Parasites

VBD

vector-borne disease

Background

Companion vector-borne diseases (CVBDs) have among others a major impact on the welfare of pets. They may also represent a constant risk to humans due to their zoonotic nature, which emphasizes the importance of pets as reservoirs.

In Latin America (LATAM), a region with one of the largest biodiversities in the world, a combination of factors such as intensification of agricultural practices, landscape modification, poor ecosystem protection and potentially slight unstable economics, creates host populations conducive to the performance and persistence of parasites and vectors.

This is especially important for CVBDs affecting dogs and cats as companion animals, as a significant proportion of those (i.e. 52–75%) [1, 2], even though owned by pet holders, roam freely, besides an exploding number of stray dogs and cats. In LATAM, the lack of sensitive awareness of animal welfare and disease issues, the restricted economic and technological access to proper veterinary care, and the absence of responsible pet ownership, have created conditions for the emergence and persistence of many diseases that ultimately will affect people, livestock, and wildlife [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Besides, socio-economic, demographic and ecological factors, including globalization, increase in international trade, tourism and travel, climate change and its effect on vector distribution in time and space, have also to be reconsidered.

This article summarizes the data of reported detection (or prevalence when available) of the most significant CVBDs affecting companion animals in LATAM in tabular form and as detailed information per country and discusses research gaps to be addressed in future studies. In case of very scarce published data, additionally the occurrence of the pathogens in potential vectors, wild canids or felids and in humans is listed, to illustrate the fact that the pathogen is occurring in a respective region, even though not officially reported in companion animals so far. Beforehand a brief introduction on the diseases, usually followed by a short summary or references for more detailed data on diagnostic methods, treatment indications and ways of prevention are given.

Generally, for many of the vector-borne diseases (VBDs) described here, diverse diagnostic tests are available (microscopic, serological, molecular). Nevertheless, besides their different performance regarding sensitivity and specificity in acute and chronic disease, only few are readily available as diagnostic tools at most clinical practices in the reported LATAM regions.

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis

Babesiosis in pet animals in LATAM is mainly caused by Babesia vogeli and Babesia gibsoni [11, 12, 13]. The disease has been reported in many areas especially of South America, whereas reports from Central America are scarce so far. Babesia vogeli is transmitted directly via tick bites [Rhipicephalus sanguineus (sensu lato)], whereas B. gibsoni in LATAM is expected to be transmitted via blood transfer through dog bites, blood transfusions and transplacental supply [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Clinical signs, depending on the species, and further details on clinical and laboratory findings can be found in Irwin [14]. As diagnosis microscopy remains the simplest and most accessible diagnostic test. Different sensitivity during the cause of disease may be supported by molecular methods (see Irwin [14] for details). Treatment does not eliminate the parasite, but only reduces parasitemia and supports resolution of clinical signs and is summarized elsewhere [14]. Animals diagnosed with Babesia spp. should be considered permanent carriers of the infection. Due to the missing elimination of the pathogen during treatment, vaccines have been introduced with variable efficacy (see Irwin [14] for summary). According to the authors’ knowledge, the vaccines are only available in Europe, so that prevention of vector exposure in form of acaricidal treatment is essential especially for LATAM.

Dirofilariosis

Dirofilariosis is caused by Dirofilaria immitis, presenting as an important disease, causing cardiopulmonary problems and even death in dogs worldwide and commonly known as canine heartworm disease, and by Dirofilaria repens, a subcutaneous parasite of dogs and cats in Europe, Africa and Asia.

Canine heartworm disease

Canine heartworm disease has a wide distribution in LATAM (except Belize, Guatemala, Panama, French Guiana, Chile and Uruguay; for specific data see individual country sections). The pathogen is transmitted by several mosquito species. As a mosquito-transmitted disease, it is more prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions, due to favorable conditions for mosquito propagation [19, 20, 21]. Clinical signs vary from nearly asymptomatic to very severe and are listed elsewhere [22, 23, 24]. Diagnostic methods include microfilaria testing of blood samples, ideally after a concentration technique (modified Knottʼs test or filtration test), and antigen testing. For details on different test sensitivities and combinations please see the guidelines of the American Heartworm Society (AHS) [25]. Treatment against heartworm varies depending on the severity of the disease and always aims to improve the clinical condition and to eliminate all life stages of the heartworms with minimal post-treatment complications. Prevention by the use of chemoprophylactic drugs is strongly recommended year-round in endemic areas. For full recommendations see the guidelines of the Tropical Council of Companion Animal Parasites (TroCCAP) [26] and the AHS [25]. Prevention of vector exposure on the basis of antifeeding and/or insecticidal treatments and by the use of mosquito screens etc. and reduction of suitable breeding sites for mosquitoes support a successful prevention scheme.

Subcutaneous dirofilariosis

Subcutaneous dirofilariosis is a filarial disease caused by D. repens. Again, transmitted by diverse mosquito species, adult worms are located mainly in subcutaneous tissues. The presence of adult D. repens worms in subcutaneous tissues and/or subcutaneous nodules [27] often goes unnoticed but can also cause cutaneous disorders [28, 29, 30, 31], as well as extradermic symptoms [32]. For further details on the parasite see also Genchi et al. [33] and Simón et al. [34]. The disease is mainly distributed in Europe, Africa and Asia, and only single reports with closely related variants for LATAM exist [35, 36]. Diagnostic methods usually rely on the detection of microfilariae in blood samples as described for D. immitis. If clinically apparent, surgical excision and subsequent histopathological confirmation is the general treatment option. From the medical standpoint, here especially regarding the Old World, D. repens is the most frequent and most widely distributed in comparison to D. immitis and other Dirofilaria species [37] and thus especially of zoonotic importance. For the New World, different species might be involved.

Hepatozoonosis

Hepatozoonosis has been described infrequently in LATAM, despite high prevalences reported from some rural areas of Brazil and Costa Rica [38, 39, 40, 41]. Canine hepatozoonosis is caused by Hepatozoon canis, a protozoan transmitted by ingestion of ticks containing mature H. canis oocysts. Clinical signs of hepatozoonosis and laboratory changes can be found in Sherding [42] and Baneth [43]. The disease is debilitating and often fatal if not treated. Hepatozoon canis infection is frequently diagnosed by microscopic detection of intracellular gamonts in stained blood smears. Antibody detection and molecular detection via PCR are also available; see Baneth [43] for further details. Complete elimination may frequently not be achievable [44]; for details on treatment see Baneth [43]. Prognosis of treated dogs depends on the parasitaemia. Prevention of vector exposure in form of ectoparasiticidal treatment is supporting the protection against H. canis.

Leishmaniosis

Leishmaniosis in LATAM is mainly caused by Leishmania infantum (syn. Leishmania chagasi). Other species (e.g. Leishmania braziliensis, Leishmania amazonensis) can also be involved in causing disease. While L. infantum is the most important causative agent of canine visceral leishmaniosis in South America [45], L. amazonensis has as well been reported causing visceral leishmaniosis in dogs [46], whereas L. braziliensis has been detected in dogs with cutaneous leishmaniosis [47]. The parasites are transmitted mainly by sand flies (for LATAM, species of the genus Lutzomyia [48, 49]). Clinical signs can vary from very subtle (asymptomatic) to very severe. Clinical staging has been deeply elaborated by LeishVet and published in Solano-Gallego et al. [50, 51] for dogs and in Pennisi et al. [52] for cats. The most useful diagnostic approaches include demonstration of the parasite DNA in blood or other tissues and detection of specific serum anti-leishmanial antibodies [50, 51, 53, 54, 55], but might not be available in all regions in LATAM. Direct parasite detection by cytology and further diagnostic approaches are described and evaluated in the LeishVet guidelines for the practical management of canine leishmaniosis [51]. Treatment for leishmaniosis is controversial in many countries and includes several anti-leishmanial drugs. Treatment regimens for the different stages of disease have been published in Solano-Gallego et al. [50, 56]. In South America, canine leishmaniosis treatment might often not routinely be performed. The elimination of seropositive dogs (euthanasia/culling program) has been practiced, e.g. in Brazil, even though for Brazil this control measure has been subject of intense, ongoing debate, due to ethical reasons and the lack of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of this strategy [57, 58, 59]. Meanwhile, a veterinary drug based on oral miltefosine has been authorized for marketing in Brazil [60]. As L. infantum has zoonotic potential, and dogs are regarded as the main reservoir for this pathogen, prevention is essential from the standpoint of animal welfare as well as under the aspect of One Health. Besides a reduced exposure to sand flies based on behavioral codes, insecticidal prophylaxis is strongly recommended. Another approach to help controlling canine leishmaniosis was the introduction of a vaccine, which has been licensed in Brazil in 2014 and which proved to be effective to reduce the number of canine visceral leishmaniosis cases in vaccinated animals [61].

Trypanosomosis

Trypanosomosis is a disease of human medical and veterinary importance caused mainly by Trypanosoma cruzi. This disease, also known as Chagas disease or American trypanosomosis, has been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the most important parasitic disease in the Americas by disability adjusted life years (DALYs) [62]. An estimated 99.8% of the disease burden occurs in LATAM and the Caribbean region [63, 64, 65, 66, 67]. Dogs are considered the predominant domestic reservoir for Chagas disease (T. cruzi) in many areas of endemicity [68]. Other trypanosomatid pathogen species such as Trypanosma evansi and Trypanosoma rangeli have been also implicated in infections in dogs. The recognized vectors for T. cruzi are triatomine species, while T. evansi is transmitted in several ways via biting insects, sucking insects and vampire bats [69, 70]. Clinical signs of T. cruzi infection in dogs may vary from acute to chronic disease [71]. Regarding T. evansi, dogs usually experience acute fatal infections [72, 73]. The most common and easiest diagnostic method for Trypanosoma infection is microscopic identification in a blood smear or the buffy coat, successful during the acute stage. For chronic Chagas disease, diagnosis relies on serological tests. Recommendations on serological tests in the chronic phase [74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81] and a detailed review [82] offer further information. Regarding dogs, there are few studies focusing on the diagnosis of T. cruzi infection [83, 84, 85, 86, 87]and even fewer in naturally infected dogs using recombinant antigens [88]. Different antigens have been tested by Brasil et al. [82] for their suitability in dogs. The drug of choice for treatment is benznidazole, but nifurtimox can also be used [89]. Symptomatic treatment for heart failure and arrhythmias is also recommended [90]. Prevention of disease transmission especially in humans is among others heavily relying in vector control [68]. As the dog is a major reservoir for human Chagas disease, vector control should also include the prevention of disease transmission in dogs.

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis

Anaplasmosis in dogs and cats can be caused by Anaplasma phagocytophilum, causative agent of canine granulocytic anaplasmosis (CGA), mainly occurring in temperate zones of the world, and Anaplasma platys, the pathogenic agent of canine cyclic thrombocytopenia, occurring worldwide with a higher incidence in tropical and and subtropical areas [91]. For LATAM, both species have been reported in infections, but mainly with A. platys.

Even though most dogs naturally infected with A. phagocytophilum probably remain healthy, clinical signs [92, 93, 94, 95] and hematological changes [94] have been reported. In general, infection with A. platys may go along subclinically (e.g. in the USA and Australia), but distinct clinical abnormalities have also been reported, besides hematological abnormalities (in Europe and Israel [96, 97]). A good overview for both pathogens is given in Sainz et al. [98]. In the majority of dogs both types of anaplasmoses pose a diagnostic challenge and clinical and hematological abnormalities should be combined with laboratory and diagnostic tests. Microscopic detection of morulae (intracytoplasmatic inclusions) in neutrophils (for A. phagocytophilum) or platelets (for A. platys) in stained blood smears is indicative for an infection with an intracytoplasmic coccus, but not distinguishing between A. phagocytophilum and other Ehrlichia spp. [98], respectively sensitivity appears to be rather low for A. platys [99], so that serology and ideally PCR should also be performed additionally for definitive diagnosis. For details on diagnostic interpretation see Sainz et al. [98] and Carrade et al. [100]. For treatment of both pathogen infections doxycycline is effective (see Sainz et al. [98] for a summary on treatment parameters). The prevention of anaplasmosis in dogs must be focused on tick control, even though the vector of A. platys is still unknown or unproven. But ticks of various genera (e.g. Rhipicephalus, Dermacentor and Ixodes) have been found naturally infected by A. platys around the world [101, 102, 103, 104, 105]. Regarding A. phagocytophilum, tick control is an essential demand enforced even by the zoonotic character of the pathogen.

Bartonellosis

Bartonellosis has been described in dogs and cats sporadically in LATAM. The most common species detected in dogs are Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii berkhoffii, while B. henselae and Bartonella clarridgeiae are the most commonly detected species in cats [106]. Bartonella species can be transmitted to companion animals and humans by several insects, including fleas, sand flies, lice, bed bugs, mites and ticks (e.g. [107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131]), and also directly by cat scratches, bites, blood transfusion and organ transplant (even though the last two have been mostly reported in humans) (e.g. [130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150]. Clinical appearance may include a large variety of signs (e.g. [143, 144, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170] and laboratory abnormalities [165, 167, 171, 172, 173]. Diagnosis of Bartonella infection can be performed by IFA test, PCR, or blood culture. Unfortunately, their use is mostly restricted to research due to their limited access (especially in antigen types used for IFA test). In recent years, DNA amplification after blood culture pre-enrichment became the gold standard for diagnosis of Bartonella infection [174]. Treatment of bartonellosis is very difficult, requiring long term treatment with a combination of antibiotics (i.e. azithromycin/minocycline) (e.g. [175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181]. As the pathogens possess a zoonotic potential, prevention of pathogen transmission is essential especially in form of ectoparasite control. This must include also cats as a major reservoir for Bartonella spp.

Lyme borreliosis

Lyme borreliosis (LB) caused by spirochetes of the Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato) species complex is a zoonotic disease affecting humans, dogs, horses and other mammalian species. Vectors in focus are hard ticks of the genus Ixodes, but neither the role of the different tick species in the transmission cycle nor the clinical relevance of the different B. burgdorferi (s.l.) species detected in those tick species in South America is clarified [182, 183, 184]. Moreover, a report of the detection of B. burgdorfei (sensu stricto) in Dermacentor nitens ticks in Brazil suggests that the etiology of LB in LATAM is far from being understood [185]. LB has hardly and mainly only based on seroprevalence data been described in pets in LATAM, especially in Mexico [186, 187] and Brazil [38, 188]. Clinical signs in dogs are listed elsewhere [189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194] and only few reports on LB exist in cats [195, 196, 197, 198]; for more detailed data see Pantchev et al. [198]. The clinical diagnosis of borreliosis in dogs is very difficult since compatible clinical symptoms with other vector-borne pathogens are very common. Direct detection methods (PCR and/or culture) are difficult and of little practical relevance as the organisms are rarely detected in body fluids [199, 200, 201]. Regarding serological diagnosis, detection of specific antibodies does not necessarily correlate with the presence of clinical disease [189]. The method of choice for serological diagnosis is a two-tiered laboratory test [202], consisting of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunoblotting (Western blotting); for more detailed information see also Krupka & Straubinger [189]. Furthermore, a commercial ELISA based on C6 peptide is also widely used for serodiagnosis (see Krupka & Straubinger [189] for additional information and further literature). Treatment of LB should be initiated as early as possible [189]. Whether dogs (or cats) should be treated when specific antibodies are detected in the absence of clinical signs is controversial [203, 204, 205]. Treatment is recommended for a period of 28 to 30 days, and the most commonly used drug is doxycycline. For further information on treatment regimens etc., see Krupka & Straubinger [189]. Again, prevention of pathogen transmission by ectoparasiticidal control is an essential aspect, especially also because of the zoonotic potential of the pathogens.

Ehrlichiosis

Ehrlichiosis in dogs and cats has been reported in LATAM. The causative agents are Ehrlichia canis (responsible for canine monocytic ehrlichiosis [CME]), Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii, with ticks as the transmitting vectors [206, 207, 208]. Clinical signs of CME are very similar to the ones presented in granulocytic anaplasmosis and partly also occur in cats. Ehrlichia ewingii infection is also reported to go along with clinical signs in dogs, but none in cats, whereas E. chaffeensis infection usually presents mildly or subclinically unless present in co-infection, and again with no reported signs in cats. For more details on CME see Sainz et al. [98] and on all three pathogens see Allison & Little [209]. Detection of E. canis morulae (an aggregate of E. canis organisms) in a blood smear, ideally a buffy coat smear, is indicative, but rather rare in clinical cases [210]. Further diagnostic tests, such as serology or molecular techniques (PCR) must be performed. CME can be diagnosed with IFA test or ELISA [211, 212, 213]. A fourfold increase in IgG antibodies over time has been suggested to be taken as evidence of an ongoing infection [213], as well as the combination of serology and PCR has been recommended for diagnosis of infection [214]. Nevertheless, use of some of these test systems might not be available for whole of LATAM. Additionally, rapid serological tests are available; for more detailed information on diagnostics see also Sainz et al. [98] and Allison & Little [209]. Doxycycline is considered the treatment of choice for rickettsial infections [100, 215, 216], thus also for ehrlichiosis; for details on the treatment regimen see among others Allison & Little [209] and Sainz et al. [98]. Again, avoidance of tick exposure and prevention of transmission by use of ectoparasiticidal compounds are essential. This is of vital importance as the mentioned pathogens may have zoonotic character (Venezuela [217], LATAM [218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223]).

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis (formerly known as hemobartonellosis) has rarely been reported in LATAM. The disease in dogs is caused mainly by Mycoplasma haemocanis and Mycoplasma haematoparvum. In cats, the disease can be caused by single- or co-infections with Mycoplasma haemofelis, Mycoplasma haemominutum and Mycoplasma turicensis. Blood transfusions have been reported as a source of infections (e.g. [224, 225]), but blood-sucking arthropods are likely to be involved in the transmission as well [226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231]. Generally, little is known on the ecology and form of transmission of these bacteria. Clinical signs may vary and are listed elsewhere [232, 233]. Specific conventional and quantitative real-time PCR systems have been introduced and are now considered the gold standard [234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239]. Treatment is performed depending on the severity of the infection. Antibiotics such as doxycycline or tetracycline should be effective, but consistent clearance of infection was not seen with a range of antibiotics [233]; for more details on treatment see among others Messick [233] and Willi et al. [240]. As with all potentially vector-transmitted pathogens, prevention in form of vector control is essential.

Rickettsiosis

Rickettsiosis has long been associated only with tick-borne Rickettsia species from the spotted fever group, with two very prominent representatives: Rickettsia rickettsii [agent of Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) and Brazilian spotted fever (BSF), also called fiebre manchada in Mexico and febre maculosa in Brazil] [241] and Rickettsia conorii [agent of Mediterranean spotted fever (MSF) or Boutonneuse fever] [242]. Meanwhile several further species have been identified as human and partly also companion animal pathogens, which are not only tick-borne (e.g. Rickettsia massiliae, Rickettsia parkeri, Rickettsia felis). Several tick species, among others from the genera Amblyomma, Dermacentor and Rhipicephalus, but also flea species from the genera Ctenocephalides and Archeopsylla, have been identified as vectors for the above-mentioned different Rickettsia species [243]. Infection of dogs and cats with Rickettsia species is often subclinical, inapparent, but may also result in severe disease (especially in the case of R. rickettsii) [244], potentially being even fatal [245]. For an overview on the different Rickettsia species see also Nicholson et al. [215] and Allison & Little [209]. Diagnosis of rickettsial pathogens is usually achieved by PCR assays, serological assays or response to treatment in most clinical cases. When PCR is not practical or available, serology, and here particularly documentation of seroconversion in an acutely ill individual, should be used. For detailed information on the different diagnostic approaches in Rickettsia spp. see also Allison & Little [209]. The antibiotic treatment of choice is doxycycline [215, 246]. Prompt treatment is critical as delays can result in fatality [209]. Besides the clinical effect of some Rickettsia species in dogs, dogs are important sentinels of infection and disease (e.g. in R. conorii) [247, 248]. They are also expected to play an important role as biological hosts of the ticks and serve to increase the infected tick population in close association with human habitation (again for R. conorii) [215]. Thus, ectoparasitic control is essential also under the zoonotic aspect and the concept of One Health.

At the end of the presentations of the relevant VBDs we want to remark that veterinarians should be aware of synergistic effects and clinically relevant immunosuppression in co-infected animals [249] as well as an altered clinical appearance in co-infected animals, potentially making diagnosis more difficult and probably leading to a more serious disease outcome [250]. This is relevant for the whole LATAM region as exposure to several pathogens seems possible.

Country files

Subsequently a listing of occurrence of the pathogens respectively of corresponding seroprevalence data in LATAM by country in alphabetical order follows, based on an actual literature search. Additionally, all described data are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Tabular overview on the occurrence of CVBDs in dogs, cats, humans and wild carnivores in LATAM based on an actual literature search (partly only based on seroprevalence data; single case reports included; questionable cross-reactivities neglected)

Country

Host

Bab

HWD

SD

Hep

Leisha

Trypb

Ana

Bart

Bor

Ehr

Myc

Rick

Argentina

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Wild carnivores

Y

Y

Y

Belize

Dogs

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Bolivia

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

Brazil

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Wild carnivores

Y (in captivity)

Y (in captivity)

 

Caribbean Islands

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Chile

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Humans

Y

Y

Y

Wild carnivores

 

Y

Y

Colombia

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

Costa Rica

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Cuba

Dogs

Y

Cats

Humans

Y

Dominican Republic

Dogs

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Ecuador

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

El Salvador

Dogs

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

French Guiana

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Humans

Y

Y

Guatemala

Dogs

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

  

Guyana (British Guyana)

Dogs

 

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Honduras

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Mexico

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

Y

Nicaragua

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Panama

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Paraguay

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Peru

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Y

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Puerto Rico

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Cats

 

Humans

Y

Suriname

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y (CL)

Y

Uruguay

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Humans

Y

Y

Y

Venezuela

Dogs

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cats

Y

Humans

Y (CL, VL)

Y

Y

aIn case of human visceral and cutaneous leishmaniosis, if not cited otherwise within the additional files, status for humans is according to the WHO webpages [708, 709]

bIn case of human trypanosomosis, if not cited otherwise within the additional files, status for humans is according to the WHO webpage [710]

Abbreviations: Y, yes (reported); –, not reported; Bab, babesiosis; HWD, heartworm disease; SD, subcutaneous dirofilariosis; Hep, hepatozoonosis; Leish, leishmaniosis; Tryp, trypanosomosis; Ana, anaplasmosis; Bart, bartonellosis; Bor, borreliosis; Ehr, ehrlichiosis; Myc, mycoplasmosis; Rick, rickettsiosis; CL, cutaneous leishmaniosis; VL, visceral leishmaniosis

Argentina

Parasitic diseases

As in many countries in LATAM, the most common parasitic diseases reported in Argentina are trypanosomosis (responsible for Chagas disease in humans), dirofilariosis and leishmaniosis.

Babesiosis due to B. vogeli has been described in three dogs from Buenos Aires [12, 251] and detected in 10% (2/21) and 6.8% (3/41) of shelter dogs from Córdoba and Santa Fé, respectively, by molecular methods [252]. Large piroplasms have furthermore been detected in 0.2% of tested animals in a large canine survey with more than 16,000 dogs [12, 251]. Babesia vogeli was also detected in cat fleas (Ctenocephalides felis) collected from shelter dogs in Córdoba and Santa Fé (R. Maggi, unpublished data). Interestingly, Babesia was not detected in any of 48 free ranging Pampas gray foxes (Lycalopex gymnocercus) from Rio Negro that showed high prevalence for hepatozoonosis [253].

Dirofilariosis caused by D. immitis has been reported in Buenos Aires [254, 255, 256] and Mendoza [257]. Epidemiological studies in Argentina suggest that the prevalence of dirofilariosis in dogs is highly variable, showing a significantly heterogeneous temporal and spatial distribution [254, 255, 256, 258, 259]. In Buenos Aires, screening of 19,298 blood samples from 65 localities showed prevalence values of 1.63% by microhematocrit tube technique, 3.65% by modified Knottʼs test, and 14.41% by antigen test [255].

Hepatozoonosis has been reported in dogs (infected with H. canis) from Buenos Aires [251, 260], and in up to 50% of 48 blood samples from free ranging Pampas gray foxes (L. gymnocercus) from Rio Negro (infected with Hepatozoon sp.) [253, 261]. Hepatozoon sp. infection has further been described in single canine cases in the Buenos Aires region [262]. No prevalence studies are available up to date.

For leishmaniosis, only few records are available regarding the overall prevalence in Argentina. Leishmania braziliensis and L. infantum have been associated with canine leishmaniosis in several provinces of the country, including Entre Rios, Santa Fé, Misiones, Chaco, Salta and Santiago del Estero [263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270]. Reports from Misiones, which represents one of the areas with highest endemicity for the disease in Argentina, indicate prevalences as high as 57% in dogs (43.6% seropositive and 47.3% positive by PCR) [266]. In other provinces, i.e. Salta, a significant seroprevalence (13.0–27.4%) has also been reported [263, 268].

Trypanosomiasis is one of the most important endemic VBDs in Argentina. Serological surveys in the northern rural regions have shown prevalences in dogs ranging between 23–84%; while seroprevalence in cats has been reported at 28.7% [83, 263, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277]. In hyperendemic regions, such as Chaco, molecular prevalence as high as 53% has been reported in dogs [278].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys infection was reported in prevalences ranging between 13.5–37.5% in sick dogs from Buenos Aires [251, 279, 280] detected by molecular techniques, and in 12.5% and 17.4% of dogs from Cordóba and Santa Fé [252], respectively. No data are available from other provinces. Nevertheless, A. platys was detected in R. sanguineus (s.l.) ticks from Chaco Province [281], and from cat fleas (C. felis) collected from shelter dogs in Córdoba and Santa Fé (R. Maggi, unpublished data).

Bartonellosis due to B. vinsonii berkhoffii has been detected in dogs with endocarditis in Buenos Aires (R. Maggi, unpublished data). Bartonella infection has been detected at a molecular prevalence of 3% in shelter dogs from Córdoba (close homology to B. tribocorum), and from Santa Fé (B. clarridgeiae). Bartonella clarridgeiae has also been detected in cat fleas (C. felis) collected from shelter dogs in Córdoba and Santa Fé (R. Maggi, unpublished data). Additionally, B. henselae and B. clarridgeiae have been detected at a molecular prevalence of 17.8% in cats from Buenos Aires [282].

Lyme borreliosis in dogs or cats in Argentina has not been reported yet. Nevertheless, the detection of B. burgdorferi (s.l.) infecting ticks in northern provinces [184], as well as the detection of antibodies against B. burgdorferi in farm workers has been reported [283].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been reported at a molecular prevalence in 7% of sick dogs from Buenos Aires [251]. No data are available on detection or prevalence of Ehrlichia spp. infecting dogs from other provinces, although E. canis was detected in R. sanguineus (s.l.) ticks from Formosa Province [281]. Ehrlichia chaffeensis has been found at a prevalence of 14% in people from Jujuy [221] and detected in A. parvum ticks collected from several mammal species (including a dog and humans) from Santiago del Estero [208].

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis mainly due to infection with M. haemocanis or M. haematoparvum has been detected at molecular prevalences of 83.3% and 73.9% in shelter dogs from Córdoba and Santa Fé, respectively [252]. Similarly, both pathogens were also detected in cat fleas (C. felis) collected from shelter dogs in Córdoba and Santa Fé (R. Maggi, unpublished data). Other species (Mycoplasma suis) have also been described in dogs [252]. Hemotropic mycoplasmas were also detected in up to 8.3% of 48 blood samples from free ranging Pampas gray foxes (L. gymnocercus) from Rio Negro [253].

Rickettsiosis has not been reported in dogs or cats yet in Argentina, but in 2.1% from 48 blood samples from free ranging Pampas gray foxes (L. gymnocercus) from Rio Negro [253]. Cases of human rickettsiosis due to R. rickettsii and R. parkeri infection have been reported in Jujuy and Buenos Aires [221, 284, 285, 286, 287]. Rickettsia species have been reported in several tick species: R. parkeri and R. bellii in Amblyomma triste from Entre Rios, Santa Fé, Córdoba, Buenos Aires, La Rioja, and in other northern provinces, and R. massiliae in R. sanguineus (s.l.) in Buenos Aires [279, 280]. Meanwhile R. felis has been detected in single cat fleas (C. felis) collected from dogs [288].

Belize

Data on VBDs in pet animals from Belize are very scarce or not existent.

Parasitic diseases

Leishmaniosis and trypanosomosis are the only two VBDs reported in people and vectors and as such their pathogens could be recognized as potential infectious agents for pets. Leishmania donovani, L. braziliensis and L. mexicana have been reported in people and sand flies [289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295], and meanwhile Trypanosoma infection has been reported in people and Triatoma species [296, 297].

Bacterial diseases

Rickettsiois: spotted fever group rickettsiae, especially R. amblyommatis and R. parkeri, were detected in Amblyomma species among others from dogs, suggesting a risk of tick-borne rickettsioses to humans and animals in Belize [298].

Bolivia

Data on VBDs in pet animals from Bolivia are very scarce or not existent.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis has been reported in dogs at an average of 33% seroprevalence (range: 22–41%) in different villages [299] and at c.10% in the Isoso of Bolivia [300]. Leishmaniosis has been reported in healthy dogs at a seroprevalence of 11.8% [301]. Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi in dogs was detected at a seroprevalence of 9.6% in Santa Cruz [302].

Bacterial diseases

Lyme borreliosis has been detected in people in the Santa Cruz department, south-eastern Bolivia, whereas dog sera failed to show positive seroprevalence for this pathogen [303, 304]. Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis was reported at a seroprevalence of 86% in domestic dogs [299]. Rickettsiosis in dogs due to R. rickettsii was reported at seroprevalences ranging between 68.2–86.0% [299, 305], while antibodies against R. parkeri were detected in 2.3% of dogs from Cochabamba [305]. Rickettsial species were also detected in Amblyomma ticks (Amblyomma tigrinum) [305].

Brazil

A comprehensive review on VBDs has been published by Dantas-Torres [38].

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis due to B. vogeli has been recognized in Brazil since the beginning of the 20th century. Babesia gibsoni infection in dogs has also been reported virtually in all Brazilian regions. The reported seroprevalence of infection in dogs ranges between 35.7–72.0% [38, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314]. In cats, B. vogeli has been reported at a molecular prevalence ranging between 11.9–16.0% [315, 316].

Dirofilariosis: Canine heartworm infections due to D. immitis are frequently reported in Brazil with prevalences that range from 2% to up to 23.1% [38, 174, 317, 318, 319, 320].

Hepatozoonosis due to H. canis is present in almost all regions. Prevalences of 39.2–58.8% have been reported in rural and urban areas [38, 39, 307, 321, 322].

Leishmaniosis was firstly recognized in Brazil during the 1930s. Canine visceral leishmaniosis by L. infantum is endemic in all Brazilian regions, meanwhile also occurring in the South of the country [38, 306, 323, 324, 325, 326]. Canine cutaneous leishmaniosis is also prevalent in all regions with prevalences ranging between 3.2–50.3%, depending on the area and methods of diagnosis used [323, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335]. The seroprevalence of Leishmania infection in dogs varies widely and can be as high as 67% in highly endemic foci [336]. In cats, seroprevalence of 54% has been also reported [337].

Trypanosomosis has been reported in almost all areas of Brazil. In areas where American trypanosomosis (or Chagas disease) is endemic, seroprevalences to T. cruzi between 16.0–71.6% in dogs were reported [338, 339, 340]. Clinically, the infection is of minor significance, as infected dogs are often asymptomatic carriers [38]. In cats, T. cruzi seroprevalence of 51% has been reported [337]. Trypanosoma evansi infection in dogs is found predominately in the Center-West and the South regions [341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350]. The seroprevalence of infection in dogs with T. evansi ranges between 15.7–30.0% [38, 341, 351].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis caused by A. platys in dogs is found in all regions according to Dantas-Torres [38] but has only sporadically been published. Molecular prevalences in dogs are ranging between 1.6–48.8% [306, 308, 309, 352, 353]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum has been reported at molecular prevalences between 6–7% in dogs [354, 355], 8% in cats [315] and in ixodid ticks [354].

Bartonellosis has been described in dogs and cats in southern Brazil. In sick dogs from southern states, prevalences in dogs of 1.9–3.9% have been reported to infection with B. vinsonii berkhoffii and B. henselae [324, 356, 357, 358]. In addition, B. vinsonii berkhoffii and B. clarridgeiae were detected by serology in captive wild canids (at seroprevalences ranging between 8–13%) from 19 zoos in São Paulo and Mato Grosso states [359]. In feral cats, the molecular prevalence for Bartonella infection can be as high as 17% [360, 361].

Lyme borreliosis has been recognized in humans in Brazil since 1989 [188, 362]. Serological surveys in dogs from Southeast Brazil showed ranges from less than 1% up to 20% [38]; while seroprevalences of up to 51% have been reported from Espirito Santo [188]. The pathogen has been recovered from Ixodes spp. (B. burgdorferi (s.l.) group) and from D. nitens ticks (B. burgdorferi B31 strain) [185, 363], but the role of the vector and the clinical relevance of the species have yet to be determined.

Ehrlichiosis, due to infection with E. canis, was firstly recognized in Brazil in the 1970s, and is prevalent in virtually all regions (for a comprehensive review on ehrlichiosis in Brazil, see Vieira et al. [364]). The seroprevalence of infection varies between the southern, Central-West and northern-northeastern regions of Brazil, but it can be as high as 62.8% in asymptomatic and 78% in symptomatic dogs [38, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, 324, 352, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375]. Molecular prevalence for E. canis has been found in dogs at a range of 15–88% [316, 364]. Infections in dogs with other Ehrlichia species, i.e. E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii, have also been reported [376]. In cats, E. canis or a closely related species have also been reported at a molecular level, with a prevalence ranging between 9.4–20.0% [377, 378].

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis has been recognized in Brazil and has been reported in several wild canids and felids as well as in humans [379, 380, 381, 382]. Several species of hemotropic mycoplasmas have been detected in dogs and cats [308, 361, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388]. The most predominant species in dogs is M. haemocanis, which has been recognized in South and Southeast Brazil. Other species such as M. haematoparvum, M. haemofelis, M. turicensis and M. haemominutum, have been detected in neotropical and exotic wild canids and felids from Brazilian zoos, and in feral cats [380]. Molecular prevalence of up to 32% has been reported in cats [315] and prevalences of 7–45% have been reported in dogs [382, 388].

Rickettsiosis due to several species of the spotted fever Rickettsia group, has been reported among others in humans and dogs [389, 390, 391, 392, 393]. Seroprevalence for R. rickettsii in dogs ranges between 2.7–64.0%, while seroprevalence of 2.7–7.3% has been reported for R. parkeri [371, 373, 389, 390, 392, 393]. Rickettsial species have also been reported in several tick species of the genera Amblyomma, in R. sanguineus (s.l.), and in cat fleas (e.g. [393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404]).

Caribbean Islands (excluding Cuba, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, listed separately)

The information on vector-borne pathogens on the Caribbean Islands in extremely scarce and fragmented.

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis has been described on several islands. Molecular screening of dogs in St. Kitts showed an overall prevalence of 24% for Babesia spp., of which 48% and 40% were due to B. vogeli and B. gibsoni, respectively, 2% were due to co-infections with both species and in 10% Babesia species was unidentified [13]. Babesia vogeli was also detected by PCR in 7% of dogs surveyed in Grenada [405] and in dogs in Trinidad [406]. Interestingly, B. vogeli infection was also detected in cats in Trinidad by PCR at 6.7% prevalence [406]. Finally, there is anecdotal record on B. canis (sp.) infection in dogs in Aruba [407]; Babesia infection has been reported by microscopy or serology in dogs visiting the Dutch Antilles [408].

Dirofilariosis has been reported in Turk and Caicos, Curaçao and Grenada. In Grenada, infection with D. immitis was documented by microfilarial identification with prevalences ranging between 9.1–26.8% in dogs affected with caval syndrome and submitted for necropsy [409]. Combining the results of four studies on live dogs and five studies on necropsied dogs (n = 1,245) between 2002 and 2009, an estimated overall D. immitis infection rate of 13.9% is reported [410]. A survey on feral cats, also in Grenada, showed a seroprevalence of 8% for D. immitis [411]. In Turk and Caicos, seroprevalence for D. immitis was 58% and 8% for feral and pet dogs, respectively [412]. In Curaçao, two canine surveys detected prevalences of 7.2% and 12.8% for female and for male dogs, respectively an overall prevalence of 9.0% (3.4% in feral and 13.5% in pet dogs) [413, 414].

Hepatozoonosis due to H. canis was described in St. Kitts at an overall molecular prevalence of 6% [13]. Meanwhile in Grenada, a molecular prevalence of 7% has been reported for dogs [405]. There are also anecdotal data on H. canis infection in dogs in Aruba [407].

Leishmaniosis in the Caribbean Islands has been rarely reported in dogs. In Grenada, screening of dogs using antibodies to visceral leishmaniosis failed to detect positives [415]. Nevertheless, leishmaniosis has been described in humans in Martinique [416, 417] and Guadalupe [418].

Trypanosomosis in wild animals and triatomine vectors has been reported since 1960 in Aruba, Curaçao, Jamaica and Trinidad [419, 420]. In Grenada, a seroprevalence of 13.2% and 4.3–6.4% in stray and pet dogs, respectively has been reported [63, 415].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis was detected in the region at a relatively high prevalence. In St. Kitts, a prevalence of 4% in healthy dogs was reported [13, 421]. In Grenada, prevalences of 19.2% (molecular prevalence) and 24% (seroprevalence) were reported for Anaplasma species [405, 422]. Anaplasma infections have also been reported in dogs in Trinidad [406].

Bartonellosis in cats and dogs has been reported on a few Caribbean Islands. Infections with B. henselae, B. clarridgeiae, or both have been reported in 51% of pet cats, and in a range of 52–63% in feral cats from St. Kitts [423]. Similarly, 24% of pet cats and 59% of feral cats were positive for one or both species (B. henselae and B. clarridgeiae) in Trinidad [424]. In dogs, Bartonella species have been also detected at a molecular prevalence of 1.4 % for B. vinsonii berkhoffii, and at a seroprevalence of 8.2% for Bartonella spp. in Grenada [405].

Ehrlichia infection in the region has also been reported on several islands. In St. Kitts, an overall (serological and/or PCR) prevalence of 24% has been reported in dogs [13]. In Trinidad, 14.1% (molecular prevalence) and 44.6% (seroprevalence) have been reported for E. canis in healthy and stray dogs, respectively [406, 425]. Prevalences ranging from 24.7% (molecular prevalence) to 31% (seroprevalence) have been reported for Ehrlichia species in dogs from Grenada [405, 422]. In Turk and Caicos, seroprevalences of 71% and 18% were reported for feral and pet dogs, respectively [412]. In Aruba 4 of 7 dogs were reported to be infected with E. canis confirmed by microscopy [407]. Ehrlichia infection has further been reported by microscopy or serology in dogs visiting the Dutch Antilles [408]. Ehrlichia canis has been detected in cats in Trinidad at a molecular prevalence of 6.7% [406].

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis due to M. haematoparvum and M. haemocanis has been reported in dogs in Trinidad at a prevalence of 8.1% [239]. Mycoplasma haemofelis and M. haemominutum have been reported in 31.6% and 33.3% of cats in Trinidad [406, 426].

Chile

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis has been described in dogs from a semi-rural district near Santiago. Microscopic and molecular analysis showed that microfilariae, similar to D. repens, were present in about 22% of the dogs with (32%) or without (12%) dermatological symptoms or signs compatible with filarial infections [36]. A single human case with a subcutaneous infection of an unidentified Dirofilaria sp. is also reported [427].

Hepatozoonosis: There are no reports on dogs or cats, but Hepatozoon spp. has been detected in hard and soft ticks from different regions of Chile [428].

Trypanosomosis in people (Chagas disease) has been recognized to exist in seven of the 13 administrative regions of the country [429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443]. The seroprevalence in dogs has been reported to be over 4.6% in the northern areas [430]. In a large periurban survey, 7.9% of cats and 7.0% of dogs were positive by indirect hemagglutination test [439].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys has been reported in sick dogs from Santiago at a molecular prevalence of 20% [444]. Other studies revealed a much higher seroprevalence (69%) against A. phagocytophilum in dogs exposed to ticks in the same region [445]. It is not clear whether these results are a consequence of serological cross-reaction with A. platys. Anaplasma species has been aslo detected in soft ticks in Chile [428].

Bartonellosis has been described in cats but not in dogs from Chile even though Bartonella (B. rochalimae) has been reported in fleas from dogs [123]. In cats, seroprevalence of B. henselae is very high (71–73%) in pet cats [446, 447], and even higher (90%) in stray cats [447]. In addition, B. henselae and B. clarridgeiae were also reported in fleas from cats [447].

Lyme borreliosis has not been described in dogs, even though there is some debate on Lyme disease in Chile [448, 449]. Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) species have recently been detected in Ixodes stilesi ticks [183]. The role of this species in the transmission of Lyme borreliosis has yet to be determined. Different Borrelia species, some of them closely related to Borrelia turicatae and Borrelia garinii, have been detected in hard and soft ticks from different regions of Chile [428].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been reported in single canine cases, confirmed by serology and molecular methods [450] or only by serology [451]. Nevertheless, no data are available for the prevalence and distribution of the disease. Seropositivity in single dogs to E. chaffeensis has also been reported [223]. In addition, Ehrlichia spp. has been detected in soft ticks from the Chañaral region of Chile [428].

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis due to M. haemocanis, M. haemofelis and a species closely related to M. turicensis, has been reported in wild carnivores (Darwin’s foxes) with a prevalence of up to 57% on Chiloé Island [452].

Rickettsiosis due to R. conorii has been reported in dogs from Santiago de Chile with a seroprevalence of 35%, but rickettsial species should be confirmed by molecular studies [445]. Rickettsia felis has also been reported in wild foxes (Darwin’s foxes) from Chiloé, with a prevalence of 3% [452], in R. sanguineus (s.l.) ticks from dogs [453], as well as in C. felis fleas from dogs and cats and Ctenocephalides canis fleas from dogs [454].

Colombia

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis due to B. vogeli has been frequently described in Colombia. Seroprevalence in dogs has been reported at 4.8% in Bogota, 58% in Villavicencio and 71.8% in Bucaramanga [455].

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis has been reported at prevalences of 1.6% (seroprevalence) [456], 4.8% (Knottʼs test) [457], and 3.8% (Knottʼs test) to 4.6% (Knottʼs test plus antigen ELISA) [458]. In the Colombian Amazon in two Tikuna Indian communities 53.8% (7/13 dogs) of the tested dogs were positive for D. immitis by modified Knottʼs test [459].

Hepatozoonosis by H. canis has been reported in 31.8% of dogs in the central-western region by molecular and/or microscopic methods [460].

Leishmaniosis in dogs has been frequently described in Colombia. Overall prevalence of infection averaging 33.6% has been reported in northern territories [461], while a seroprevalence of 44.1% (by IFA test) to 50.2% (by ELISA) has been reported from Tolima [462]. Interestingly, a very low seroprevalence (1.6%) has been reported in dogs from Bogota using IFA test [325]. Pathogens of cutaneous leishmaniosis (L. panamensis, L. braziliensis) have been reported in humans in several areas of Colombia [463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471].

Trypanosomosis has been known to be present in Colombia. In dogs, seroprevalence of 71.6% on Margarita Island [338] and molecular prevalence of 31% for T. cruzi in dogs from the Northeast has been reported [472].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys has been detected by serology in 53% of dogs from Barranquilla [473]. Additionally, two single A. phagocytophilum seropositive dogs have been detected in the same study [473]. Further reports of anaplasmosis due to A. phagocytophilum have been published for Colombia at an average seroprevalence of 33% (12% for Medellin, 40% for Barranquilla and 51% for Cartagena) using rapid tests [456]. Nevertheless, caution should be considered regarding cross-reactivity with A. platys in this data.

Bartonellosis has been detected at a seroprevalence of 10% in dogs from Bogota testing against B. vinsonii berkhoffii, B. clarridgeiae and B. henselae antigens [356].

Lyme borreliosis has not been detected in dogs [456], even though the disease has been detected in people from rural areas of Colombia [474].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been reported in Colombia at an average seroprevalence of 22% (26% in Medellin, 67% in Bogota, 74–83% in Barranquilla, 80% in Cartagena, 83.9% in Villavicencio and 89.7% in Bucaramanga) [455, 456, 473]. Molecular prevalence for E. canis has been reported in Villavicencio at 45.2%, and in Bucaramanga at 59% [455]. Interestingly, a serological survey in rural areas near Bogota showed a 31.8% seroprevalence against E. chaffeensis in dogs [475]. Nevertheless, caution should be considered for cross-reactivity with E. canis.

Rickettsiosis due to R. rickettsii has been reported at a seroprevalence of 18.2% in dogs from rural areas near Bogota [475]. Seropositivity to spotted fever group rickettsiae was also detected in 40.7% of tested dogs in the Caribbean region of Colombia [476]. Rickettsia amblyommii respectively “Candidatus Rickettsia amblyommii” has been detected by PCR in Amblyomma cajennense ticks close to the Colombian border in Panama and in Colombia (Villeta) itself [477, 478], while R. bellii and R. felis have been detected in Amblyomma ovale ticks and in fleas (C. felis, C. canis and Pulex irritans) collected from domestic animals and small mammals [476], respectively, from dogs and cats [479].

Costa Rica

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis in dogs due to B. vogeli was reported at an overall molecular prevalence ranging between 2.4–20.0% [40, 41]. Interestingly, the prevalence varied significantly depending on regions [40]. Babesiosis due to B. gibsoni has also been reported in Costa Rica at a molecular prevalence of 5% [41].

Dirofilariosis in dogs due to D. immitis infection has been reported at prevalences of 2.3–11.0% (by serology) and 22.6% (by molecular methods) [41, 480, 481, 482]. Positive rates were strongly dependent on region, climate, and test system used. The influence of the test system used was especially demonstrated in studies by Rojas et al. [481].

Hepatozoon infection in dogs due to H. canis was reported at an overall molecular prevalence ranging between 2.4–37.5% [40, 41] with huge differences between the tested regions [40].

Leishmaniosis has not been detected in surveys of dogs from the regions central, Pacific and Atlantic [40].

Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi has been reported in dogs from Costa Rica at a seroprevalence ranging between 1.6–27.7% [85, 483, 484, 485].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys has been reported in Costa Rica at a molecular prevalence ranging between 1–10% in dogs [40, 41, 486, 487, 488], with obvious differences between the tested regions [40]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum has been reported in single canine cases by PCR [486, 489] and at a seroprevalence of 2.7% [486] and 3.8% [490], with questionable capability to differentiate between the two pathogen species in the latter study. Finally, Montenegro et al. [482] reported an overall seroprevalence in all seven provinces for Anaplasma spp. of 6.4%, with no differentiation between the two species due to cross-reactions in the test system used.

Bartonellosis was not reported in dogs or cats in Costa Rica. Nevertheless, B. clarridgeiae and B. henselae have been detected in cat fleas, whereas B. vinsonii berkhoffii and B. rochalimae have been detected in dog fleas [491].

Lyme borreliosis in form of seropositivity to B. burgdorferi (s.l.) antigen has been documented in a single dog from Costa Rica [482] with questionable autochthonous character. A further single seropositive canine case without a proof of an actual infection by PCR has been reported [492].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been reported from Costa Rica at a molecular prevalence ranging between 3.2–50.0% [40, 41, 493, 494]. Interestingly, E. canis prevalence varies massively depending on the region [40]. Seroprevalence in dogs for E. canis has been reported at a range of 3.5–38.2% [480, 482, 490, 494]. Furthermore, E. chaffeensis has been detected at a molecular prevalence of 59% in dogs [495].

Rickettsiosis due to R. rickettsii, R. amblyommii, R. felis, R. rhipicephali and R. parkeri has been reported at varying seroprevalences in dogs from San Jose [496]. Furthermore, R. felis has been detected in cat fleas [497, 498] and R. amblyommii has been detected in A. cajennense ticks [497].

Cuba

The information on vector-borne pathogens on Cuba is very scarce and fragmented.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis was reported on Cuba in a range between 6.7–40.0% in dogs [499, 500, 501].

Bacterial diseases

Lyme borreliosis: The disease has not been officially reported in Cuba. However, clinical cases resembling Lyme disease and serologically positive cases have been reported in humans [502, 503], but existence of B. burgdorferi (s.l.) is still much debated [504, 505]. No prevalence data for dogs or cats are available for the region.

Dominican Republic

The information on vector-borne pathogens in the Dominican Republic is extremely scarce or non-existent.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis by antigen detection or microfilaria evidence in dogs has been reported at a prevalence of 18.2% on Samana Peninsula [506] and at a prevalence of 18% in Santo Domingo [507]. An autochthonous focus for cutaneous leishmaniosis in humans has been described within the last 20 years is the Dominican Republic [508, 509, 510, 511]. Nevertheless, no prevalence data for dogs are available.

Ecuador

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis due to Babesia spp. has been reported in dogs from Cuenca (by blood smear analysis) at a prevalence of 40.6% [512]. No Babesia spp. antibodies were detected in a screening for different Babesia species of dogs on Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Dirofilariosis has been reported only on Isabela Island, Galapagos, with 34% seroprevalence in dogs and 2% in cats [7].

Leishmaniosis in dogs was reported on the Pacific coast of Ecuador and in other areas [513, 514]. Seroprevalence of 4% against L. donovani was also detected in dogs on Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Trypanosomosis in people (Chagas disease) was described in Ecuador in 1930 in the province of Guayas and thereafter in various other provinces [515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522]. A serosurvey on dogs, performed in two towns in Guayas province detected seroprevalences of 9.1% and 14.3%, determined by ELISA [518]. Trypanosoma infection was not detected in dogs or cats from Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys was reported in a single dog from Isabela Island, Galapagos [7]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum was reported by blood smear analysis in Cuenca at a prevalence of 3.1% [512] and by rapid test at different seroprevalences (26–48%) in dogs in Manta and Guyaquil [523], but cross-reaction with A. platys especially in the latter survey should be borne in mind. In addition, an Anaplasma species closely related to A. phagocytophilum was described in Amblyomma multipunctum and Rhipicephalus microplus ticks collected from the Antisana Ecological Reserve and Cayambe-Coca National Park [524].

Bartonellosis was detected on Isabela Island, Galapagos, at a seroprevalence of 75% in cats, and at a molecular prevalence of 13% in dogs [7]. The most common species identified by DNA amplification in cats were B. henselae and B. clarridgeiae, while B. henselae, B. clarridgeiae, and B. elizabethae were detected in dogs [7].

Lyme borreliosis was not detected in dogs surveyed on Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis estimated by blood smear analysis has also been reported from Cuenca at a prevalence of 56.3% [512] and by rapid test at different seroprevalences (66–78%) in dogs in Guyaquil and Manta [523]. Ehrlichia infection (determined by IFA test or PCR) was not detected in dogs from Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Hemotropic mycoplasmosis has been reported at a molecular prevalence of 2% in cats and of 1% in dogs on Isabela Island, Galapagos [7].

Rickettsiosis has not been reported in dogs or cats, although a R. felis-like organism was identified in C. felis fleas collected from dogs from Pastaza and Chimborazo provinces [525].

El Salvador

The information on vector-borne pathogens in El Salvador is extremely scarce or non-existent.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis: Infection with D. immitis has been described in dogs from northern El Salvador at a seroprevalence of 3% [526]. In a study performed on dogs from the coastal areas of El Puerto de La Libertad (La Libertad), prevalences ranging between 11–19%, depending on the type of methods used, were detected [527].

Leishmaniosis: The pathogen of visceral leishmaniosis L. infantum (syn. L. chagasi) has been isolated in a human case of cutaneous leishmaniosis in El Salvador [528], but no data on dogs or cats are available.

Trypanosomosis has been known to be present in El Salvador affecting people as Chagas disease since 1913. In 1976, prevalences (by xenodiagnosis) of 5% and 7.1% were reported for T. cruzi and T. rangeli in dogs, respectively [529], while prevalence values of 1.4% and 4.2% were reported for the same species, respectively, in cats [529].

French Guiana

As mentioned beforehand to a number of countries, the information on CVBDs in French Guiana is very scarce.

Parasitic diseases

Leishmaniosis has been widely reported in people [530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537]. Only two canine cases (one with questionable autochthonous character) and one clinical case of cutaneous leishmaniosis due to L. braziliensis in a domestic cat have been reported [538, 539]. Trypanosomosis has been known to be present in French Guiana affecting people (Chagas disease) [540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis has been described in dogs from French Guiana at a molecular prevalence for A. platys of 15.4% [547]. Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been reported at a seroprevalence of 6.6% in dogs imported from French Guiana to France [548]. No other data are available for Ehrlichia species prevalence in the region.

Guatemala

The state of knowledge is very scarce for CVBDs in Guatemala.

Parasitic diseases

Leishmaniosis has been reported in the Peten Region with a seroprevalence of 28% in dogs [549]. Trypanosomosis has been described in dogs at a seroprevalence of 37% [550].

Bacterial diseases

Bartonellosis due to Bartonella species has been reported in cats [551], but not in dogs. Rickettsiosis has not been reported in Guatemala in dogs or cats. Nevertheless, R. felis has been reported in cat fleas [498].

Guyana (British Guyana)

The information on vector-borne pathogens in Guyana is extremely scarce or non-existent.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis by D. immitis was reported in 1964 at an overall prevalence of 14.1% in 2135 dogs screened via Knottʼs test [552]. Leishmaniosis in people has been described frequently [553, 554, 555], but no published data on dogs or cats are available. Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi has been sporadically reported in humans [542]. No reports on infection or prevalence are available for dogs or cats.

Honduras

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis has been detected and reported in dogs from Roatán, Islas de la Bahía, at a prevalence of 30% (Knottʼs test) [556].

Leishmaniosis due to L. donovani was detected at a seroprevalence of 25% in cats [557] and ranging between 1.4–8.6% in dogs [557, 558, 559, 560], but caution should be taken due to cross-reactivity with T. cruzi. Visceral and cutaneous leishmaniosis have been reported in humans in Honduras for some time with L. chagasi and L. mexicana as underlying pathogens [560, 561].

Trypanosomosis in people due to T. cruzi and T. rangeli is present in Honduras [558, 559]. A study in cats revealed a 16% prevalence rate for T. cruzi [557]. Although official reports on trypanosomosis in dogs are not available, apart from a single described canine isolate by Acosta et al. [558], the presence of the disease in dogs has been suggested due to the serological cross-reactivity between T. cruzi and L. donovani [559].

Bacterial diseases

Lyme borreliosis in form of seropositivity has been detected in cats at 25% prevalence [557]. Ehrlichiosis has been detected in dogs at a molecular prevalence of 23.7% for E. canis. Ticks collected from dogs have also been tested positive for E. canis [562]. Rickettsiosis due to R. rickettsii has been reported in cats at 16% seroprevalence [557].

Mexico

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis has been described in 3 of 22 sick dogs from Morelos (13.6%), using DNA amplification [563] and in 3 of 30 dogs from Veracruz (10%) using indirect haemagglutination test [564].

Dirofilariosis has been described in dogs from all regions. Prevalence of 1.3% in central Mexico, 60% in Celestum, and 8.3% in Yucatan for D. immitis have been reported [565, 566, 567]. Dirofilaria repens has also been reported in a single dog in Guanajuato [35].

Leishmaniosis was described to affect dogs and cats in several regions. In dogs, seroprevalences ranging between 7.5–32.8% for L. braziliensis, 4.7–41.4% for L. mexicana, and 6.1–11.9% for L. infantum, have been reported in Quintana Roo and the Yucatan peninsula [568, 569, 570]. A prevalence of 19% of visceral leishmaniosis has been reported also in dogs from Chiapas [571]. In cats, prevalences of infection with L. mexicana, L. braziliensis and L. panamensis at 10%, 11.6% and 22.1%, respectively, have been reported in Yucatan [569].

Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi has been reported in dogs at seroprevalences of 8.1% in Jalisco, 7.6% in Campeche, between 4.5–42.8% in Chiapas, 20.0–21.3% in Quintana Roo, 21.0–24.5% in Tejupilco, 17.5% in Toluca and 9.8–34.0% in Yucatan [84, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579]. In cats, T. cruzi infection has been reported at a seroprevalence of 7.4–8.6% in the Yucatan Peninsula [580, 581].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. phagocytophilum was described in sick dogs from Oaxaca at a seroprevalence of 7.4% [582] and of 3% from Monterrey [583], but potential cross-reactivity in the used test system with A. platys antibodies should be borne in mind. Anaplasma sp. was also detected in a large countrywide screening at 0.61–16.4% seroprevalences all over the area, depending on the region [186]. A molecular prevalence of 31% for Anaplasma sp. was reported for Coahuila and Durango with 3% of the dogs confirmed as A. platys infection [584].

Lyme borreliosis in dogs due to B. burgdorferi (s.l.) is reported in variable range among different regions of Mexico. It was reported in 0.9% of dogs from Nuevo Leon (by PCR), in 16% from Monterrey, in 8.2% from Mexicali, and in 0.23% of dogs including 21 Federate Mexican states (by seroprevalence) [186, 187, 585, 586]. Seroprevalence in humans was 3.4% in Mexico City, 6.2% in northeastern regions, and 0.3% in a nationwide survey [587, 588], with the Northeast considered as a zone where Lyme disease is endemic [589].

Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis was reported at a seroprevalence ranging between 8.7–44.1% in dogs from Yucatan [590, 591], a seroprevalence of 74.3% in clinically suspected dogs from Sinaloa [592] and at a molecular prevalence of 45% in shelter dogs from Yucatan [593]. Similarly, a seroprevalence of 37% was reported in sick dogs from Oaxaca [582]. Ehrlichia canis was also detected in a large countrywide screening at seroprevalences of 2.4–51%, depending on the region [186].

Rickettsiosis due to R. felis or R. rickettsii has been reported in people, but not in dogs [594]. Nevertheless, R. akari has been reported in a dog from Yucatan, whereas R. felis has been reported at a prevalence of 20% in fleas collected from dogs also on the Yucatan Peninsula [595, 596] and R. rickettsii has been reported in A. cajennense collected from dogs [597].

Nicaragua

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis in form of Babesia spp. infection has been reported in dogs at a molecular prevalence of 26% (10/39), with four dogs being infected with B. gibsoni and six being infected with B. vogeli [598].

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis has been described in two dogs from Managua [599], but autochthonous character of the two dogs is questionable. In a screening of 329 dogs a seroprevalence of 1.8% was detected. Additionally, in the same study in single dogs microfilariae were detected by microscopy and D. immitis infection was confirmed by PCR in two dogs [492].

Hepatozoonosis due to H. canis was detected at a molecular prevalence of 51% [598].

Leishmaniosis in different clinical scenarios and caused by different species has been reported in man [600, 601], but no prevalence data in dogs or cats could be found.

Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi has been described in people in Nicaragua [602, 603]. No information about the prevalence of the pathogen is available in dogs or cats.

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis in dogs due to A. platys infection has been reported at a molecular prevalence of 13% [598] and at a seroprevalence to Anaplasma spp. of 28.6% [492]. In the latter screening, A. platys and A. phagocytophilum infection could be confirmed on a molecular basis in 21.3% and 18.1% of seropositive dogs, respectively [492].

Lyme borreliosis could not be confirmed in a serosurvey of 329 dogs [492].

Ehrlichiosis in dogs has been found at a molecular prevalence of 56% [598] and at a seroprevalence of 63% for E. canis [604] and 62.9% for Ehrlichia spp. [492]. In the last study, 58.5% of all seropositive dogs were confirmed to be infected with E. canis by molecular methods [492].

Rickettsiosis due to R. felis has been reported at a molecular prevalence of 5% in dogs [598]. Additionally, R. amblyommii could be detected in A. ovale [605].

Panama

Parasitic diseases

Leishmaniosis was detected in dogs by microscopic examination at prevalences ranging between 3.0–15.4% [606, 607, 608, 609]. A seroprevalence as high as 47% in dogs has also been reported in endemic regions [610]. Trypanosomosis has been reported at an overall infection index of 16.2% in dogs, with a seroprevalence of 11.1% for T. cruzi and at an infection rate (determined by PCR and blood culture) of 5.1% for T. rangeli [611].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys has been detected at a molecular prevalence of 21.4% in dogs [612]. Anaplasma phagocytophilum has been identified in ticks collected from a cow [613]. Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis infection has been detected at a molecular prevalence of 64.2% in dogs [612]. Other Ehrlichia spp. have been detected in ticks from horses and cattle [477, 613]. Rickettsiosis has been reported in dogs at a seroprevalence of 55% for R. amblyommii, 20% for R. rickettsii, 5% for R. bellii, 25% for R. rhipicephali, 10% for R. parkeri and 15% for R. felis [614]. Similarly, R. felis and R. amblyommii/“Candidatus R. amblyommii” have been detected in fleas and ticks, respectively, from dogs and cats [477, 614, 615, 616, 617].

Paraguay

The information on vector-borne pathogens in Paraguay is extremely scarce or non-existent.

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis in domestic dogs has been detected at an overall prevalence of 6% from 384 animals surveyed from Asunción, with B. vogeli being the most predominat piroplasmid species [618]. Dirofilariosis by D. immitis has been reported by necropsy in eight dogs of 200 street animals [619]. Leishmaniosis has been reported at seroprevalences ranging between 6.6–69.0% in dogs [620, 621, 622]. Trypanosomosis was detected in dogs at seroprevalences of 36.4% and 38% [623, 624] and in cats at 37.5% [624].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis has been detected in a larger population of dogs (n = 384) sampled from Asunción; A. platys was detected and identified at a molecular prevalence 10.67% [625]. Ehrlichiosis has been reported in the same population of dogs (n = 384) from Asunción with E. canis detected and identified at a molecular prevalence of 10.41% [625].

Peru

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis has been reported at a seroprevalence of 4.4% in dogs from Lima [626, 627] and ranging between 0–12.8% seroprevalence in further studies from Lima [628, 629, 630].

Leishmaniosis has been reported in Peru at molecular prevalences ranging between 5.4–7.6% in asymptomatic and 18–45% in symptomatic dogs [631, 632, 633, 634]. Prevalence was highly dependent on the detection method [631], as well as on the type of sample and the molecular target used for testing [632, 635].

Trypanosomosis due to T. cruzi infection in dogs has been reported in southern Peru at a seroprevalence of 12.3% [636], while in northern Peru seroprevalences ranged between 19.8–40.0% [637, 638].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. phagocytophilum infection has been reported in a single dog from Lima [639]. Caution should be enforced due to potential cross-reactivity of the used test with A. platys. Anaplasma platys infection as suggested by inclusion bodies in platelets, was identified in 29.2% of pet dogs from Lima, and a prevalence of 1.4% for A. platys was detected by molecular methods in the same dog population [640].

Bartonellosis due to infection with B. rochalimae or B. vinsonii berkhoffii was detected by molecular methods in 10% of asymptomatic dogs [641]. The same survey also showed a seroprevalence of 62% for B. rochalimae and of 40% for B. vinsonii berkhoffii. Infection with Bartonella species in cats has been reported [642], but no prevalence values are available.

Lyme borreliosis has been reported in people in Peru [643, 644]. Furthermore, potential vectors have been detected [643], but information is scarce. Seropositivity has been reported in two dogs from Lima one of which was suspected to be of autochthonous character [639].

Ehrlichiosis has been reported in dogs [626, 645] as well as in humans, here in form of seropositivity to E. canis and E. chaffeensis [222, 645, 646]. A survey of a small cohort of dogs showed a molecular prevalence of 44% for E. canis [645] and a seroprevalence of 16.5% for E. canis in a population of 140 dogs [626].

Rickettsiosis in Peru has been reported in people and vectors [647]. A seroprevalence of 59.2% in dogs and of 7.7% in cats has been reported for spotted fever group rickettsiae [647]. Similarly, R. felis and R. parkeri have been detected in fleas and ticks from domestic animals [648].

Puerto Rico

The information on vector-borne pathogens in Puerto Rico is scarce.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis due to D. immitis in dogs has been detected at a seroprevalence of 19% in 123 dogs tested from Guaynabo and Ponce regions [649] and of 6.7% in 1,723 dogs with massively varying prevalences (up to 20.4%) in the different tested locations on the island using Knottʼs test [650]. A seroepidemiological study in humans revealed 2.66% D. immitis seropositives [651].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. phagocytophilum, showed a seroprevalence of 30.9% for 123 dogs from Ponce, Guaynabo and Vieques Island [649], but caution should be considered due to cross-reactivity with A. platys antibodies in the used test system. Lyme borreliosis in dogs has not been detected by a serological survey in Guaynabo, Ponce or Vieques Island [649]. Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis has been detected at a seroprevalence of 45.5% in dogs [649].

Suriname

The information on vector-borne pathogens in Suriname is extremely scarce or non-existent.

Parasitic diseases

Dirofilariosis in dogs by D. immitis infection has been reported in old dissection studies [652, 653, 654, 655] and by Panday et al. [656] detecting 26% of positive dogs using modified Knottʼs test and 5.7% of seropositive dogs using IFA test. Leishmaniosis in form of human cutaneous leishmaniosis is endemic in the hinterland [657, 658, 659, 660, 661] and has been detected in a population of 47 dogs with a seroprevalence of 4.3% [662, 663]. Trypanosomosis suspected to be caused by T. evansi has been reported in four single cases in hunting dogs [664] and due to T. cruzi is reported in people [665].

Uruguay

Parasitic diseases

Leishmaniosis has recently been reported in 11/45 dogs by serology in Salto, Uruguay. Typing revealed L. infantum as corresponding pathogen. Additionally, Leishmania DNA was also detected in sand flies [666]. Trypanosomosis has been described in people in Uruguay [667, 668, 669, 670], but no reports or prevalence data are available for dogs or cats.

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis due to A. platys infection has been reported in 4.2% of dogs surveyed in northwestern Uruguay [671]. Bartonellosis was not reported in dogs or cats, but has been described in children [672, 673]. Lyme borreliosis was not described in people, dogs or cats. Nevertheless, B. burgdorferi (s.l.) genospecies have been detected in Ixodes pararicinus (I. ricinus complex group) ticks in the region [182]. Rickettsiosis due to seroreactivitiy against antigens of R. felis, R. parkeri and R. rhipicephali has been described in dogs at an overall seroprevalence of 20.3% [674]. From that study, it is estimated that at least 14% of dogs were seropositive for R. parkeri, or a R. parkeri-like organism. Rickettsia parkeri and R. felis have furthermore been detected in ticks and/or fleas [674, 675, 676, 677, 678], and there have been reports on R. conorii infections in humans [679, 680], but with some debate on cross-reactivity [678].

Venezuela

Parasitic diseases

Babesiosis due to B. vogeli has been reported at a molecular prevalence of 2.2% in dogs [681].

Dirofilariosis has been reported using modified Knottʼs test at a prevalence of 15.8% in dogs from Sucre [682] and, using ELISA, at a prevalence of 13% in Barquisimeto [683] and of 44.9% in Maracaibo [684]. D’Alessandro [685] reported an overall prevalence of 28.9% in dogs from Aragua using microscopic blood examination; the author detected a higher prevalence in hunting dogs (58.5%) compared to shelter or owned dogs (11.7%). Furthermore, there are also single feline case reports published for Venezuela [686, 687, 688].

Hepatozoon infection in dogs due to H. canis has been reported at a prevalence of 44.8% [681].

Leishmaniosis in dogs has been reported at prevalences ranging between 3–57%, depending on the region, the year and the type of test [323, 689, 690, 691, 692]. On Margarita Island, seroprevalences of 21.0–33.1% have also been reported for dogs [693].

Trypanosomosis has been reported in dogs at seroprevalences ranging between 6.4–67.6% [694, 695, 696, 697, 698].

Bacterial diseases

Anaplasmosis in dogs due to A. platys has been reported [699, 700], and in one study even a prevalence of 16% by PCR was documented [701]. Lyme borreliosis has been described in humans [702, 703], but no reports on dogs or cats are available. Ehrlichiosis due to E. canis infection has been reported at a molecular prevalence of 31% in dogs [704]. A co-infection in a dog with E. canis and E. chaffeensis has been also reported [705].

Summary and priorities in companion vector-borne disease management

As illustrated by the prevalence data presented in this review, vector-borne pathogens are ubiquitous in LATAM, and represent a challenge for animal and, due to the zoonotic character of several of them, public health systems in both, urban and rural environments.

Unfortunately, diagnosis of VBDs as well as the system of VBD surveillance, reporting, prevention and control in the region is relatively weak, very limited, and in most cases inexistent.

During the last ten years, significant improvements in vector control and surveillance, clinical diagnosis, and medical practices have been achieved in the area of VBDs globally, but this seems not be the case for several areas in LATAM. Regrettably, LATAM is characterized by an expanding human population with marked social, cultural and economic inequalities. Several factors have created conditions for the emergence and persistence of previously unrecognized vector-borne and zoonotic diseases in most of the countries of the region [11, 38, 706], such as drastic changes in economic development and land use; poor waste disposal management practices (conducing to an uncontrolled growth of feral dog and cat populations); absence of responsible pet ownership; lack of awareness of animal welfare and disease prevention; restricted economic constrains to proper veterinary care; and extremely limited access to technological advances in diagnostic tools. Under these circumstances, it is clear that one of the most important steps towards control of CVBDs is prevention. In this context, companion animals, often having higher exposure and risk factors to VBDs than humans, could play a valuable role in minimizing the zoonotic potential of CVBDs by controlling this reservoir through proper prevention.

Prevention of infection should be based on actions aimed at averting infection in three main areas: vector control through use of repellent ectoparasiticides/insecticides and through environmental control (control of water accumulation, waste management, insecticidal treatment, mosquito screens etc.), vaccination, where applicable, and behavioral prophylaxis (cleaning of animals’ residues, avoidance of daily phases with high vector activity like e.g. twilight, no abandonment of pets etc.).

Several previously unrecognized or overshadowed vector-borne pathogens that affect companion animals are present in LATAM. Most, if not all of the diseases presented here are zoonotic, which not only represents a concrete risk for pet animals, but also for people. Unfortunately, the information to the veterinary, public and medical community is either very scarce, limited, inexistent or not accessed and due to non-awareness in the people concerned.

In order to address the challenges that CVBDs impose to the region, some of the following priorities should be considered:
  • Availability of affordable diagnostic techniques with solid interpretation and easy access to diagnostic reference laboratories in order to maintain consistent methodologies and updated diagnostic techniques.

  • Easy access to formal (i.e. scientific and medical journals) and informal (i.e. conference and meeting proceedings, white papers, etc.) information regarding occurrence of VBDs, new or improved diagnostic tools, clinical findings, treatment protocols, and options of prevention aimed at veterinarians and medical professionals.

  • Creation of cooperative extension services and outreach programs fostering the collaboration between veterinarians, physicians, scientists, health workers, social workers, educators and farm communities.

  • Development of impactful educational programs aiming at pet owners, farmers, and the general public regarding responsible pet ownership, vector control and VBD prophylaxis.

  • Development of VBD surveillance network systems in collaboration with state and local health departments.

For veterinarians these priorities can be expanded into concrete actions as summarized also in Baneth et al. in a similar way [707]:
  • Forget about exotic diseases as any disease can occur in the practice.

  • Stay informed with up-to-date research data via diverse channels.

  • Prevent transmission as best approach to CVBD management.

  • Include fleas onto the list of potential vectors.

  • Consider non-vectorial transmission in the case of leishmaniosis, Bartonella and hemotropic mycoplasmas.

  • Check for the patients’ travel schedule.

  • Inform yourself on proper diagnostic methods.

  • Consider treatment not necessarily as end of an infection.

  • Inform and keep in touch with your clients.

  • Alert public health authorities where appropriate.

VBDs are among the most complex of all infectious diseases and may pose a challenge to mitigate, control and prevent. A true One Health approach is required to respond to the current challenges presented by these diseases in both humans and animals. In LATAM, the actions towards mitigating the impact that CVBDs impose to both animal welfare and public health are intimately tied to the economic, social, and political values of the people in the region.

An interdisciplinary cooperation between professionals in human and animal medicine, scientists, ecologists and sociologists, a truly One Health approach, should be encouraged to ensure that surveillance is linked to actions. The creation of extension services at community levels providing culturally and economical acceptable veterinary services, including access to information, prevention, diagnosis and treatment to underserved regions, will be the key to minimize the impact of these diseases in the region. For the start, as preventing is always preferable to curing, the presumably easiest action to be taken here is a strong call for year-round prevention of pets with suitable and highly effective ectoparasiticides and microfilaricides (and where applicable also vaccines).

Conclusions

VBDs in companion animals possess a wide distribution in LATAM. But in contrast to this wide distribution, data availability and accessibility on the occurrence of the different diseases are very different for the individual countries of LATAM and often scarce. Some countries, e.g. Argentina and Brazil, possess profound data availability, whereas especially in some of the smaller ones international accessible data is missing. Generally, none of the examined LATAM countries is completely free f the listed pathogens in companion animals. The fact that some of the discussed diseases and pathogens possess zoonotic character demands for a strong call for disease prevention in companion animals by repellent ectoparasiticidal/insecticidal control, environmental control, vaccination, where applicable, and behavioral prophylaxis. Behavioral priorities especially also for veterinarians and a One Health approach are needed for the region.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Susanne Siebert, Bettina Schunack and Maria de Lourdes Mottier (Bayer Animal Health GmbH) for critical review of the manuscript. Publication of this paper has been sponsored by Bayer Animal Health in the framework of the 14th CVBD World Forum Symposium.

Funding

The work on the manuscript was funded by Bayer Animal Health GmbH. FK received funding for a Bayer project at Leipzig University.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Authors’ contributions

RM and FK both gathered corresponding publications and data, generated the table and drafted the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Jackman J, Rowan A. Free-roaming dogs in developing countries: the benefits of capture, neuter, and return programs. In: Salem DJ, Rowan AN, editors. The state of the animals 2007. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press; 2007. p. 55–78.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartwell S. The indoor outdoor debate. 2008. http://messybeast.com/indooroutdoor.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  3. 3.
    Ryan MP, Adley CC. Sphingomonas paucimobilis: a persistent Gram-negative nosocomial infectious organism. J Hosp Infect. 2010;75:153–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biondo AW, Dos Santos AP, Guimaraes AMS, Vieira RF, Vidotto O, Macieira DB, et al. A review of the occurrence of hemoplasmas (hemotrophic mycoplasmas) in Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2009;18:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fung HL, Calzada J, Saldana A, Santamaria AM, Pineda V, Gonzalez K, et al. Domestic dog health worsens with socio-economic deprivation of their home communities. Acta Trop. 2014;135:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenkins EJ, Schurer JM, Gesy KM. Old problems on a new playing field: helminth zoonoses transmitted among dogs, wildlife, and people in a changing northern climate. Vet Parasitol. 2011;182:54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy JK, Crawford PC, Lappin MR, Dubovi EJ, Levy MG, Alleman R, et al. Infectious diseases of dogs and cats on Isabela Island. Galapagos. J Vet Intern Med. 2008;22:60–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trotman M. Regional realities: Impact of stray dogs and cats on the community impact on economy, including tourism impact on livestock, wildlife and the environment. 2006. http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/regional_realities.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  9. 9.
    Weston MA, Fitzsimons JA, Wescott G, Miller KK, Ekanayake KB, Schneider T. Bark in the park: a review of domestic dogs in parks. Environ Manage. 2014;54:373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woodroffe R, Prager KC, Munson L, Conrad PA, Dubovi EJ, Mazet JAK. Contact with domestic dogs increases pathogen exposure in endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). PLoS One. 2012;7:e30099.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dantas-Torres F, Figueredo LA. Canine babesiosis: a Brazilian perspective. Vet Parasitol. 2006;141:197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eiras DF, Basabe J, Mesplet M, Schnittger L. First molecular characterization of Babesia vogeli in two naturally infected dogs of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vet Parasitol. 2008;157:294–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kelly PJ, Xu C, Lucas H, Loftis A, Abete J, Zeoli F, et al. Ehrlichiosis, babesiosis, anaplasmosis and hepatozoonosis in dogs from St Kitts. West Indies. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irwin PJ. Canine babesiosis: from molecular taxonomy to control. Parasit Vectors. 2009;2(Suppl. 1):S4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birkenheuer AJ, Correa MT, Levy MG, Breitschwerdt EB. Geographic distribution of babesiosis among dogs in the United States and association with dog bites: 150 cases (2000–2003). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;227:942–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jefferies R, Ryan UM, Jardine J, Broughton DK, Robertson ID, Irwin PJ. Blood, bull terriers and babesiosis: further evidence for direct transmission of Babesia gibsoni in dogs. Aust Vet J. 2007;85:459–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stegeman JR, Birkenheuer AJ, Kruger JM, Breitschwerdt EB. Transfusion-associated Babesia gibsoni infection in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003;222:959–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fukumoto S, Suzuki H, Igarashi I, Xuan X. Fatal experimental transplacental Babesia gibsoni infections in dogs. Int J Parasitol. 2005;35:1031–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dantas-Torres F, Otranto D. Dirofilariosis in the Americas: a more virulent Dirofilaria immitis? Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:288.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Torres-Chable OM, Baak-Baak CM, Cigarroa-Toledo N, Blitvich BJ, Brito-Argaez LG, Alvarado-Kantun YN, et al. Molecular detection of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs and mosquitoes in Tabasco, Mexico. J Vector Borne Dis. 2018;55:151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuervo PF, Fantozzi MC, Cataldo S, Cringoli G, Sierra R, Rinaldi L. Analysis of climate and extrinsic incubation of Dirofilaria immitis in southern South America. Geospat Health. 2013;8:175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atkins CE, La Keene BW, McGuirk SM. Pathophysiologic mechanism of cardiac dysfunction in experimentally induced heartworm caval syndrome in dogs: an echocardiographic study. Am J Vet Res. 1988;49:403–10.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Calvert CA, Rawlings CA. Pulmonary manifestations of heartworm disease. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1985;15:991–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Venco L, Mihaylova L, Boon JA. Right Pulmonary Artery Distensibility Index (RPAD Index). A field study of an echocardiographic method to detect early development of pulmonary hypertension and its severity even in the absence of regurgitant jets for Doppler evaluation in heartworm-infected dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2014;206:60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Heartworm Society (AHS). Current Canine Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) Infection in Dogs. 2014. https://www.heartwormsociety.org/images/pdf/2014-AHS-Canine-Guidelines.pdf Accessed 19 Jul 2018.
  26. 26.
    Tropical Council of Companion Animal Parasites (TroCCAP). Heartworm. http://www.troccap.com/canine-guidelines/vector-borne-parasites/heartworm/ Accessed 19 July 2018.
  27. 27.
    Grandi G, Morchon R, Kramer L, Kartashev V, Simon F. Wolbachia in Dirofilaria repens, an agent causing human subcutaneous dirofilariasis. J Parasitol. 2008;94:1421–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bredal WP, Gjerde B, Eberhard ML, Aleksandersen M, Wilhelmsen DK, Mansfield LS. Adult Dirofilaria repens in a subcutaneous granuloma on the chest of a dog. J Small Anim Pract. 1998;39:595–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hargis AM, Lewis TP, Duclos DD, Loeffler DG, Rausch RL. Dermatitis associated with microfilariae (Filarioidea) in 10 dogs. Vet Dermatol. 1999;10:95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baneth G, Volansky Z, Anug Y, Favia G, Bain O, Goldstein RE, Harrus S. Dirofilaria repens infection in a dog: diagnosis and treatment with melarsomine and doramectin. Vet Parasitol. 2002;105:173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hermosilla C, Pantchev N, Dyachenko V, Gutmann M, Bauer C. First autochthonous case of canine ocular Dirofilaria repens infection in Germany. Vet Rec. 2006;158:134–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tarello W. Clinical aspects of dermatitis associated with Dirofilaria repens in pets: a review of 100 canine and 31 feline cases (1990–2010) and a report of a new clinic case imported from Italy to Dubai. J Parasitol Res. 2011;2011:578385.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Genchi C, Kramer LH, Rivasi F. Dirofilarial infections in Europe. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simón F, Siles-Lucas M, Morchon R, Gonzalez-Miguel J, Mellado I, Carreton E, Montoya-Alonso JA. Human and animal dirofilariasis: the emergence of a zoonotic mosaic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25:507–44.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ramos-Lopez S, León-Galván MF, Salas-Alatorre M, Lechuga-Arana AA, Valencia-Posadas M, Gutiérrez-Chávez AJ. First molecular identification of Dirofilaria repens in a dog blood sample from Guanajuato, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2016;16:734–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    López J, Valiente-Echeverria F, Carrasco M, Mercado R, Abarca K. Identificación morfológica y molecular de filarias caninas en una comuna semi-rural de la Región Metropolitana, Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2012;29:284–9.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Canestri Trotti G, Pampiglione S, Rivasi F. The species of the genus Dirofilaria, Railliet & Henry, 1911. Parassitologia. 1997;39:369–74.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dantas-Torres F. Canine vector-borne diseases in Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2008;1:25.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Miranda RL, O’Dwyer LH, de Castro JR, Metzger B, Rubini AS, Mundim AV, et al. Prevalence and molecular characterization of Hepatozoon canis in dogs from urban and rural areas in Southeast Brazil. Res Vet Sci. 2014;97:325–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rojas A, Rojas D, Montenegro V, Gutierrez R, Yasur-Landau D, Baneth G. Vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Costa Rica: first molecular description of Babesia vogeli and Hepatozoon canis infections with a high prevalence of monocytic ehrlichiosis and the manifestations of co-infection. Vet Parasitol. 2014;199:121–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wei L, Kelly P, Ackerson K, El-Mahallawy HS, Kaltenboeck B, Wang C. Molecular detection of Dirofilaria immitis, Hepatozoon canis, Babesia spp., Anaplasma platys and Ehrlichia canis in dogs on Costa Rica. Acta Parasitol. 2015;60:21–5.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sherding RG. Toxoplasmosis and other systemic protozoal infections. In: Birchard SJ, Sherding RG, editors. Saunders manual of small animal practice. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2006. p. 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baneth G. Perspectives on canine and feline hepatozoonosis. Vet Parasitol. 2011;181:3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sasanelli M, Paradies P, Greco B, Eyal O, Zaza V, Baneth G. Failure of imidocarb dipropionate to eliminate Hepatozoon canis in naturally infected dogs based on parasitological and molecular evaluation methods. Vet Parasitol. 2010;171:194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dantas-Torres F. Canine leishmaniosis in South America. Parasit Vectors. 2009;2(Suppl. 1):S1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tolezano JE, Uliana SR, Taniguchi HH, Araújo MF, Barbosa JA, Barbosa JE, et al. The first records of Leishmania (Leishmania) amazonensis in dogs (Canis familiaris) diagnosed clinically as having canine visceral leishmaniasis from Araçatuba County, São Paulo State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2007;149:280–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reithinger R, Davies CR. Is the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) a reservoir host of American cutaneous leishmaniasis? A critical review of the current evidence. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:530–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Akhoundi M, Kuhls K, Cannet A, Votýpka J, Marty P, Delaunay P, et al. A historical overview of the classification, evolution, and dispersion of Leishmania parasites and sandflies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004349.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Young DG, Duncan MA. Guide to the Identification and Geographic Distribution of Lutzomyia Sandflies in Mexico, the West Indies, Central and South America (Diptera: Psychodidae). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute no. 54. Gainesville: Associate Publishers; 1994. p. 881.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Solano-Gallego L, Koutinas A, Miro G, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Ferrer L, et al. Directions for the diagnosis, clinical staging, treatment and prevention of canine leishmaniosis. Vet Parasitol. 2009;165:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Solano-Gallego L, Miro G, Koutinas A, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Ferrer L, et al. LeishVet guidelines for the practical management of canine leishmaniosis. Parasit Vectors. 2011;4:86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pennisi M-G, Cardoso L, Baneth G, Bourdeau P, Koutinas A, Miro G, et al. LeishVet update and recommendations on feline leishmaniosis. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:302.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Baneth G, Koutinas AF, Solano-Gallego L, Bourdeau P, Ferrer L. Canine leishmaniosis - new concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part one. Trends Parasitol. 2008;24:324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Solano-Gallego L, Rodriguez-Cortes A, Trotta M, Zampieron C, Razia L, Furlanello T, et al. Detection of Leishmania infantum DNA by fret-based real-time PCR in urine from dogs with natural clinical leishmaniosis. Vet Parasitol. 2007;147:315–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Solano-Gallego L, Villanueva-Saz S, Carbonell M, Trotta M, Furlanello T, Natale A. Serological diagnosis of canine leishmaniosis: comparison of three commercial ELISA tests (Leiscan®, ID Screen® and Leishmania 96®), a rapid test (Speed Leish K®) and an in-house IFAT. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:111.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Solano-Gallego L, Di Filippo L, Ordeix L, Planellas M, Roura X, Altet L, et al. Early reduction of Leishmania infantum-specific antibodies and blood parasitemia during treatment in dogs with moderate or severe disease. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dantas-Torres F, Brandão-Filho SP. Visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil: revisiting paradigms of epidemiology and control. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2006;48:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Moreira ED, Souza VM, Sreenivasan M, Nascimento EG, Carvalho L. Assessment of an optimized dog-culling program in the dynamics of canine Leishmania transmission. Vet Parasitol. 2004;122:245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nunes CM, Lima VM, Paula HB, Perri SH, Andrade AM, Dias FE, et al. Dog culling and replacement in an area endemic for visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2008;153:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Brazil - Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Nota Técnica Nº 11/2016/CPV/DFIP/SDA/GM/MAPA. 2016. http://www.sbmt.org.br/portal/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/nota-tecnica.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2019.
  61. 61.
    Regina-Silva S, Feres AMLT, Franca-Silva JC, Dias ES, Michalsky EM, de Andrade HM, et al. Field randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of the Leish-Tec® vaccine against canine visceral leishmaniasis in an endemic area of Brazil. Vaccine. 2016;34:2233–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    World Health Organization (WHO). The global burden of disease. update. Geneva: WHO Press; 2004. p. 2008.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chikweto A, Kumthekar S, Chawla P, Tiwari KP, Perea LM, Paterson T, Sharma RN. Seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi in stray and pet dogs in Grenada, West Indies. Trop Biomed. 2014;31:347–50.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lee BY, Bacon KM, Bottazzi ME, Hotez PJ. Global economic burden of Chagas disease: a computational simulation model. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:342–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rassi A, Rassi A, Marin-Neto JA. Chagas disease. Lancet. 2010;375:1388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hotez PJ, Dumonteil E, Heffernan MJ, Bottazzi ME. Innovation for the ‛bottom 100 millionʼ: eliminating neglected tropical diseases in the Americas. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;764:1–12.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hotez PJ, Dumonteil E, Woc-Colburn L, Serpa JA, Bezek S, Edwards MS, et al. Chagas disease: “the new HIV/AIDS of the Americas”. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1498.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Esch KJ, Petersen CA. Transmission and epidemiology of zoonotic protozoal diseases of companion animals. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:58–85.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Desquesnes M, Dargantes A, Lai DH, Lun ZR, Holzmuller P, Jittapalapong S. Trypanosoma evansi and surra: a review and perspectives on transmission, epidemiology and control, impact, and zoonotic aspects. Bio Med Res Int. 2013;2013:321237.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hoare CA. The trypanosomes of mammals: a zoological monograph. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1972. p. 749.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Barr SC. Canine Chagasʼ disease (American trypanosomiasis) in North America. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2009;39:1055–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mahmoud MM, Gray AR. Trypanosomiasis due to Trypanosoma evansi (Steel, 1885) Balbiani, 1888. A review of recent research. Trop Anim Health Prod. 1980;12:35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Antoine-Moussiaux M, Desmecht D. Epidémiologie de l’infection par Trypanosoma evansi. Ann Méd Vét. 2008;152:191–201.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Andrade JP, Marin Neto JA, Paola AA, Vilas-Boas F, Oliveira GMM, Bacal F, et al. I Latin American Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Chagasʼ heart disease. Executive summary. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011;96:434–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    MPPS - Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Salud de Venezuela. Guía para el diagnóstico, atención y manejo clínico de la enfermedad de Chagas en Venezuela. 2014. http://svmi.web.ve/wh/documentos/Guia_Chagas_2015.pdf Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  76. 76.
    Gascon J, Grupo de Trabajo del Taller «Enfermedad de Chagas: ¿un nuevo reto de Salud Pública?». Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la Enfermedad de Chagas importada. Med Clin (Barc). 2005;125:230–5.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    MS/SVS - Ministério da Saúde/Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Consenso brasileiro em doenca de chagas. Rev Soc Bras Med. 2005;38:7–29.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    OPS/MSF - Organización Panamericana de la Salud/Medicos sin fronteras. Consulta técnica regional OPS/MSF sobre organização e estrutura da atenção médica do doente e infectado por Trypanosoma cruzi/doença de Chagas. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2005;38:538–41.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bern C, Montgomery SP, Herwaldt BL, Rassi A, Marin-Neto JA, Dantas RO, et al. Evaluation and treatment of chagas disease in the United States: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298:2171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    MINSAL - Ministerio de Salud de El Salvador. Norma técnica para prevención y control de la enfermedad de Chagas. El Salvador: Ministerio de Salud, Dirección de Regulación y Legislación en Salud, Unidad de Salud Ambiental; 2011.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    MINSAL-Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Guías clínicas de la enfermedad de Chagas 2006: Parte V Diagnóstico de laboratorio. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2008;25:379–83.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Brasil PEAA do, Castro R, Castro L de. Commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay versuspolymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111:1–19.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Enriquez GF, Cardinal MV, Orozco MM, Schijman AG, Gurtler RE. Detection of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in naturally infected dogs and cats using serological, parasitological and molecular methods. Acta Trop. 2013;126:211–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Martinez I, Martinez-Ibarra A, Arce-Fonseca M, Rodriguez-Morales O, Perez-Morales D, Reyes Lopez PA, et al. Seroprevalence and major antigens recognized by sera from Trypanosoma cruzi-infected dogs from Jalisco, Mexico. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2014;46:85–90.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lizundia R, Picado A, Cordero M, Calderon A, Deborggraeve S, Montenegro VM, et al. Molecular and serological rapid tests as markers of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs in Costa Rica. Trop Parasitol. 2014;4:111–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Floridia-Yapur N, Monje Rumi M, Ragone P, Lauthier JJ, Tomasini N, Alberti D’Amato A, et al. The TcTASV proteins are novel promising antigens to detect active Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs. Parasitology. 2016;143:1382–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Jimenez-Coello M, Shelite T, Castellanos-Gonzalez A, Saldarriaga O, Rivero R, Ortega-Pacheco A, et al. Efficacy of recombinase polymerase amplification to diagnose Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs with cardiac alterations from an endemic area of Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2018;18:417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cimino RO, Diosque P, López Quiroga IR, Gil JF, Nasser JR. Evaluación inmunoenzimática del antígeno recombinante SAPA en perros infectados naturalmente por Trypanosoma cruzi. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2012;44:177–81.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Croft SL, Barrett MP, Urbina JA. Chemotherapy of trypanosomiases and leishmaniasis. Trends Parasitol. 2005;21:508–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Petersen C, Grinnage-Pulley TL. Trypanosomiasis. In: Aiello SE, Moses MA, eds. The Merck Veterinary Manual. Kenilworth, NJ, USA: Merck & Co.; 2018. http://www.merckvetmanual.com/circulatory-system/blood-parasites/trypanosomiasis Accessed 6 Feb 2018.
  91. 91.
    Chomel B. Tick-borne infections in dogs - an emerging infectious threat. Vet Parasitol. 2011;179:294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Greig B, Asanovich KM, Armstrong PJ, Dumler JS. Geographic, clinical, serologic, and molecular evidence of granulocytic ehrlichiosis, a likely zoonotic disease, in Minnesota and Wisconsin dogs. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:44–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Poitout FM, Shinozaki JK, Stockwell PJ, Holland CJ, Shukla SK. Genetic variants of Anaplasma phagocytophilum infecting dogs in western Washington State. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:796–801.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kohn B, Galke D, Beelitz P, Pfister K. Clinical features of canine granulocytic anaplasmosis in 18 naturally infected dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 2008;22:1289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Skotarczak B, Adamska M, Rymaszewska A, Supron M, Sawczuk M, Maciejewska A. Anaplasma phagocytophila and protozoans of Babesia genus in dogs from endemic areas of Lyme disease in north-western Poland. Wiad Parazytol. 2004;50:555–61 (In Polish).Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Bouzouraa T, Rene-Martellet M, Chene J, Attipa C, Lebert I, Chalvet-Monfray K, et al. Clinical and laboratory features of canine Anaplasma platys infection in 32 naturally infected dogs in the Mediterranean basin. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016;7:1256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Harrus S, Aroch I, Lavy E, Bark H. Clinical manifestations of infectious canine cyclic thrombocytopenia. Vet Rec. 1997;141:247–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sainz A, Roura X, Miro G, Estrada-Pena A, Kohn B, Harrus S, Solano-Gallego L. Guideline for veterinary practitioners on canine ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis in Europe. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:75.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Shaw SE, Binns SH, Birtles RJ, Day MJ, Smithson R, Kenny MJ. Molecular evidence of tick-transmitted infections in dogs and cats in the United Kingdom. Vet Rec. 2005;157:645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Carrade DD, Foley JE, Borjesson DL, Sykes JE. Canine granulocytic anaplasmosis: a review. J Vet Intern Med. 2009;23:1129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Inokuma H, Raoult D, Brouqui P. Detection of Ehrlichia platys DNA in brown dog ticks (Rhipicephalus sanguineus) in Okinawa Island, Japan. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:4219–21.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Motoi Y, Satoh H, Inokuma H, Kiyuuna T, Muramatsu Y, Ueno H, et al. First detection of Ehrlichia platys in dogs and ticks in Okinawa, Japan. Microbiol Immunol. 2001;45:89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Parola P, Cornet JP, Sanogo YO, Miller RS, Thien HV, Gonzalez JP, et al. Detection of Ehrlichia spp., Anaplasma spp., Rickettsia spp., and other eubacteria in ticks from the Thai-Myanmar border and Vietnam. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:1600–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sanogo YO, Davoust B, Inokuma H, Camicas JL, Parola P, Brouqui P. First evidence of Anaplasma platys in Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodida) collected from dogs in Africa. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2003;70:205–12.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kim CM, Yi YH, Yu DH, Lee MJ, Cho MR, Desai AR, et al. Tick-borne rickettsial pathogens in ticks and small mammals in Korea. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5766–76.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kempf VAJ, Krämer F. The role of Bartonella spp. in veterinary and human medicine. EJCAP. 2008;18:274–9.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Maggi RG, Balakrishnan N, Bradley JM, Breitschwerdt EB. Infection with Bartonella henselae in a Danish family. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53:1556–61.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Leulmi H, Bitam I, Berenger JM, Lepidi H, Rolain JM, Almeras L, et al. Competence of Cimex lectularius bed bugs for the transmission of Bartonella quintana, the agent of trench fever. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003789.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Maggi RG, Ericson M, Mascarelli PE, Bradley JM, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella henselae bacteremia in a mother and son potentially associated with tick exposure. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:101.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Melter O, Arvand M, Votýpka J, Hulínská D. Bartonella quintana transmission from mite to family with high socioeconomic status. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:163–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Tsai Y-L, Lin C-C, Chomel BB, Chuang S-T, Tsai K-H, Wu W-J, et al. Bartonella infection in shelter cats and dogs and their ectoparasites. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1023–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Tsai K-H, Huang C-G, Fang C-T, Shu P-Y, Huang J-H, Wu W-J. Prevalence of Rickettsia felis and the first identification of Bartonella henselae Fizz/CAL-1 in cat fleas (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) from Taiwan. J Med Entomol. 2011;48:445–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Reis C, Cote M, Le Rhun D, Lecuelle B, Levin ML, Vayssier-Taussat M, Bonnet SI. Vector competence of the tick Ixodes ricinus for transmission of Bartonella birtlesii. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e1186.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Morick D, Krasnov BR, Khokhlova IS, Gottlieb Y, Harrus S. Investigation of Bartonella acquisition and transmission in Xenopsylla ramesis fleas (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). Mol Ecol. 2011;20:2864–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Mokhtar AS, Tay ST. Molecular detection of Rickettsia felis, Bartonella henselae, and B. clarridgeiae in fleas from domestic dogs and cats in Malaysia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85:931–3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Kabeya H, Inoue K, Izumi Y, Morita T, Imai S, Maruyama S. Bartonella species in wild rodents and fleas from them in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2011;73:1561–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Billeter SA, Cáceres AG, Gonzales-Hidalgo J, Luna-Caypo D, Kosoy MY. Molecular detection of Bartonella species in ticks from Peru. J Med Entomol. 2011;48:1257–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Angelakis E, Rolain J-M, Raoult D, Brouqui P. Bartonella quintana in head louse nits. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011;62:244–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Oliveira AM, Maggi RG, Woods CW, Breitschwerdt EB. Suspected needle stick transmission of Bartonella vinsonii subspecies berkhoffii to a veterinarian. J Vet Intern Med. 2010;24:1229–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kernif T, Parola P, Ricci JC, Raoult D, Rolain JM. Molecular detection of Bartonella alsatica in rabbit fleas, France. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16:2013–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Dietrich F, Schmidgen T, Maggi RG, Richter D, Matuschka F-R, Vonthein R, et al. Prevalence of Bartonella henselae and Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato DNA in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Europe. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:1395–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Adamska M. Bartonella spp. as a zoonotic pathogens transmitting by blood-feeding arthropods. Wiad Parazytol. 2010;56:1–9 (In Polish).Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Perez-Martinez L, Venzal JM, Gonzalez-Acuna D, Portillo A, Blanco JR, Oteo JA. Bartonella rochalimae and other Bartonella spp. in fleas. Chile. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15:1150–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Gabriel MW, Henn J, Foley JE, Brown RN, Kasten RW, Foley P, Chomel BB. Zoonotic Bartonella species in fleas collected on gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009;9:597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Just FT, Gilles J, Pradel I, Pfalzer S, Lengauer H, Hellmann K, Pfister K. Molecular evidence for Bartonella spp in cat and dog fleas from Germany and France. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008;55:514–20.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Billeter SA, Levy MG, Chomel BB, Breitschwerdt EB. Vector transmission of Bartonella species with emphasis on the potential for tick transmission. Med Vet Entomol. 2008;22:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Reeves WK, Rogers TE, Dasch GA. Bartonella and Rickettsia from fleas (Siphonaptera: Ceratophyllidae) of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) from the western United States. J Parasitol. 2007;93:953–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Podsiadly E, Chmielewski T, Sochon E, Tylewska-Wierzbanowska S. Bartonella henselae in Ixodes ricinus ticks removed from dogs. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:189–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Li DM, Liu QY, Yu DZ, Zhang JZ, Gong ZD, Song XP. Phylogenetic analysis of Bartonella detected in rodent fleas in Yunnan, China. J Wildl Dis. 2007;43:609–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Maggi RG, Sigmon B, Nicholson WL. Isolation of Bartonella quintana from a woman and a cat following putative bite transmission. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:270–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Maggi RG, Duncan AW, Nicholson WL, Hegarty BC, Woods CW. Bartonella species in blood of immunocompetent persons with animal and arthropod contact. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:938–41.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Psarros G, Riddell J, Gandhi T, Kauffman CA, Cinti SK. Bartonella henselae infections in solid organ transplant recipients: report of 5 cases and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012;91:111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Mosepele M, Mazo D, Cohn J. Bartonella infection in immunocompromised hosts: immunology of vascular infection and vasoproliferation. Clin Dev Immunol. 2012;2012:612809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Atamanyuk I, Raja SG, Kostolny M. Bartonella henselae endocarditis of percutaneously implanted pulmonary valve: a case report. J Heart Valve Dis. 2011;20:94–7.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Lienhardt B, Irani S, Gaspert A, Weishaupt D, Boehler A. Disseminated infection with Bartonella henselae in a lung transplant recipient. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:736–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Vassallo C, Ardig M, Brazzelli V, Zecca M, Locatelli F, Alessandrino PE, et al. Bartonella-related pseudomembranous angiomatous papillomatosis of the oral cavity associated with allogeneic bone marrow transplantation and oral graft-versus-host disease. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:174–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Bonatti H, Mendez J, Guerrero I, Krishna M, Ananda-Michel J, Yao J, et al. Disseminated Bartonella infection following liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2006;19:683–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Humar A, Salit I. Disseminated Bartonella infection with granulomatous hepatitis in a liver transplant recipient. Liver Transpl Surg. 1999;5:249–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Pawson R, Virchis A, Potter M, Prentice HG. Absence of Bartonella-like inclusions in microangiopathy after transplantation. Lancet. 1998;351:831–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Ahsan N, Holman MJ, Riley TR, Abendroth CS, Langhoff EG, Yang HC. Peloisis hepatis due to Bartonella henselae in transplantation: a hemato-hepato-renal syndrome. Transplantation. 1998;65:1000–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Bruckert F, de Kerviler E, Zagdanski AM, Molina JM, Casin I, Guermazi A, et al. Sternal abscess due to Bartonella (Rochalimaea) henselae in a renal transplant patient. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26:431–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Diniz PPV, Velho PENF, Pitassi LHU, Drummond MR, Lania BG, Barjas-Castro ML, et al. Risk factors for Bartonella species infection in blood donors from Southeast Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0004509.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Maggi RG, Mascarelli PE, Balakrishnan N, Rohde CM, Kelly CM, Ramaiah L, et al. “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemomacaque” and Bartonella quintana bacteremia in cynomolgus monkeys. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51:1408–11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Maggi RG, Mascarelli PE, Pultorak EL, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM, Mozayeni BR, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella spp. bacteremia in high-risk immunocompetent patients. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;71:430–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Oskouizadeh K, Zahraei-Salehi T, Aledavood S. Detection of Bartonella henselae in domestic catsʼ saliva. Iran J Microbiol. 2010;2:80–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Westling K, Farra A, Jorup C, Nordenberg A, Settergren B, Hjelm E. Bartonella henselae antibodies after cat bite. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1943–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Pitassi LHU, Diniz PPV, Scorpio DG, Drummond MR, Lania BG, Barjas-Castro ML, et al. Bartonella spp bacteremia in blood donors from Campinas. Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Ruiz J, Silva W, Pons MJ, Valle LJ, Tinco CR, Casabona VD, et al. Long time survival of Bartonella bacilliformis in blood stored at 4 degrees C. A risk for blood transfusions. Blood Transfus. 2012;10:563–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Magalhães RF, Cintra ML, Barjas-Castro ML, Del Negro GMB, Okay TS, Velho PENF. Blood donor infected with Bartonella henselae. Transfus Med. 2010;20:280–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Magalhães RF, Pitassi LHU, Salvadego M, de Moraes AM, Barjas-Castro ML, Velho PENF. Bartonella henselae survives after the storage period of red blood cell units: Is it transmissible by transfusion? Transfus Med. 2008;18:287–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Balakrishnan N, Ericson M, Maggi R, Breitschwerdt EB. Vasculitis, cerebral infarction and persistent Bartonella henselae infection in a child. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:254.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Maggi RG, Mozayeni BR, Pultorak EL, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM, Correa M, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella spp bacteremia and rheumatic symptoms in patients from Lyme disease-endemic region. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18:783–91.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Yamada Y, Ohkusu K, Yanagihara M, Tsuneoka H, Ezaki T, Tsuboi J, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis caused by Bartonella quintana in a patient during immunosuppressive therapies for collagen vascular diseases. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;70:395–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Myint KSA, Gibbons RV, Iverson J, Shrestha SK, Pavlin JA, Mongkolsirichaikul D, Kosoy MY. Serological response to Bartonella species in febrile patients from Nepal. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105:740–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Karris MY, Litwin CM, Dong HS, Vinetz J. Bartonella henselae infection of prosthetic aortic valve associated with colitis. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1503–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Kalogeropoulos C, Koumpoulis I, Mentis A, Pappa C, Zafeiropoulos P, Aspiotis M. Bartonella and intraocular inflammation: a series of cases and review of literature. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:817–29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Blann KR, Stebbins ME, Muñana KR, Davidson MG, Jackson HA, Willard MD. Clinicopathological abnormalities and treatment response in 24 dogs seroreactive to Bartonella vinsonii (berkhoffii) antigens. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2004;40:92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Maggi RG, Lantos PM, Woods CW, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM. Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii and Bartonella henselae bacteremia in a father and daughter with neurological disease. Parasit Vectors. 2010;3:29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Mascarelli PE, Schweickert LA, Maggi RG, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM, Woods CW. Hallucinations, sensory neuropathy, and peripheral visual deficits in a young woman infected with Bartonella koehlerae. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49:3415–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Donnio A, Jean-Charles A, Merle H. Macular hole following Bartonella henselae neuroretinitis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2008;18:456–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Schaller JL, Burkland GA, Langhoff PJ. Do Bartonella infections cause agitation, panic disorder, and treatment-resistant depression? MedGenMed. 2007;9:54.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Chomel BB, Wey AC, Kasten RW. Isolation of Bartonella washoensis from a dog with mitral valve endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5327–32.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Pérez Vera C, Diniz PPVP, Pultorak EL, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt EB. An unmatched case controlled study of clinicopathologic abnormalities in dogs with Bartonella infection. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;36:481–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Duncan AW, Marr HS, Birkenheuer AJ, Maggi RG, Williams LE, Correa MT, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella DNA in the blood and lymph nodes of Golden Retrievers with lymphoma and in healthy controls. J Vet Intern Med. 2008;22:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Morales SC, Breitschwerdt EB, Washabau RJ, Matise I, Maggi RG, Duncan AW. Detection of Bartonella henselae DNA in two dogs with pyogranulomatous lymphadenitis. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;230:681–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Michau TM, Breitschwerdt EB, Gilger BC, Davidson MG. Bartonella vinsonii subspecies berkhoffi as a possible cause of anterior uveitis and choroiditis in a dog. Vet Ophthalmol. 2003;6:299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Gillespie TN, Washabau RJ, Goldschmidt MH, Cullen JM, Rogala AR, Breitschwerdt EB. Detection of Bartonella henselae and Bartonella clarridgeiae DNA in hepatic specimens from two dogs with hepatic disease. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003;222:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Vermeulen MJ, Rutten GJ, Verhagen I, Peeters MF, van Dijken PJ. Transient paresis associated with cat-scratch disease: case report and literature review of vertebral osteomyelitis caused by Bartonella henselae. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:1177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Besada E, Woods A, Caputo M. An uncommon presentation of Bartonella-associated neuroretinitis. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Vera CP, Maggi RG, Woods CW, Mascarelli PE, Breitschwerdt EB. Spontaneous onset of complex regional pain syndrome Type I in a woman infected with Bartonella koehlerae. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2014;203:101–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Balakrishnan N, Cherry NA, Linder KE, Pierce E, Sontakke N, Hegarty BC, et al. Experimental infection of dogs with Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2013;156:153–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Pérez C, Maggi RG, Diniz PPVP, Breitschwerdt EB. Molecular and serological diagnosis of Bartonella infection in 61 dogs from the United States. J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25:805–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Mexas AM, Hancock SI, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella henselae and Bartonella elizabethae as potential canine pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:4670–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Labarthe NV, Pereira Paiva J, Reifur L, Mendes-de-Almeida F, Merlo A, Carvalho Pinto CJ, et al. Updated canine infection rates for Dirofilaria immitis in areas of Brazil previously identified as having a high incidence of heartworm-infected dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Berkowitz ST, Gannon KM, Carberry CA, Cortes Y. Resolution of spontaneous hemoabdomen secondary to peliosis hepatis following surgery and azithromycin treatment in a Bartonella species infected dog. J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2016;26:851–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Rossi MA, Balakrishnan N, Linder KE, Messa JB, Breitschwerdt EB. Concurrent Bartonella henselae infection in a dog with panniculitis and owner with ulcerated nodular skin lesions. Vet Dermatol. 2015;26:60–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Broadhurst JJ, Cherry NA. Bartonella henselae as a cause of acute-onset febrile illness in cats. J Feline Med Surg Open Rep. 2015;1:2055116915600454.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Tucker MD, Sellon RK, Tucker RL, Wills TB, Simonsen A, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt EB. Bilateral mandibular pyogranulomatous lymphadenitis and pulmonary nodules in a dog with Bartonella henselae bacteremia. Can Vet J. 2014;55:970–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Lösch B, Wank R. Life-threatening angioedema of the tongue: the detection of the RNA of B henselae in the saliva of a male patient and his dog as well as of the DNA of three Bartonella species in the blood of the patient. BMJ Case Rep. 2014;2014:bcr2013203107.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Drut A, Bublot I, Breitschwerdt EB, Chabanne L, Vayssier-Taussat M, Cadoré J-L. Comparative microbiological features of Bartonella henselae infection in a dog with fever of unknown origin and granulomatous lymphadenitis. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2014;203:85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Bradley JM, Mascarelli PE, Trull CL, Maggi RG, Breitschwerdt EB. Bartonella henselae infections in an owner and two Papillon dogs exposed to tropical rat mites (Ornithonyssus bacoti). Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14:703–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Barbieri AM, Venzal JM, Marcili A, Almeida AP, Gonzalez EM, Labruna MB. Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infecting ticks of the Ixodes ricinus complex in Uruguay: first report for the Southern Hemisphere. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Ivanova LB, Tomova A, Gonzalez-Acuna D, Murua R, Moreno CX, Hernandez C, et al. Borrelia chilensis, a new member of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex that extends the range of this genospecies in the Southern Hemisphere. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:1069–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Nava S, Barbieri AM, Maya L, Colina R, Mangold AJ, Labruna MB, Venzal JM. Borrelia infection in Ixodes pararicinus ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) from northwestern Argentina. Acta Trop. 2014;139:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Goncalves DD, Carreira T, Nunes M, Benitez A, Lopes-Mori FMR, Vidotto O, et al. First record of Borrelia burgdorferi B31 strain in Dermacentor nitens ticks in the northern region of Parana (Brazil). Braz J Microbiol. 2013;44:883–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Movilla R, García C, Siebert S, Roura X. Countrywide serological evaluation of canine prevalence for Anaplasma spp., Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu lato), Dirofilaria immitis and Ehrlichia canis in Mexico. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:421.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Salinas-Melendez JA, Avalos-Ramirez R, Riojas-Valdez VM, Martinez-Munoz A. Serological survey of canine borreliosis. Rev Latinoam Microbiol. 1999;41:1–3.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Spolidorio MG, Labruna MB, Machado RZ, Moraes-Filho J, Zago AM, Donatele DM, et al. Survey for tick-borne zoonoses in the state of Espirito Santo, southeastern Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010;83:201–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Krupka I, Straubinger RK. Lyme borreliosis in dogs and cats: background, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of infections with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2010;40:1103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Appel MJ, Allan S, Jacobson RH, Lauderdale TL, Chang YF, Shin SJ, et al. Experimental Lyme disease in dogs produces arthritis and persistent infection. J Infect Dis. 1993;167:651–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Levy SA, Magnarelli LA. Relationship between development of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in dogs and the subsequent development of limb/joint borreliosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992;200:344–7.Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Magnarelli LA, Anderson JF, Schreier AB, Ficke CM. Clinical and serologic studies of canine borreliosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1987;191:1089–94.Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Cohen ND, Carter CN, Thomas MA, Angulo AB, Eugster AK. Clinical and epizootiologic characteristics of dogs seropositive for Borrelia burgdorferi in Texas: 110 cases (1988). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1990;197:893–8.Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Hutton TA, Goldstein RE, Njaa BL, Atwater DZ, Chang Y-F, Simpson KW. Search for Borrelia burgdorferi in kidneys of dogs with suspected “Lyme nephritis”. J Vet Intern Med. 2008;22:860–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Magnarelli LA, Anderson JF, Levine HR, Levy SA. Tick parasitism and antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1990;197:63–6.Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Levy SA, O’Connor TP, Hanscom JL, Shields P. Evaluation of a canine C6 ELISA Lyme disease test for the determination of the infection status of cats naturally exposed to Borrelia burgdorferi. Vet Ther. 2003;4:172–7.Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Peterhans E, Peterhans E. “Lyme disease” as a possible cause for lameness in the cat. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2010;152:295–7 (In German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Pantchev N, Vrhovec MG, Pluta S, Straubinger RK. Seropositivity of Borrelia burgdorferi in a cohort of symptomatic cats from Europe based on a C6-peptide assay with discussion of implications in disease aetiology. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2016;129:333–9.Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Leschnik MW, Kirtz G, Khanakah G, Duscher G, Leidinger E, Thalhammer JG, et al. Humoral immune response in dogs naturally infected with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and in dogs after immunization with a Borrelia vaccine. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17:828–35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Krimer PM, Miller AD, Li Q, Grosenbaugh DA, Susta L, Schatzberg SJ. Molecular and pathological investigations of the central nervous system in Borrelia burgdorferi-infected dogs. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2011;23:757–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Susta L, Uhl EW, Grosenbaugh DA, Krimer PM. Synovial lesions in experimental canine Lyme borreliosis. Vet Pathol. 2012;49:453–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Steere AC, McHugh G, Damle N, Sikand VK. Prospective study of serologic tests for Lyme disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:188–95.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Littman MP. Canine borreliosis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2003;33:827–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Littman MP, Goldstein RE, Labato MA, Lappin MR, Moore GE. ACVIM small animal consensus statement on Lyme disease in dogs: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J Vet Intern Med. 2006;20:422–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Greene CE, Straubinger RK. Borreliosis. In: Greene CE, editor. Infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2006. p. 417–35.Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    Wright CL, Gaff HD, Hynes WL. Prevalence of Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii in Amblyomma americanum and Dermacentor variabilis collected from southeastern Virginia, 2010–2011. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:978–82.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Gaines DN, Operario DJ, Stroup S, Stromdahl E, Wright C, Gaff H, et al. Ehrlichia and spotted fever group Rickettsiae surveillance in Amblyomma americanum in Virginia through use of a novel six-plex real-time PCR assay. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14:307–16.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Tomassone L, Nunez P, Gurtler RE, Ceballos LA, Orozco MM, Kitron UD, Farber M. Molecular detection of Ehrlichia chaffeensis in Amblyomma parvum ticks, Argentina. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1953–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Allison RW, Little SE. Diagnosis of rickettsial diseases in dogs and cats. Vet Clin Pathol. 2013;42:127–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Mylonakis ME, Koutinas AF, Billinis C, Leontides LS, Kontos V, Papadopoulos O, et al. Evaluation of cytology in the diagnosis of acute canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (Ehrlichia canis): a comparison between five methods. Vet Microbiol. 2003;91:197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Little SE. Ehrlichiosis and anaplasmosis in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2010;40:1121–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Harrus S, Alleman AR, Bark H, Mahan SM, Waner T. Comparison of three enzyme-linked immunosorbant assays with the indirect immunofluorescent antibody test for the diagnosis of canine infection with Ehrlichia canis. Vet Microbiol. 2002;86:361–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Waner T, Harrus S, Jongejan F, Bark H, Keysary A, Cornelissen AW. Significance of serological testing for ehrlichial diseases in dogs with special emphasis on the diagnosis of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis caused by Ehrlichia canis. Vet Parasitol. 2001;95:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Maggi RG, Birkenheuer AJ, Hegarty BC, Bradley JM, Levy MG, Breitschwerdt EB. Comparison of serological and molecular panels for diagnosis of vector-borne diseases in dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:127.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Nicholson WL, Allen KE, McQuiston JH, Breitschwerdt EB, Little SE. The increasing recognition of rickettsial pathogens in dogs and people. Trends Parasitol. 2010;26:205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Neer TM, Breitschwerdt EB, Greene RT, Lappin MR. Consensus statement on ehrlichial disease of small animals from the infectious disease study group of the ACVIM. J Vet Intern Med. 2002;16:309–15.Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Perez M, Rikihisa Y, Wen B. Ehrlichia canis-like agent isolated from a man in Venezuela: antigenic and genetic characterization. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:2133–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Calic SB, Galvao MAM, Bacellar F, Rocha CMBM, Mafra CL, Leite RC, Walker DH. Human ehrlichioses in Brazil: first suspect cases. Braz J Infect Dis. 2004;8:259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    da Costa PSG, Brigatte ME, Greco DB. Antibodies to Rickettsia rickettsii, Rickettsia typhi, Coxiella burnetii, Bartonella henselae, Bartonella quintana, and Ehrlichia chaffeensis among healthy population in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100:853–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Costa PSG, Valle LMC, Brigatte ME, Greco DB. More about human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis in Brazil: serological evidence of nine new cases. Braz J Infect Dis. 2006;10:7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Ripoll CM, Remondegui CE, Ordonez G, Arazamendi R, Fusaro H, Hyman MJ, et al. Evidence of rickettsial spotted fever and ehrlichial infections in a subtropical territory of Jujuy, Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:350–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Moro PL, Shah J, Li O, Gilman RH, Harris N, Moro MH. Short report: serologic evidence of human ehrlichiosis in Peru. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80:242–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    López J, Rivera M, Concha JC, Gatica S, Loeffeholz M, Barriga O. Ehrlichiosis humana en Chile, evidencia serológica. Rev Méd Chile. 2003;131:67–70.Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Gary AT, Richmond HL, Tasker S, Hackett TB, Lappin MR. Survival of Mycoplasma haemofelis and “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” in blood of cats used for transfusions. J Feline Med Surg. 2006;8:321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Willi B, Boretti FS, Baumgartner C, Tasker S, Wenger B, Cattori V, et al. Prevalence, risk factor analysis, and follow-up of infections caused by three feline hemoplasma species in cats in Switzerland. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:961–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. 226.
    Taroura S, Shimada Y, Sakata Y, Miyama T, Hiraoka H, Watanabe M, et al. Detection of DNA of “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” and Spiroplasma sp. in unfed ticks collected from vegetation in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2005;67:1277–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. 227.
    Tateno M, Sunahara A, Nakanishi N, Izawa M, Matsuo T, Setoguchi A, Endo Y. Molecular survey of arthropod-borne pathogens in ticks obtained from Japanese wildcats. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. 228.
    Assarasakorn S, Veir JK, Hawley JR, Brewer MM, Morris AK, Hill AE, Lappin MR. Prevalence of Bartonella species, hemoplasmas, and Rickettsia felis DNA in blood and fleas of cats in Bangkok, Thailand. Res Vet Sci. 2012;93:1213–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. 229.
    Barrs VR, Beatty JA, Wilson BJ, Evans N, Gowan R, Baral RM, et al. Prevalence of Bartonella species, Rickettsia felis, haemoplasmas and the Ehrlichia group in the blood of cats and fleas in eastern Australia. Aust Vet J. 2010;88:160–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. 230.
    Hornok S, Meli ML, Perreten A, Farkas R, Willi B, Beugnet F, et al. Molecular investigation of hard ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) and fleas (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) as potential vectors of rickettsial and mycoplasmal agents. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140:98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. 231.
    Lappin MR, Griffin B, Brunt J, Riley A, Burney D, Hawley J, et al. Prevalence of Bartonella species, haemoplasma species, Ehrlichia species, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Neorickettsia risticii DNA in the blood of cats and their fleas in the United States. J Feline Med Surg. 2006;8:85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. 232.
    Chalker VJ. Canine mycoplasmas. Res Vet Sci. 2005;79:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. 233.
    Messick JB. New perspectives about hemotrophic mycoplasma (formerly, Haemobartonella and Eperythrozoon species) infections in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2003;33:1453–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. 234.
    Tasker S, Helps CR, Day MJ, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Harbour DA. Use of real-time PCR to detect and quantify Mycoplasma haemofelis and “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” DNA. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:439–41.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  235. 235.
    Willi B, Filoni C, Catao-Dias JL, Cattori V, Meli ML, Vargas A, et al. Worldwide occurrence of feline hemoplasma infections in wild felid species. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:1159–66.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Willi B, Meli ML, Lüthy R, Honegger H, Wengi N, Hoelzle LE, et al. Development and application of a universal hemoplasma screening assay based on the SYBR green PCR principle. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:4049–54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  237. 237.
    Peters IR, Helps CR, Willi B, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Tasker S. The prevalence of three species of feline haemoplasmas in samples submitted to a diagnostics service as determined by three novel real-time duplex PCR assays. Vet Microbiol. 2008;126:142–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. 238.
    Wengi N, Willi B, Boretti FS, Cattori V, Riond B, Meli ML, et al. Real-time PCR-based prevalence study, infection follow-up and molecular characterization of canine hemotropic mycoplasmas. Vet Microbiol. 2008;126:132–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. 239.
    Barker EN, Tasker S, Day MJ, Warman SM, Woolley K, Birtles R, et al. Development and use of real-time PCR to detect and quantify Mycoplasma haemocanis and “Candidatus Mycoplasma haematoparvum” in dogs. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140:167–70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  240. 240.
    Willi B, Novacco M, Meli M, Wolf-Jackel G, Boretti F, Wengi N, et al. Haemotropic mycoplasmas of cats and dogs: transmission, diagnosis, prevalence and importance in Europe. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2010;152:237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. 241.
    Childs JE, Paddock CD. Rocky Mountain spotted fever. In: Raoult D, Parola P, editors. Rickettsial Diseases. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. 242.
    Rovery C, Raoult D. Rickettsia conorii infections (Mediterranean spotted fever, Israeli spotted fever, Indian tick typhus, Astrakhan fever) In: Raoult D, Parola P, editors. Rickettsial Diseases. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 125–37.Google Scholar
  243. 243.
    Raoult D, Parola P. Rickettsial diseases. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. 244.
    Greene CE. Breitschwerdt EB Rocky Mountain spotted fever, murine typhuslike disease, rickettsialpox, typhus, and Q fever. In: Greene CE, editor. Infectious diseases of the dog and cat. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2006. p. 232–45.Google Scholar
  245. 245.
    Breitschwerdt EB, Meuten DJ, Walker DH, Levy M, Kennedy K, King M, et al. Canine rocky mountain spotted fever: a kennel epizootic. Am J Vet Res. 1985;46:2124–8.Google Scholar
  246. 246.
    Dantas-Torres F. Rocky mountain spotted fever. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:724–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. 247.
    Demma LJ, Traeger M, Blau D, Gordon R, Johnson B, Dickson J, et al. Serologic evidence for exposure to Rickettsia rickettsii in eastern Arizona and recent emergence of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in this region. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006;6:423–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. 248.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fatal cases of Rocky Mountain spotted fever in family clusters-three states, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:407–10.Google Scholar
  249. 249.
    Beall MJ, Chandrashekar R, Eberts MD, Cyr KE, Diniz PPVP, Mainville C, et al. Serological and molecular prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Ehrlichia species in dogs from Minnesota. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8:455–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. 250.
    Krupka I, Pantchev N, Lorentzen L, Weise M, Straubinger RK. Tick-transmitted bacterial infections in dogs: seroprevalences of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Ehrlichia canis in Germany. Prakt Tierarzt. 2007;88:776–88 (In German).Google Scholar
  251. 251.
    Eiras DF, Craviotto MB, Vezzani D, Eyal O, Baneth G. First description of natural Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys infections in dogs from Argentina. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;36:169–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. 252.
    Mascarelli PE, Tartara GP, Pereyra NB, Maggi RG. Detection of Mycoplasma haemocanis, Mycoplasma haematoparvum, Mycoplasma suis and other vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Córdoba and Santa Fé, Argentina. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9:642.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  253. 253.
    Millán J, Travaini A, Cevidanes A, Sacristán I, Rodríguez A. Assessing the natural circulation of canine vector-borne pathogens in foxes, ticks and fleas in protected areas of Argentine Patagonia with negligible dog participation. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2018;8:63–70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  254. 254.
    Vezzani D, Carbajo AE. Spatial and temporal transmission risk of Dirofilaria immitis in Argentina. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36:1463–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. 255.
    Vezzani D, Carbajo AE, Fontanarrosa MF, Scodellaro CF, Basabe J, Cangiano G, Eiras DF. Epidemiology of canine heartworm in its southern distribution limit in South America: risk factors, inter-annual trend and spatial patterns. Vet Parasitol. 2011;176:240–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. 256.
    Vezzani D, Eiras DF, Wisnivesky C. Dirofilariasis in Argentina: historical review and first report of Dirofilaria immitis in a natural mosquito population. Vet Parasitol. 2006;136:259–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. 257.
    Cuervo PF, Sierra R, Waisman V, Gerbeno L, Sidoti L, Albonico F, et al. Detection of Dirofilaria immitis in mid-western arid Argentina. Acta Parasitologica. 2013;58:612–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. 258.
    Vezzani D, Mesplet M, Eiras DF, Fontanarrosa MF, Schnittger L. PCR detection of Dirofilaria immitis in Aedes aegypti and Culex pipiens from urban temperate Argentina. Parasitol Res. 2011;108:985–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. 259.
    Rosa A, Ribicich M, Betti A, Kistermann JC, Cardillo N, Basso N, Hallu R. Prevalence of canine dirofilariosis in the City of Buenos Aires and its outskirts (Argentina). Vet Parasitol. 2002;109:261–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  260. 260.
    Eiras DF, Basabe J, Scodellaro CF, Banach DB, Matos ML, Krimer A, Baneth G. First molecular characterization of canine hepatozoonosis in Argentina: evaluation of asymptomatic Hepatozoon canis infection in dogs from Buenos Aires. Vet Parasitol. 2007;149:275–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. 261.
    Giannitti F, Diab SS, Uzal FA, Fresneda K, Rossi D, Talmi-Frank D, Baneth G. Infection with a Hepatozoon sp. closely related to Hepatozoon felis in a wild Pampas gray fox (Lycalopex-Pseudalopex-gymnocercus) co-infected with canine distemper virus. Vet Parasitol. 2012;186:497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. 262.
    Esarte MS, Dodino ML, Duchene A, Iazbik MC, Salaj JF. Hepatozoonosis canina en la zona oeste del Gran Buenos Aires. Selecciones Vet. 1999;7:260–4.Google Scholar
  263. 263.
    Padilla AM, Marco JD, Diosque P, Segura MA, Mora MC, Fernandez MM, et al. Canine infection and the possible role of dogs in the transmission of American tegumentary leishmaniosis in Salta, Argentina. Vet Parasitol. 2002;110:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. 264.
    Marco JD, Padilla AM, Diosque P, Fernandez MM, Malchiodi EL, Basombrio MA. Force of infection and evolution of lesions of canine tegumentary leishmaniasis in northwestern Argentina. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2001;96:649–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. 265.
    Marco JD, Barroso PA, Calvopina M, Kumazawa H, Furuya M, Korenaga M, et al. Species assignation of Leishmania from human and canine American tegumentary leishmaniasis cases by multilocus enzyme electrophoresis in North Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;72:606–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  266. 266.
    Cruz I, Acosta L, Gutierrez MN, Nieto J, Canavate C, Deschutter J, Bornay-Llinares FJ. A canine leishmaniasis pilot survey in an emerging focus of visceral leishmaniasis: Posadas (Misiones, Argentina). BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:342.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  267. 267.
    Barroso PA, Nevot MC, Hoyos CL, Locatelli FM, Lauthier JJ, Ruybal P, et al. Genetic and clinical characterization of canine leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) infantum in northeastern Argentina. Acta Trop. 2015;150:218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. 268.
    Barroso PA, Marco JD, Locatelli FM, Cardozo RM, Hoyos CL, Mora MC, et al. Visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum in Salta, Argentina: possible reservoirs and vectors. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93:334–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  269. 269.
    Acardi SA, Liotta DJ, Santini MS, Romagosa CM, Salomon OD. Detection of Leishmania infantum in naturally infected Lutzomyia longipalpis (Diptera: Psychodidae: Phlebotominae) and Canis familiaris in Misiones, Argentina: the first report of a PCR-RFLP and sequencing-based confirmation assay. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2010;105:796–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. 270.
    Gould IT, Perner MS, Santini MS, Saavedra SB, Bezzi G, Maglianese MI, et al. Leishmaniasis visceral en la Argentina: notificacion y situacion vectorial (2006–2012). Medicina (B Aires). 2013;73:104–10.Google Scholar
  271. 271.
    Cardinal MV, Lauricella MA, Ceballos LA, Lanati L, Marcet PL, Levin MJ, et al. Molecular epidemiology of domestic and sylvatic Trypanosoma cruzi infection in rural northwestern Argentina. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38:1533–43.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  272. 272.
    Cardinal MV, Orozco MM, Enriquez GF, Ceballos LA, Gaspe MS, Alvarado-Otegui JA, et al. Heterogeneities in the ecoepidemiology of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in rural communities of the Argentinean Chaco. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90:1063–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  273. 273.
    Castanera MB, Lauricella MA, Chuit R, Gurtler RE. Evaluation of dogs as sentinels of the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in a rural area of north-western Argentina. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1998;92:671–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. 274.
    Gurtler RE, Cecere MC, Lauricella MA, Cardinal MV, Kitron U, Cohen JE. Domestic dogs and cats as sources of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in rural northwestern Argentina. Parasitology. 2007;134:69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. 275.
    Gurtler RE, Cecere MC, Petersen RM, Rubel DN, Schweigmann NJ. Chagas disease in north-west Argentina: Association between Trypanosoma cruzi parasitaemia in dogs and cats and infection rates in domestic Triatoma infestans. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993;87:12–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. 276.
    Gurtler RE, Cecere MC, Rubel DN, Petersen RM, Schweigmann NJ, Lauricella MA, et al. Chagas disease in north-west Argentina: infected dogs as a risk factor for the domestic transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1991;85:741–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. 277.
    Petersen RM, Gurtler RE, Cecere MC, Rubel DN, Lauricella MA, Hansen D, Carlomagno MA. Association between nutritional indicators and infectivity of dogs seroreactive for Trypanosoma cruzi in a rural area of northwestern Argentina. Parasitol Res. 2001;87:208–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. 278.
    Monje-Rumi MM, Brandan CP, Ragone PG, Tomasini N, Lauthier JJ, Damato AM, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi diversity in the Gran Chaco: mixed infections and differential host distribution of TcV and TcVI. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;29:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. 279.
    Cicuttin GL, Vidal P, Salvo M, Beltran FJ, Gury Dohmen FE. Detección molecular de Rickettsia massiliae y Anaplasma platys en garrapatas Rhipicephalus sanguineus y caninos domésticos del municipio de Bahía Blanca (Argentina). Rev Chilena Infectol. 2014;31:563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. 280.
    Cicuttin GL, Brambati DF, Rodriguez Eugui JI, Lebrero CG, de Salvo MN, Beltran FJ, et al. Molecular characterization of Rickettsia massiliae and Anaplasma platys infecting Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks and domestic dogs, Buenos Aires (Argentina). Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:484–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. 281.
    Cicuttin GL, Tarragona EL, de Salvo MN, Mangold AJ, Nava S. Infection with Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae) in two lineages of Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato (Acari: Ixodidae) from Argentina. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:724–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. 282.
    Cicuttin GL, Brambati DF, de Gennaro MF, Carmona F, Isturiz ML, Pujol LE, et al. Bartonella spp. in cats from Buenos Aires. Argentina. Vet Microbiol. 2014;168:225–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. 283.
    Stanchi NO, Balague LJ. Lyme disease: antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi in farm workers in Argentina. Rev Saude Publica. 1993;27:305–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  284. 284.
    Romer Y, Nava S, Govedic F, Cicuttin G, Denison AM, Singleton J, et al. Rickettsia parkeri rickettsiosis in different ecological regions of Argentina and its association with Amblyomma tigrinum as a potential vector. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91:1156–60.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  285. 285.
    Romer Y, Seijo AC, Crudo F, Nicholson WL, Varela-Stokes A, Lash RR, Paddock CD. Rickettsia parkeri rickettsiosis, Argentina. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17:1169–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  286. 286.
    Paddock CD, Fernandez S, Echenique GA, Sumner JW, Reeves WK, Zaki SR, Remondegui CE. Rocky Mountain spotted fever in Argentina. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;78:687–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  287. 287.
    Nava S, Elshenawy Y, Eremeeva ME, Sumner JW, Mastropaolo M, Paddock CD. Rickettsia parkeri in Argentina. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1894–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  288. 288.
    Oscherov EB, Milano A, Lobo B, Anda P, Escudero R. Detection of Anaplasma platys and other pathogens in ectoparasites from urban hosts in Northeast Argentine. Rev Ibero-Latinoam Parasitol. 2011;70:42–8.Google Scholar
  289. 289.
    Hepburn NC, Tidman MJ, Hunter JA. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in British troops from Belize. Br J Dermatol. 1993;128:63–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  290. 290.
    Lainson R. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Belize, Central America, and identity of the causative parasite. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1984;78:851–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. 291.
    Schnedl J, Auer H, Fischer M, Tomaso H, Pustelnik T, Mooseder G. Cutaneous leishmaniasis - an import from Belize. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2007;119:102–5 (In German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. 292.
    van Thiel PPAM, Zeegelaar JE, van Gool T, Faber WR, Kager PA. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in three Dutch military cohorts following jungle training in Belize. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2011;9:153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  293. 293.
    Vinetz JM, Soong L. Leishmania mexicana infection of the eyelid in a traveler to Belize. Braz J Infect Dis. 2007;11:149–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. 294.
    Weinrauch L. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Belize. Int J Dermatol. 1989;28:620.Google Scholar
  295. 295.
    Williams P. Phlebotomine sandflies and leishmaniasis in British Honduras (Belize). Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1970;64:317–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  296. 296.
    Jaramillo R, Bryan JP, Schur J, Pan AA. Prevalence of antibody to Trypanosoma cruzi in three populations in Belize. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997;57:298–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  297. 297.
    Polonio R, Ramirez-Sierra MJ, Dumonteil E. Dynamics and distribution of house infestation by Triatoma dimidiata in central and southern Belize. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009;9:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  298. 298.
    Polsomboon S, Hoel DF, Murphy JR, Linton YM, Motoki M, Robbins RG, et al. Molecular detection and identification of Rickettsia species in ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) collected from Belize, Central America. J Med Entomol. 2017;54:1718–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  299. 299.
    Bronson E, Emmons LH, Murray S, Dubovi EJ, Deem SL. Serosurvey of pathogens in domestic dogs on the border of Noel Kempff Mercado National Park, Bolivia. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2008;39:28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. 300.
    Fiorello CV, Noss AJ, Deem SL. Demography, hunting ecology, and pathogen exposure of domestic dogs in the Isoso of Bolivia. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:762–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. 301.
    Parrado R, Rojas E, Delgado R, Torrico MC, Reithinger R, Garcia AL. Prevalence of Leishmania spp. infection in domestic dogs in Chapare. Bolivia. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177:171–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  302. 302.
    Guarachi F, Cruz PJ. Seroprevalencia del mal de Chagas en canes del area urbana de Lagunillas. Vet Med Thesis, Univ Autónoma Gabriel Rene Moreno, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia; 2006.Google Scholar
  303. 303.
    Ciceroni L, Bartoloni A, Ciarrocchi S, Pinto A, Guglielmetti P, Valdez Vasquez C, et al. Serologic survey for antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in sheep, goats and dogs in Cordillera Province, Bolivia. Zentralblatt Veterinarmedizin Reihe B. 1997;44:133–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. 304.
    Ciceroni L, Bartoloni A, Guglielmetti P, Paradisi F, Barahona HG, Roselli M, et al. Prevalence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi, Borrelia parkeri and Borrelia turicatae in human settlements of the Cordillera Province, Bolivia. J Trop Med Hyg. 1994;97:13–7.Google Scholar
  305. 305.
    Tomassone L, Conte V, Parrilla G, de Meneghi D. Rickettsia infection in dogs and Rickettsia parkeri in Amblyomma tigrinum ticks, Cochabamba Department, Bolivia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10:953–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  306. 306.
    de Sousa KCM, Andre MR, Herrera HM, de Andrade GB, Jusi MMG, dos Santos LL, et al. Molecular and serological detection of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from an area endemic for Leishmania infantum in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:525–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  307. 307.
    O’Dwyer LH, Massard CL, Souza JC. Hepatozoon canis infection associated with dog ticks of rural areas of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2001;94:143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  308. 308.
    Ramos R, Ramos C, Araujo F, Oliveira R, Souza I, Pimentel D, et al. Molecular survey and genetic characterization of tick-borne pathogens in dogs in metropolitan Recife (north-eastern Brazil). Parasitol Res. 2010;107:1115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  309. 309.
    Santos F, Coppede JS, Pereira ALA, Oliveira LP, Roberto PG, Benedetti RBR, et al. Molecular evaluation of the incidence of Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma platys and Babesia spp in dogs from Ribeirao Preto, Brazil. Vet J. 2009;179:145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  310. 310.
    Spolidorio MG, Minervino AHH, Valadas SYOB, Soares HS, Neves KAL, Labruna MB, et al. Serosurvey for tick-borne diseases in dogs from the eastern Amazon, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  311. 311.
    Trapp SM, Dagnone AS, Vidotto O, Freire RL, Amude AM, de Morais HSA. Seroepidemiology of canine babesiosis and ehrlichiosis in a hospital population. Vet Parasitol. 2006;140:223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  312. 312.
    Vieira TSWJ, Vieira RFC, Nascimento DAG, Tamekuni K, Toledo RS, Chandrashekar R, et al. Serosurvey of tick-borne pathogens in dogs from urban and rural areas from Parana State, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. 313.
    Krawczak FS, Reis IA, Silveira JA, Avelar DM, Marcelino AP, Werneck GL, et al. Leishmania, Babesia and Ehrlichia in urban pet dogs: co-infection or cross-reaction in serological methods? Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48:64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  314. 314.
    Paulan SC, Lins AGS, Tenorio MS, Silva DT, Pena HFJ, Machado RZ, et al. Seroprevalence rates of antibodies against Leishmania infantum and other protozoan and rickettsial parasites in dogs. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:162–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  315. 315.
    Andre MR, Denardi NC, Sousa KC, Goncalves LR, Henrique PC, Ontivero CR, et al. Arthropod-borne pathogens circulating in free-roaming domestic cats in a zoo environment in Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014;5:545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  316. 316.
    Andre MR, Herrera HM, Fernandes SJ, de Sousa KCM, Goncalves LR, Domingos IH, et al. Tick-borne agents in domesticated and stray cats from the city of Campo Grande, state of Mato Grosso do Sul, midwestern Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:779–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  317. 317.
    Ramos RAN, Rêgo AG, Firmino ED, Ramos CA, Carvalho GA, Dantas-Torres F, et al. Filarioids infecting dogs in northeastern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2016;226:26–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  318. 318.
    Alves LC, Almeida Silva LV, Faustino MA, McCall JW, Supakonderj P, Labarthe NW, et al. Survey of canine heartworm in the city of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1999;94:587–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  319. 319.
    Ogawa GM, da Cruz EN, Cunha PNA, Camargo LMA. Canine heartworm disease in Porto Velho: first record, distribution map and occurrence of positive mosquitoes. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:559–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  320. 320.
    Reifur L, Thomaz-Soccol V, Montiani-Ferreira F. Epidemiological aspects of filariosis in dogs on the coast of Paraná state, Brazil: with emphasis on Dirofilaria immitis. Vet Parasitol. 2004;122:273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. 321.
    Harvey TV, Guedes PEB, Oliveira TNA, Assunção MS, Carvalho FS, Albuquerque GR, et al. Canine hepatozoonosis in southeastern Bahia, Brazil. Genet Mol Res. 2016;15:15038623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  322. 322.
    Spolidorio MG, Labruna MB, Zago AM, Donatele DM, Caliari KM, Yoshinari NH. Hepatozoon canis infecting dogs in the State of Espírito Santo, southeastern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2009;163:357–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  323. 323.
    Aguilar CM, Rangel EF, Garcia L, Fernandez E, Momen H, Grimaldi Filho G, de Vargas Z. Zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis due to Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis associated with domestic animals in Venezuela and Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1989;84:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  324. 324.
    Paiva Diniz PPV, de Schwartz DS, de Morais HSA, Breitschwerdt EB. Surveillance for zoonotic vector-borne infections using sick dogs from southeastern Brazil. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007;7:689–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  325. 325.
    Rosypal AC, Cortes-Vecino JA, Gennari SM, Dubey JP, Tidwell RR, Lindsay DS. Serological survey of Leishmania infantum and Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs from urban areas of Brazil and Colombia. Vet Parasitol. 2007;149:172–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  326. 326.
    Tartarotti AL, Donini MA, dos Anjos C, Ramos RR. Vigilância de reservatórios caninos. Boletim Epidemilógico. 2011;13:5–6.Google Scholar
  327. 327.
    Barbosa GMS, Marzochi MCA, Massard CL, Lima GPS, Confort EM. Epidemiological aspects of canine American tegumentary leishmaniasis in the Municipality of Paraty, State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 1999;15:641–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  328. 328.
    Castro EA, Thomaz-Soccol V, Augur C, Luz E. Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis: epidemiology of canine cutaneous leishmaniasis in the state of Paraná (Brazil). Exp Parasitol. 2007;117:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  329. 329.
    Dantas-Torres F, Paiva-Cavalcanti M, Figueredo LA, Melo MF, Silva FJ, Silva AL, et al. Cutaneous and visceral leishmaniosis in dogs from a rural community in northeastern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2010;170:313–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  330. 330.
    Falqueto A, Coura JR, Barros GC, Grimaldi G, Sessa PA, Carias VRD, et al. Participação do cão no ciclo de transmissão da leishmaniose tegumentar no Município de Viana, Estado do Espírito Santo, Brasil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1986;81:155–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  331. 331.
    Leça Junior NF, Guedes PEB, Santana LN, Almeida VA, Carvalho FS, Albuquerque GR, et al. Epidemiology of canine leishmaniasis in southern Bahia, Brazil. Acta Trop. 2015;148:115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  332. 332.
    Oliveira-Neto MP, Pirmez C, Rangel E, Schubach A, Grimaldi G. An outbreak of American cutaneous leishmaniasis (Leishmania braziliensis braziliensis) in a periurban area of Rio de Janeiro city, Brazil: clinical and epidemiological aspects. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1988;83:427–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  333. 333.
    Passos VMA, Andrade AC, Silva ES, Figueiredo EM, Falcão AL. Inquérito canino em foco recente de leishmaniose tegumentar no Município de Sabará, região metropolitana de Belo Horizonte. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1996;29:323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  334. 334.
    Serra CMB, Leal CA, Figueiredo F, Schubach TM, Duarte R, Uchôa CMA, et al. Canine tegumentary leishmaniasis in Morada das Aguias (Serra da Tiririca), Maricá, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2003;19:1877–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  335. 335.
    Soccol VT, Castro EA, Schühli G, Carvalho Y, Marques E, Pereira EF, Alcântara A, et al. A new focus of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the central area of Paraná State, southern Brazil. Acta Trop. 2009;111:308–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  336. 336.
    Silveira FT, Carneiro LA, Ramos PKS, Chagas EJ, Lima LVR, Campos MB, et al. A cross-sectional study on canine Leishmania (L.) infantum chagasi infection in Amazonian Brazil ratifies a higher prevalence of specific IgG-antibody response than delayed-type hypersensitivity in symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs. Parasitol Res. 2012;111:1513–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  337. 337.
    Bezerra CM, Cavalcanti LPG, Souza RCM, Barbosa SE, Xavier SCC, Jansen AM, et al. Domestic, peridomestic and wild hosts in the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in the Caatinga area colonised by Triatoma brasiliensis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2014;109:887–98.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  338. 338.
    Cantillo-Barraza O, Garces E, Gomez-Palacio A, Cortes LA, Pereira A, Marcet PL, et al. Eco-epidemiological study of an endemic Chagas disease region in northern Colombia reveals the importance of Triatoma maculata (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), dogs and Didelphis marsupialis in Trypanosoma cruzi maintenance. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:482.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  339. 339.
    Constantino C, Pellizzaro M, Paula EFE, Vieira TSWJ, Brando APD, Ferreira F, et al. Serosurvey for Leishmania spp, Toxoplasma gondii, Trypanosoma cruzi and Neospora caninum in neighborhood dogs in Curitiba-Paraná, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2016;25:504–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  340. 340.
    Perez TD, Figueiredo FB, Junior AAMV, Silva VL, Madeira MF, Brazil RP, Coura JR. Prevalence of American trypanosomiasis and leishmaniases in domestic dogs in a rural area of the municipality of São João do Piauí, Piauí State, Brazil. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2016;58:79.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  341. 341.
    Franke CR, Greiner M, Mehlitz D. Investigations on naturally occurring Trypanosoma evansi infections in horses, cattle, dogs and capybaras (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris) in Pantanal de Pocone (Mato Grosso, Brazil). Acta Trop. 1994;58:159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  342. 342.
    Colpo CB, Monteiro SG, Stainki DR, Colpo ETB, Henriques GB. Infecção natural por Trypanosoma evansi em cães. Ciênc Rural. 2005;35:717–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  343. 343.
    Dávila AM, Herrera HM, Schlebinger T, Souza SS, Traub-Cseko YM. Using PCR for unraveling the cryptic epizootiology of livestock trypanosomosis in the Pantanal, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2003;117:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  344. 344.
    Franciscato C, Lopes STA, Teixeira MMG, Monteiro SG, Garmatz BC, Paim CB. Cão naturalmente infectado por Trypanosoma evansi em Santa Maria, RS, Brasil. Ciênc Rural. 2007;37:288–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  345. 345.
    Herrera HM, Dávila AM, Norek A, Abreu UG, Souza SS, Dandrea PS, Jansen AM. Enzootiology of Trypanosoma evansi in Pantanal, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2004;125:263–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  346. 346.
    Herrera HM, Norek A, Freitas TP, Rademaker V, Fernandes O, Jansen AM. Domestic and wild mammals infection by Trypanosoma evansi in a pristine area of the Brazilian Pantanal region. Parasitol Res. 2005;96:121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  347. 347.
    Queiroz AO, Cabello PH, Jansen AM. Biological and biochemical characterization of isolates of Trypanosoma evansi from Pantanal of Matogrosso-Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2000;92:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  348. 348.
    Savani ESMM, Nunes VL, Galati EA, Castilho TM, Araujo FS, Ilha IM, Camargo MCGO, Dauria SRN, Floeter-Winter LM. Occurrence of co-infection by Leishmania (Leishmania) chagasi and Trypanosoma (Trypanozoon) evansi in a dog in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100:739–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  349. 349.
    Silva AS, Zanette RA, Colpo CB, Santurio JM, Monteiro SG. Sinais clínicos em cães naturalmente infectados por Trypanosoma evansi (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae) no RS. Clín Vet. 2008;13:66–8.Google Scholar
  350. 350.
    Stevens JR, Nunes VL, Lanham SM, Oshiro ET. Isoenzyme characterization of Trypanosoma evansi isolated from capybaras and dogs in Brazil. Acta Trop. 1989;46:213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  351. 351.
    Greiner M, Franke CR, Bohning D, Schlattmann P. Construction of an intrinsic cut-off value for the sero-epidemiological study of Trypanosoma evansi infections in a canine population in Brazil: a new approach towards an unbiased estimation of prevalence. Acta Trop. 1994;56:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  352. 352.
    Lasta CS, Dos Santos AP, Messick JB, Oliveira ST, Biondo AW, Vieira RFC, et al. Molecular detection of Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys in dogs in southern Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:360–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  353. 353.
    Ferreira RF, Cerqueira AMF, Pereira AM, Guimarães CM, Sá AG, Abreu FS, et al. Anaplasma platys diagnosis in dogs: comparison between morphological and molecular tests. Int J Appl Res Vet Med. 2007;5:113–9.Google Scholar
  354. 354.
    Santos HA, Thome SMG, Baldani CD, Silva CB, Peixoto MP, Pires MS, et al. Molecular epidemiology of the emerging zoonosis agent Anaplasma phagocytophilum (Foggie, 1949) in dogs and ixodid ticks in Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:348.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  355. 355.
    Santos HA, Pires MS, Vilela JAR, Santos TM, Faccini JLH, Baldani CD, et al. Detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Brazilian dogs by real-time polymerase chain reaction. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2011;23:770–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  356. 356.
    Brenner EC, Chomel BB, Singhasivanon O-U, Namekata DY, Kasten RW, Kass PH, et al. Bartonella infection in urban and rural dogs from the tropics: Brazil, Colombia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Epidemiol Infect. 2013;141:54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  357. 357.
    Diniz PPVP, Maggi RG, Schwartz DS, Cadenas MB, Bradley JM, Hegarty B, Breitschwerdt EB. Canine bartonellosis: serological and molecular prevalence in Brazil and evidence of co-infection with Bartonella henselae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii. Vet Res. 2007;38:697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  358. 358.
    Lamas C, Curi A, Boia M, Lemos E. Human bartonellosis: seroepidemiological and clinical features with an emphasis on data from Brazil - a review. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2008;103:221–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  359. 359.
    Fleischman DA, Chomel BB, Kasten RW, Andre MR, Goncalves LR, Machado RZ. Bartonella clarridgeiae and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii exposure in captive wild canids in Brazil. Epidemiol Infect. 2015;143:573–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  360. 360.
    Staggemeier R, Venker CA, Klein DH, Petry M, Spilki FR, Cantarelli VV. Prevalence of Bartonella henselae and Bartonella clarridgeiae in cats in the south of Brazil: a molecular study. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2010;105:873–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  361. 361.
    Miceli NG, Gavioli FA, Goncalves LR, Andre MR, Sousa VRF, Sousa KCM, Machado RZ. Molecular detection of feline arthropod-borne pathogens in cats in Cuiaba, state of Mato Grosso, central-western region of Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:385–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  362. 362.
    Goncalves DD, Moura RA, Nunes M, Carreira T, Vidotto O, Freitas JC, Vieira ML. Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in humans in a rural area of Parana State, Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2015;46:571–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  363. 363.
    Abel IS, Marzagão G, Yoshinari NH, Schumaker TT. Borrelia burgdorferi-like spirochetes recovered from ticks and small mammals collected in the Atlantic Forest Reserve, Cotia county, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2000;95:621–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  364. 364.
    Vieira RFC, Biondo AW, Guimaraes AMS, Dos Santos AP, Santos RP, Dutra LH, et al. Ehrlichiosis in Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2011;20:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  365. 365.
    Aguiar DM, Cavalcante GT, Pinter A, Gennari SM, Camargo LMA, Labruna MB. Prevalence of Ehrlichia canis (Rickettsiales: Anaplasmataceae) in dogs and Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) ticks from Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2007;44:126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  366. 366.
    Costa LM Jr, Rembeck K, Ribeiro MFB, Beelitz P, Pfister K, Passos LMF. Sero-prevalence and risk indicators for canine ehrlichiosis in three rural areas of Brazil. Vet J. 2007;174:673–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  367. 367.
    Dagnone AS, de Morais HSA, Vidotto MC, Jojima FS, Vidotto O. Ehrlichiosis in anemic, thrombocytopenic, or tick-infested dogs from a hospital population in South Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2003;117:285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  368. 368.
    Labarthe N, de Campos Pereira M, Barbarini O, McKee W, Coimbra CA, Hoskins J. Serologic prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis, Ehrlichia canis, and Borrelia burgdorferi infections in Brazil. Vet Ther. 2003;4:67–75.Google Scholar
  369. 369.
    Labruna MB, McBride JW, Camargo LMA, Aguiar DM, Yabsley MJ, Davidson WR, et al. A preliminary investigation of Ehrlichia species in ticks, humans, dogs, and capybaras from Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2007;143:189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  370. 370.
    Macieira DB, Messick JB, Cerqueira AMF, Freire IMA, Linhares GFC, Almeida NKO, Almosny NRP. Prevalence of Ehrlichia canis infection in thrombocytopenic dogs from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vet Clin Pathol. 2005;34:44–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  371. 371.
    Melo ALT, Martins TF, Horta MC, Moraes-Filho J, Pacheco RC, Labruna MB, Aguiar DM. Seroprevalence and risk factors to Ehrlichia spp. and Rickettsia spp. in dogs from the Pantanal Region of Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2011;2:213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  372. 372.
    Mundim AV, Morais IA, Tavares M, Cury MC, Mundim MJS. Clinical and hematological signs associated with dogs naturally infected by Hepatozoon sp. and with other hematozoa: a retrospective study in Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2008;153:3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  373. 373.
    Saito TB, Cunha-Filho NA, Pacheco RC, Ferreira F, Pappen FG, Farias NAR, et al. Canine infection by rickettsiae and ehrlichiae in southern Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:102–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  374. 374.
    Santos LGF, Melo ALT, Moraes-Filho J, Witter R, Labruna MB, Aguiar DM. Molecular detection of Ehrlichia canis in dogs from the Pantanal of Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:114–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  375. 375.
    Dantas-Torres F, da Silva YY, Miranda DE, Sales KG, Figueredo LA, Otranto D. Ehrlichia spp infection in rural dogs from remote indigenous villages in north-eastern Brazil. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:139.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  376. 376.
    Oliveira LS, Oliveira KA, Mourao LC, Pescatore AM, Almeida MR, Conceicao LG, et al. First report of Ehrlichia ewingii detected by molecular investigation in dogs from Brazil. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15(Suppl. 2):55–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  377. 377.
    Braga ÍA, Santos LGF, Ramos DGS, Melo ALT, Mestre GLC, Aguiar DM. Detection of Ehrlichia canis in domestic cats in the central-western region of Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2014;45:641–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  378. 378.
    de Oliveira LS, Mourao LC, Oliveira KA, da Matta Agostini M, de Oliveira AC, de Almeida MR, et al. Molecular detection of Ehrlichia canis in cats in Brazil. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15(Suppl. 2):53–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  379. 379.
    Andre MR, Adania CH, Allegretti SM, Machado RZ. Hemoplasmas in wild canids and felids in Brazil. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2011;42:342–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  380. 380.
    Filoni C, Catao-Dias JL, Cattori V, Willi B, Meli ML, Correa SHR, et al. Surveillance using serological and molecular methods for the detection of infectious agents in captive Brazilian neotropic and exotic felids. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2012;24:166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  381. 381.
    Guimaraes AMS, Javorouski ML, Bonat M, Lacerda O, Balbinotti B, Queiroz LGPB, et al. Molecular detection of “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” in a lion (Panthera leo) from a Brazilian zoological garden. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2007;49:195–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  382. 382.
    Vieira RFC, Vidotto O, Vieira TSWJ, Guimaraes AMS, Santos AP, Nascimento NC, et al. Molecular investigation of hemotropic mycoplasmas in human beings, dogs and horses in a rural settlement in southern Brazil. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2015;57:353–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  383. 383.
    Braga MSCO, Andre MR, Freschi CR, Teixeira MCA, Machado RZ. Molecular detection of hemoplasma infection among cats from Sao Luis island, Maranhao, Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2012;43:569–75.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  384. 384.
    de Bortoli CP, Andre MR, Seki MC, Pinto AA, Machado STZ, Machado RZ. Detection of hemoplasma and Bartonella species and co-infection with retroviruses in cats subjected to a spaying/neutering program in Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2012;21:219–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  385. 385.
    Maia LMP, Cerqueira AMF, de Macieira D, de Souza AM, Moreira NS, da Silva AV, et al. Cytauxzoon felis and “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” coinfection in a Brazilian domestic cat (Felis catus). Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:289–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  386. 386.
    de Santis ACGA, Herrera HM, de Sousa KCM, Goncalves LR, Denardi NCB, Domingos IH, et al. Molecular detection of hemotrophic mycoplasmas among domiciled and free-roaming cats in Campo Grande, state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2014;23:231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  387. 387.
    dos Santos AP, Conrado FO, Messick JB, Biondo AW, de Oliveira ST, Guimaraes AMS, et al. Hemoplasma prevalence and hematological abnormalities associated with infection in three different cat populations from southern Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2014;23:428–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  388. 388.
    Valle SF, Messick JB, Dos Santos AP, Kreutz LC, Duda NCB, Machado G, et al. Identification, occurrence and clinical findings of canine hemoplasmas in southern Brazil. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;37:259–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  389. 389.
    Batista FG, Silva DM, Green KT, Tezza LBL, Vasconcelos SP, Carvalho SGS, et al. Serological survey of Rickettsia sp. in horses and dogs in an non-endemic area in Brazil. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2010;19:205–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  390. 390.
    Pinter A, Horta MC, Pacheco RC, Moraes-Filho J, Labruna MB. Serosurvey of Rickettsia spp. in dogs and humans from an endemic area for Brazilian spotted fever in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2008;24:247–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  391. 391.
    Toledo RS, Tamekuni K, de Filho M, Haydu VB, Pacheco RC, Labruna MB, et al. Study of infection by rickettsiae of the spotted fever group in humans and ticks in an urban park located in the city of Londrina, State of Parana, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2011;44:313–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  392. 392.
    Toledo RS, Tamekuni K, Filho MFS, Haydu VB, Barbieri ARM, Hiltel AC, et al. Infection by spotted fever rickettsiae in people, dogs, horses and ticks in Londrina, Parana State, Brazil. Zoonoses Public Health. 2011;58:416–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  393. 393.
    Silveira I, Martins TF, Olegario MM, Peterka C, Guedes E, Ferreira F, Labruna MB. Rickettsial infection in animals, humans and ticks in Pauliceia, Brazil. Zoonoses Public Health. 2015;62:525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  394. 394.
    Alves ADS, Melo ALT, Amorim MV, Borges AMCM, Silva L, Martins TF, et al. Seroprevalence of Rickettsia spp in equids and molecular detection of “Candidatus Rickettsia amblyommii” in Amblyomma cajennense sensu lato ticks from the Pantanal Region of Mato Grosso, Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:1242–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  395. 395.
    Horta MC, Scott FB, Correia TR, Fernandes JI, Richtzenhain LJ, Labruna MB. Rickettsia felis infection in cat fleas Ctenocephalides felis felis. Braz J Microbiol. 2010;41:813–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  396. 396.
    Labruna MB, Whitworth T, Horta MC, Bouyer DH, McBride JW, Pinter A, et al. Rickettsia species infecting Amblyomma cooperi ticks from an area in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, where Brazilian spotted fever is endemic. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:90–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  397. 397.
    Matias J, Garcia MV, Cunha RC, Aguirre AAR, Barros JC, Csordas BG, Andreotti R. Spotted fever group Rickettsia in Amblyomma dubitatum tick from the urban area of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:107–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  398. 398.
    Medeiros AP, Souza AP, Moura AB, Lavina MS, Bellato V, Sartor AA, et al. Spotted fever group Rickettsia infecting ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2011;106:926–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  399. 399.
    Melo ALT, Alves AS, Nieri-Bastos FA, Martins TF, Witter R, Pacheco TA, et al. Rickettsia parkeri infecting free-living Amblyomma triste ticks in the Brazilian Pantanal. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  400. 400.
    Ogrzewalska M, Martins T, Capek M, Literak I, Labruna MB. A Rickettsia parkeri-like agent infecting Amblyomma calcaratum nymphs from wild birds in Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013;4:145–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  401. 401.
    Ogrzewalska M, Pacheco RC, Uezu A, Richtzenhain LJ, Ferreira F, Labruna MB. Rickettsial infection in Amblyomma nodosum ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) from Brazil. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2009;103:413–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  402. 402.
    Pacheco RC, Arzua M, Nieri-Bastos FA, Moraes-Filho J, Marcili A, Richtzenhain LJ, et al. Rickettsial infection in ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) collected on birds in southern Brazil. J Med Entomol. 2012;49:710–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  403. 403.
    Ramos DGS, Melo ALT, Martins TF, Alves ADS, Pacheco TA, Pinto LB, et al. Rickettsial infection in ticks from wild birds from Cerrado and the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso, midwestern Brazil. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015;6:836–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  404. 404.
    Szabo MPJ, Nieri-Bastos FA, Spolidorio MG, Martins TF, Barbieri AM, Labruna MB. In vitro isolation from Amblyomma ovale (Acari: Ixodidae) and ecological aspects of the Atlantic rainforest Rickettsia, the causative agent of a novel spotted fever rickettsiosis in Brazil. Parasitology. 2013;140:719–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  405. 405.
    Yabsley MJ, McKibben J, Macpherson CN, Cattan PF, Cherry NA, Hegarty BC, et al. Prevalence of Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma platys, Babesia canis vogeli, Hepatozoon canis, Bartonella vinsonii berkhoffii, and Rickettsia spp. in dogs from Grenada. Vet Parasitol. 2008;151:279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  406. 406.
    Georges K, Ezeokoli CD, Newaj-Fyzul A, Campbell M, Mootoo N, Mutani A, Sparagano OAE. The application of PCR and reverse line blot hybridization to detect arthropod-borne hemopathogens of dogs and cats in Trinidad. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1149:196–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  407. 407.
    Bool PH, Sutmöller P. Ehrlichia canis infections in dogs on Aruba (Netherlands Antilles). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1957;130:418–20.Google Scholar
  408. 408.
    Zandvliet MMJM, Teske E, Piek CJ. Ehrlichia and Babesia infections in dogs in The Netherlands. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 2004;129:740–5 (In Dutch).Google Scholar
  409. 409.
    Chikweto A, Bhaiyat MI, Lanza-Perea M, Veytsman S, Tiwari K, de Allie C, Sharma RN. Retrospective study of canine heartworm disease with caval syndrome in Grenada, West Indies. Vet Parasitol. 2014;205:721–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  410. 410.
    Coomansingh C-M, Yabsley M, Wagner N, Pinckney R, Bhaiyat MI, Chikweto A, et al. Meta-analysis of the prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from Grenada, West Indies. Int J Vet Med Res Rep. 2015;2015:429690.Google Scholar
  411. 411.
    Fernandez C, Chikweto A, Mofya S, Lanum L, Flynn P, Burnett JP, et al. A serological study of Dirofilaria immitis in feral cats in Grenada, West Indies. J Helminthol. 2010;84:390–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  412. 412.
    Hoff B, McEwen B, Peregrine AS. A survey for infection with Dirofilaria immitis, Ehrlichia canis, Borrelia burgdorferi, and Babesia canis in feral and client-owned dogs in the Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies. Can Vet J. 2008;49:593–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  413. 413.
    Hesselink JW. Prevalence of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) in dogs on Curaçao. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 1988;113:853–9 (In Dutch).Google Scholar
  414. 414.
    Saleh FC, Kirkpatrick CE, de Haseth O, Lok JB. Occurrence of some blood and intestinal parasites in dogs in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. Trop Geogr Med. 1988;40:318–21.Google Scholar
  415. 415.
    Rosypal AC, Tripp S, Kinlaw C, Sharma RN, Stone D, Dubey JP. Seroprevalence of canine leishmaniasis and American trypanosomiasis in dogs from Grenada, West Indies. J Parasitol. 2010;96:228–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  416. 416.
    Liautaud B, Vignier N, Miossec C, Plumelle Y, Kone M, Delta D, et al. First case of visceral leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania martiniquensis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92:317–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  417. 417.
    Noyes H, Pratlong F, Chance M, Ellis J, Lanotte G, Dedet JP. A previously unclassified trypanosomatid responsible for human cutaneous lesions in Martinique (French West Indies) is the most divergent member of the genus Leishmania s.s. Parasitology. 2002;124:17–24.Google Scholar
  418. 418.
    Cnudde F, Raccurt C, Boulard F, Terron-Aboud B, Nicolas M, Juminer B. Diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis with visceral dissemination in an AIDS patient in Guadeloupe, West Indies. AIDS. 1994;8:559–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  419. 419.
    Petana WB. American trypanosomiasis (Chagasʼ disease) in the Caribbean. Bull Pan Am Health Organ. 1978;12:45–50.Google Scholar
  420. 420.
    Omah-Maharaj I. Studies on vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi in Trinidad, West Indies. Med Vet Entomol. 1992;6:115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  421. 421.
    Loftis AD, Kelly PJ, Freeman MD, Fitzharris S, Beeler-Marfisi J, Wang C. Tick-borne pathogens and disease in dogs on St. Kitts, West Indies. Vet Parasitol. 2013;196:44–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  422. 422.
    Qurollo BA, Chandrashekar R, Hegarty BC, Beall MJ, Stillman BA, Liu J, et al. A serological survey of tick-borne pathogens in dogs in North America and the Caribbean as assessed by Anaplasma phagocytophilum, A. platys, Ehrlichia canis, E chaffeensis, E. ewingii, and Borrelia burgdorferi species-specific peptides. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2014;4:24699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  423. 423.
    Kelly PJ, Moura L, Miller T, Thurk J, Perreault N, Weil A, et al. Feline immunodeficiency virus, feline leukemia virus and Bartonella species in stray cats on St Kitts, West Indies. J Feline Med Surg. 2010;12:447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  424. 424.
    Rampersad JN, Watkins JD, Samlal MS, Deonanan R, Ramsubeik S, Ammons DR. A nested-PCR with an internal amplification control for the detection and differentiation of Bartonella henselae and B. clarridgeiae: an examination of cats in Trinidad. BMC Infect Dis. 2005;5:63.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  425. 425.
    Asgarali Z, Pargass I, Adam J, Mutani A, Ezeokoli C. Haematological parameters in stray dogs seropositive and seronegative to Ehrlichia canis in North Trinidad. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2012;3:207–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  426. 426.
    Georges K, Ezeokoli C, Auguste T, Seepersad N, Pottinger A, Sparagano O, Tasker S. A comparison of real-time PCR and reverse line blot hybridization in detecting feline haemoplasmas of domestic cats and an analysis of risk factors associated with haemoplasma infections. BMC Vet Res. 2012;8:103.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  427. 427.
    Pérez LC, Arce JD. Nódulos parasitarios cutáneos: estudio ultrasonográfico de tres casos poco frecuentes en la edad pediátrica. Rev Chilena Radiol. 2007;13:163–8.Google Scholar
  428. 428.
    Muñoz-Leala S, Lopes MG, Marcili A, Martins TF, González-Acuñac D, Labruna MB. Anaplasmataceae, Borrelia and Hepatozoon agents in ticks (Acari: Argasidae, Ixodidae) from Chile. Acta Trop. 2019;2019(192):91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  429. 429.
    Bertoglia J, Rodriguez J, Gordillo N, Mendoza J, Contreras MC, Rojas J, et al. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infeccion de mamiferos domesticos por Trypanosoma cruzi y nuevas contribuciones al conocimiento de la infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria en III Region, Chile (1982–1983). Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:20–3.Google Scholar
  430. 430.
    Burchard L, Caceres J, Sagua H, Ines Bahamonde M, Neira I, Araya J, Goycolea M. Estado actual de la seroprevalencia de la infeccion chagasica humana y canina en la comuna de San Pedro de Atacama, II Region de Antofagasta, Chile, 1995. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1996;51:76–9.Google Scholar
  431. 431.
    Burchard L, Cornejo J, Cruz L, Contreras MC, Vargas L, Villarroel F, et al. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria e infestacion por Trypanosoma cruzi del vector y de los mamiferos domesticos de la II Region (1983). Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:17–9.Google Scholar
  432. 432.
    Correa V, Briceno J, Zuniga J, Aranda JC, Valdes J, Contreras MC, et al. Infeccion por Trypanosoma cruzi en animales domesticos de sectores rurales de la IV Region, Chile. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1982;37:27–8.Google Scholar
  433. 433.
    Correa V, Zuniga J, Briceno J, Contreras MC, Aranda JC, Valdes J, et al. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion domiciliaria por triatominos, tasas de infeccion de estos por Trypanosoma cruzi y nuevos aportes al conocimiento de la infeccion chagasica en mamiferos domesticos de la IV region (1982–1983). Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:24–7.Google Scholar
  434. 434.
    Flores B, Hernandez G, Lepe A, Contreras MC, Sandoval L, Villarroel F, et al. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria e infeccion por Trypanosoma cruzi del vector y de mamiferos domesticos de la V Region, 1983. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:62–5.Google Scholar
  435. 435.
    Gonzalez CR, Reyes C, Canals A, Parra A, Munoz X, Rodriguez K. An entomological and seroepidemiological study of the vectorial-transmission risk of Chagas disease in the coast of northern Chile. Med Vet Entomol. 2015;29:387–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  436. 436.
    Martinez R, Ahumada C, Contreras MC, Villarroel F, Rojas A, Schenone H. Enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria e infeccion por Trypanosoma cruzi del vector y mamiferos de la I Region (1982–1983). Bol Chil Parasitol. 1983;38:70–2.Google Scholar
  437. 437.
    Schenone H, Rojas A. Algunos datos y observaciones pragmaticas en relacion a la epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1989;44:66–86.Google Scholar
  438. 438.
    Schenone H, Christensen HA, de Vasquez AM, Gonzalez C, Mendez E, Rojas A, Villarroel F. Fuentes de alimentacion de triatomas domesticos y su implicancia epidemiologica en relacion a enfermedad de Chagas en areas rurales de siete regiones de Chile. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1985;40:34–8.Google Scholar
  439. 439.
    Schenone H, Contreras MC, Borgono JM, Maturana R, Salinas P, Sandoval L, et al. Panorama general de la epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1991;46:19–30.Google Scholar
  440. 440.
    Schenone H, Villarroel F, Contreras MC, Borgono JM, Sandoval L, Rojas A, et al. Enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales y periurbanos. Tasas de positividad de la reaccion de hemaglutinacion indirecta (RHAI) para el diagnostico de la parasitosis segun el numero de personas examinadas por vivienda. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1986;41:27–30.Google Scholar
  441. 441.
    Venegas L, Rojas A, Villarroel F, Contreras MC, Sandoval L, Schenone H. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria e infeccion por Trypanosoma cruzi del vector y mamiferos domesticos de la VI Region del Libertador General Bernardo O’Higgins, 1983. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:69–72.Google Scholar
  442. 442.
    Villarroel F, Rojas A, Contreras MC, Schenone H. Epidemiologia de la enfermedad de Chagas en Chile. Sectores rurales. Infestacion triatomidea domiciliaria e infeccion por Trypanosoma cruzi de los vectores y mamiferos domesticos de la region metropolitana, 1982–1984. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1984;39:65–8.Google Scholar
  443. 443.
    Villarroel F, Schenone H, Contreras MC, Rojas A, Hernandez E. Enfermedad de Chagas en el Altiplano chileno Aspectos epidemiologicos, parasitologicos y clinicos. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1991;46:61–9.Google Scholar
  444. 444.
    Abarca K, Lopez J, Perret C, Guerrero J, Godoy P, Veloz A, et al. Anaplasma platys in dogs, Chile. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:1392–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  445. 445.
    Del López PJ, Abarca VK, Azocar AT. Evidencia clínica y serológica de rickettsiosis canina en Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2007;24:189–93.Google Scholar
  446. 446.
    Zaror L, Ernst S, Navarette M, Ballesteros A, Boroscheck D, Ferres M, Thibaut J. Detección serológica de Bartonella henselae en gatos en la ciudad de Valdivia, Chile. Arch Med Vet. 2002;34:103–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  447. 447.
    Ferres M, Abarca K, Godoy P, Garcia P, Palavecino E, Mendez G, et al. Presencia de Bartonella henselae en gatos: cuantificación del reservorio natural y riesgo de exposición humana de esta zoonosis en Chile. Rev Méd Chile. 2005;133:1465–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  448. 448.
    Abarca K, Ribera M, Prado P, Lobos T, Palacios O, Ferres M, et al. Neuroborreliosis en Chile. Caso pediatrico de probable adquisicion por mascotas importadas. Rev Méd Chile. 1996;124:975–9.Google Scholar
  449. 449.
    Neira O, Cerda C, Alvarado MA, Palma S, Abumohor P, Wainstein E, et al. Enfermedad de Lyme en Chile. Estudio de prevalencia en grupos. Rev Méd Chile. 1996;124:537–44.Google Scholar
  450. 450.
    López J, Abarca K, Mundaca MI, Caballero C, Valiente-Echeverría F. Identificación molecular de Ehrlichia canis en un canino de la ciudad de Arica, Chile. Rev Chilena Infectol. 2012;29:527–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  451. 451.
    López J, Castillo A, Muñoz O, Hildebrandt S. Hallazgo de Ehrlichia canis en Chile, informe preliminar. Arch Med Vet (Valdivia). 1999;31:211–4.Google Scholar
  452. 452.
    Cabello J, Altet L, Napolitano C, Sastre N, Hidalgo E, Davila JA, Millan J. Survey of infectious agents in the endangered Darwinʼs fox (Lycalopex fulvipes): high prevalence and diversity of hemotrophic mycoplasmas. Vet Microbiol. 2013;167:448–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  453. 453.
    Abarca K, Lopez J, Acosta-Jamett G, Martinez-Valdebenito C. Rickettsia felis in Rhipicephalus sanguineus from two distant Chilean cities. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13:607–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  454. 454.
    Poo-Muñoz DA, Elizondo-Patrone C, Escobar LE, Astorga F, Bermúdez SE, Martínez-Valdebenito C, et al. Fleas and ticks in carnivores from a domestic-wildlife interface: implications for public health and wildlife. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:1433–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  455. 455.
    Vargas-Hernandez G, Andre MR, Faria JLM, Munhoz TD, Hernandez-Rodriguez M, Machado RZ, Tinucci-Costa M. Molecular and serological detection of Ehrlichia canis and Babesia vogeli in dogs in Colombia. Vet Parasitol. 2012;186:254–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  456. 456.
    McCown ME, Monterroso VH, Cardona W. Surveillance for Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi, and Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from three cities in Colombia. J Spec Oper Med. 2014;14:86–90.Google Scholar
  457. 457.
    Guerrero J, Genchi C, Vezzoni A, Ducos de Lahitte J, Bussieras J, Rojo FA, et al. Distribution of Dirofilaria immitis in selected areas of Europe and South America. In: Otto GF, editor. In: Proceedings of the Heartworm Symposium ʼ89. Washington, DC: American Heartworm Society; 1989. p 13–8.Google Scholar
  458. 458.
    Guerrero J, Ducos de la Hitte J, Genchi C, Rojo F, Gomez-Bautista M, Carvalho Varela M, et al. Update on the distribution of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs from southern Europe and Latin America. In: Soll M, editor. In: Proceedings of the Heartworm Symposium ʼ92. Batavia: American Heartworm Society; 1992. p 31–7.Google Scholar
  459. 459.
    Vieira C, Velez ID, Montoya MN, Agudelo S, Alvarez MI, Genchi C, Simon F. Dirofilaria immitis in Tikuna Indians and their dogs in the Colombian Amazon. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1998;92:123–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  460. 460.
    Vargas-Hernandez G, Andre MR, Munhoz TD, Faria JML, Machado RZ, Tinucci-Costa M. Molecular characterization of Hepatozoon canis in dogs from Colombia. Parasitol Res. 2012;110:489–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  461. 461.
    Paternina Gómez M, Díaz-Olmos Y, Paternina LE, Bejarano EE. Alta prevalencia de infeccion por Leishmania (Kinetoplastidae: Trypanosomatidae) en perros del norte de Colombia. Biomedica. 2013;33:375–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  462. 462.
    Romero M, Lopez M, Echeverry M, Rivas F. Leishmaniasis visceral canina: pruebas diagnósticas no identifican Estados Reales de la infección. Rev Salud Pública. 2008;10:290–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  463. 463.
    Blanco VM, Cossio A, Martinez JD, Saravia NG. Clinical and epidemiologic profile of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombian children: considerations for local treatment. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;89:359–64.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  464. 464.
    Martínez LP, Rebollo JA, Luna AL, Cochero S, Bejarano EE. Molecular identification of the parasites causing cutaneous leishmaniasis on the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Parasitol Res. 2010;106:647–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  465. 465.
    Patiño-Londoño SY, Salazar LM, Acero CT, Bernal IDV. Aspectos socioepidemiológicos y culturales de la leishmaniasis cutánea: concepciones, actitudes y prácticas en las poblaciones de Tierralta y Valencia, (Córdoba, Colombia). Salud Colect. 2017;13:123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  466. 466.
    Pérez-Flórez M, Ocampo CB, Valderrama-Ardila C, Alexander N. Spatial modeling of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Andean region of Colombia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2016;111:433–42.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  467. 467.
    Rincon MY, Silva SY, Duenas RE, Lopez-Jaramillo P. Leishmaniasis cutánea diseminada: reporte de dos casos en Santander, Colombia. Rev Salud Pública. 2009;11:145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  468. 468.
    Rodríguez-Barraquer I, Góngora R, Prager M, Pacheco R, Montero LM, Navas A, et al. Etiologic agent of an epidemic of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Tolima, Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;78:276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  469. 469.
    Rosales-Chilama M, Gongora RE, Valderrama L, Jojoa J, Alexander N, Rubiano LC, et al. Parasitological confirmation and analysis of Leishmania diversity in asymptomatic and subclinical infection following resolution of cutaneous leishmaniasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0004273.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  470. 470.
    Vélez ID, Carrillo LM, López L, Rodríguez E, Robledo SM. An epidemic outbreak of canine cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia caused by Leishmania braziliensis and Leishmania panamensis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:807–11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  471. 471.
    Vélez ID, Jiménez A, Vásquez D, Robledo SM. Disseminated cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia: report of 27 cases. Case Rep Dermatol. 2015;7:275–86.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  472. 472.
    Ramírez JD, Turriago B, Tapia-Calle G, Guhl F. Understanding the role of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in the transmission dynamics of Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes in Colombia. Vet Parasitol. 2013;196:216–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  473. 473.
    McCown ME, Alleman A, Sayler KA, Chandrashekar R, Thatcher B, Tyrrell P, et al. Point prevalence survey for tick-borne pathogens in military working dogs, shelter animals, and pet populations in northern Colombia. J Spec Oper Med. 2014;14:81–5.Google Scholar
  474. 474.
    Miranda J, Mattar S, Perdomo K, Palencia L. Seroprevalencia de borreliosis, o enfermedad de Lyme, en una población rural expuesta de Córdoba, Colombia. Rev Salud Pública. 2009;11:480–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  475. 475.
    Hidalgo M, Vesga JF, Lizarazo D, Valbuena G. A survey of antibodies against Rickettsia rickettsii and Ehrlichia chafeensis in domestic animals from a rural area of Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80:1029–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  476. 476.
    Londoño AF, Acevedo-Gutiérrez LY, Marín D, Contreras V, Díaz FJ, Valbuena G, et al. Wild and domestic animals likely involved in rickettsial endemic zones of northwestern Colombia. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017;8:887–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  477. 477.
    Bermúdez SE, Eremeeva ME, Karpathy SE, Samudio F, Zambrano ML, Zaldivar Y, et al. Detection and identification of rickettsial agents in ticks from domestic mammals in eastern Panama. J Med Entomol. 2009;46:856–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  478. 478.
    Faccini-Martínez ÁA, Ramírez-Hernández A, Forero-Becerra E, Cortés-Vecino JA, Escandón P, Rodas JD, et al. Molecular evidence of different Rickettsia species in Villeta, Colombia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2016;16:85–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  479. 479.
    Ramirez-Hernandez A, Montoya V, Martinez A, Perez JE, Mercado M, La Ossa A, et al. Molecular detection of Rickettsia felis in different flea species from Caldas, Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;89:453–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  480. 480.
    Scorza AV, Duncan C, Miles L, Lappin MR. Prevalence of selected zoonotic and vector-borne agents in dogs and cats in Costa Rica. Vet Parasitol. 2011;183:178–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  481. 481.
    Rojas A, Rojas D, Montenegro VM, Baneth G. Detection of Dirofilaria immitis and other arthropod-borne filarioids by an HRM real-time qPCR, blood-concentrating techniques and a serological assay in dogs from Costa Rica. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:170.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  482. 482.
    Montenegro VM, Bonilla MC, Kaminsky D, Romero-Zúñiga JJ, Siebert S, Krämer F. Serological detection of antibodies to Anaplasma spp., Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and Ehrlichia canis and of Dirofilaria immitis antigen in dogs from Costa Rica. Vet Parasitol. 2017;236:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  483. 483.
    Reyes L, Silesky E, Cerdas C, Chinchilla M, Guerrero O. Presencia de anticuerpos contra Trypanosoma cruzi en perros de Costa Rica. Parasitol Latinoam. 2002;57:66–8.Google Scholar
  484. 484.
    Zeledon R, Solano G, Burstin L, Swartzwelder JC. Epidemiological pattern of Chagasʼ disease in an endemic area of Costa Rica. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1975;24:214–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  485. 485.
    Montenegro VM, Jimenez M, Dias JCP, Zeledon R. Chagas disease in dogs from endemic areas of Costa Rica. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2002;97:491–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  486. 486.
    Bonilla MC. Prevalencia de Anaplasma phagocytophilum y Anaplasma platys en sangre y garrapatas de perros que visitan parques públicos de Costa Rica. Vet Med Thesis, Univ Nacional Costa Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica. 2014.Google Scholar
  487. 487.
    Ábrego L, Dolz G, Romero JJ, Vargas B, Meneses A. Detección molecular de Anaplasma platys en perros de Costa Rica. Cienc Vet. 2009;27:71–80.Google Scholar
  488. 488.
    Ábrego Sánchez L, Romero Zuñiga JJ, Vargas Leitón B, Meneses Guevara A, Dolz G. Detección molecular de Anaplasma platys en perros de Costa Rica. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:89, B-8.Google Scholar
  489. 489.
    Campos L, Salazar L, Dolz G. Detección molecular del agente zoonótico Anaplasma phagocytophilum en muestras de sangre de caballos, sangre y garrapatas de perros de Costa Rica. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:91, B-12.Google Scholar
  490. 490.
    Barrantes-González A, Bonilla MC, Jiménez-Rocha AE, Montenegro VM, Romero-Zuñiga JJ, Dolz G. Seroprevalencia de Ehrlichia canis y Anaplasma phagocytophilum en perros que visitan parques recreativos de Costa Rica - estudios preliminares. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:68.Google Scholar
  491. 491.
    Rojas N, Troyo A, Castillo D, Gutierrez R, Harrus S. Molecular detection of Bartonella species in fleas collected from dogs and cats from Costa Rica. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015;15:630–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  492. 492.
    Schicht S, Montenegro VM, Pantchev N, Siebert S, Balzer J, Strube C. Vektoren-übertragene Erkrankungen bei Hunden aus Costa Rica und Nicaragua. In: Proceedings Tagung DVG-Fachgruppe “Parasitologie und parasitäre Krankheiten”. Berlin, Germany, 2–4 May, 2016. Gießen, Germany: DVG Service GmbH; 2016. p 32–4.Google Scholar
  493. 493.
    Romero LE, Meneses AI, Salazar L, Jiménez M, Romero JJ, Aguiar DM, et al. First isolation and molecular characterization of Ehrlichia canis in Costa Rica, Central America. Res Vet Sci. 2011;91:95–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  494. 494.
    Barrantes-González AV, Jiménez-Rocha AE, Romero-Zuñiga JJ, Dolz G. Serology, molecular detection and risk factors of Ehrlichia canis infection in dogs in Costa Rica. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016;7:1245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  495. 495.
    Meneses-Guevara A, Bouza-Mora L, Huertas-Segura RM, Jiménez-Soto M. Identificación molecular de Ehrlichia chaffeensis en perros y animales silvestres de Costa Rica. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:67.Google Scholar
  496. 496.
    Moreira-Soto A, Taylor-Castillo L, Calderón-Arguedas O, Hun L, Troyo A. Rickettsia spp. del grupo fiebres manchadas asociadas con perros (Canis lupus familiaris) de sitios urbanos con casos de fiebre manchada de las Montañas Rocosas en San José, Costa Rica. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:65.Google Scholar
  497. 497.
    Hun L, Troyo A, Taylor L, Barbieri AM, Labruna MB. First report of the isolation and molecular characterization of Rickettsia amblyommii and Rickettsia felis in Central America. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:1395–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  498. 498.
    Troyo A, Alvarez D, Taylor L, Abdalla G, Calderon-Arguedas O, Zambrano ML, et al. Rickettsia felis in Ctenocephalides felis from Guatemala and Costa Rica. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:1054–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  499. 499.
    Sotolongo Guerra F. Incidencia de la Dirofilaria immitis en los perros de la ciudad de La Habana. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 1977;29:9–12.Google Scholar
  500. 500.
    Dumenigo Ripoll B, Aguiar Prieto PH, Galvez MD. Prevalencia de Dirofilaria immitis en perros de Ciudad de la Habana. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 1982;34:262–8.Google Scholar
  501. 501.
    Perez O, Lastre M, Aguiar PM, Galvez M. Busqueda de Dirofilaria immitis en perros en la provincia Ciudad de La Habana. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 1985;37:174–7.Google Scholar
  502. 502.
    Rodriguez I, Fernandez C, Cinco M, Pedroso R, Fuentes O. Do antiborrelial antibodies suggest Lyme disease in Cuba? Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1698–700.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  503. 503.
    Rodriguez I, Fernandez C, Sanchez L, Martinez B, Siegrist HH, Lienhard R. Prevalence of antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto in humans from a Cuban village. Braz J Infect Dis. 2012;16:82–5.Google Scholar
  504. 504.
    Rodríguez I, Fernández C, Sánchez L, Martínez B, Siegrist HH, Lienhard R. Serological evidences suggest Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato infection in Cuba. Braz J Infect Dis. 2012;16:405–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  505. 505.
    Dessau RB. Infection due to Borrelia burgdorferi most likely does not occur in Cuba. Braz J Infect Dis. 2012;16:404 (Author reply: 405–6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  506. 506.
    Duran-Struuck R, Jost C, Hernandez AH. Dirofilaria immitis prevalence in a canine population in the Samana Peninsula (Dominican Republic)-June 2001. Vet Parasitol. 2005;133:323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  507. 507.
    Manda JA. Transplacental migration of Dirofilaria immitis microfilariae. Comp Anim Pract. 1989;19:18–20.Google Scholar
  508. 508.
    Johnson RN, Young DG, Butler JF, Bogaert-Diaz H. Possible determination of the vector and reservoir of leishmaniasis in the Dominican Republic. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;46:282–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  509. 509.
    Schnur LF, Walton BC, Bogaert-Diaz H. On the identity of the parasite causing diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Dominican Republic. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1983;77:756–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  510. 510.
    Shaw J, Pratlong F, Floeter-Winter L, Ishikawa E, El Baidouri F, Ravel C, Dedet J-P. Characterization of Leishmania (Leishmania) waltoni n. sp. (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae), the parasite responsible for diffuse cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Dominican Republic. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93:552–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  511. 511.
    Bogaert Díaz H, Martínez D, Quiñones M, de Estévez FN. Leishmaniose anérgica na República Dominicana Estudo de 20 casos. An Bras Dermatol. 1985;60:229–36.Google Scholar
  512. 512.
    Dominguez-Alvarez GG. Prevalencia e identificación de hemoparásitos (Ehrlichia canis, Babesia canis y Anaplasma phagocytophilum) en perros de la ciudad de Cuenca. Vet Med Thesis, Univ de Cuenca, Facul Cienc Agropec, Esc Med Vet Zootecn, Cuenca, Ecuador. 2011, pp 164.Google Scholar
  513. 513.
    Bañuls AL, Jonquieres R, Guerrini F, Le Pont F, Barrera C, Espinel I, et al. Genetic analysis of Leishmania parasites in Ecuador: are Leishmania (Viannia) panamensis and Leishmania (V.) guyanensis distinct taxa? Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:838–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  514. 514.
    Dereure J, Espinel I, Barrera C, Guerrini F, Martini A, Echeverria R, et al. Leishmaniose en Equateur 4 Infestation naturelle du chien par Leishmania panamensis. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop. 1994;74:29–33.Google Scholar
  515. 515.
    Carrera Vargas C, Narváez AO, Muzzio Aroca J, Shiguango G, Robles LM, Herrera C, Dumonteil E. Seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in schoolchildren and in pregnant women from an Amazonian region in Orellana Province, Ecuador. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;93:774–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  516. 516.
    Costales JA, Sánchez-Gómez A, Silva-Aycaguer LC, Cevallos W, Tamayo S, Yumiseva CA, et al. A national survey to determine prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection among pregnant women in Ecuador. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92:807–10.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  517. 517.
    Dumonteil E, Herrera C, Martini L, Grijalva MJ, Guevara AG, Costales JA, et al. Chagas disease has not been controlled in Ecuador. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0158145.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  518. 518.
    Giraldo-Ordonez CJ, Tamayo-Nunez MJ. Determinación de la presencia de anticuerpos anti-Trypanozoma cruzi en caninos en zonas endémicas para enfermedad de Chagas de la provincia del Guayas: Canton General Villamil Playas-Posorja. Vet Med Thesis, Univ Central del Ecuador, Facul Med Vet Zootecn, Quito, Ecuador; 2012.Google Scholar
  519. 519.
    Grijalva MJ, Escalante L, Paredes RA, Costales JA, Padilla A, Rowland EC, et al. Seroprevalence and risk factors for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;69:380–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  520. 520.
    Guevara AG, Atherton RD, Wauters MA, Vicuña Y, Nelson M, Prado J, et al. Seroepidemiological study of Chagas disease in the southern Amazon region of Ecuador. Trop Med Health. 2013;41:21–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  521. 521.
    Nieto-Sanchez C, Baus EG, Guerrero D, Grijalva MJ. Positive deviance study to inform a Chagas disease control program in southern Ecuador. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2015;110:299–309.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  522. 522.
    Quinde-Calderón L, Rios-Quituizaca P, Solorzano L, Dumonteil E. Ten years (2004–2014) of Chagas disease surveillance and vector control in Ecuador: successes and challenges. Trop Med Int Health. 2016;21:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  523. 523.
    McCown M, Monterroso VH, Grzeszak B. Surveillance of zoonotic and infectious diseases in Ecuador: implications for special operations forces medical operations, personnel, and canines. J Spec Oper Med. 2011;11:61–5.Google Scholar
  524. 524.
    Pesquera C, Portillo A, Palomar AM, Oteo JA. Investigation of tick-borne bacteria (Rickettsia spp., Anaplasma spp., Ehrlichia spp. and Borrelia spp.) in ticks collected from Andean tapirs, cattle and vegetation from a protected area in Ecuador. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:46.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  525. 525.
    Oteo JA, Portillo A, Portero F, Zavala-Castro J, Venzal JM, Labruna MB. “Candidatus Rickettsia asemboensis” and Wolbachia spp in Ctenocephalides felis and Pulex irritans fleas removed from dogs in Ecuador. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:455.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  526. 526.
    Conde Landaverde IM, Escobar Rodriguez AM, Gómez Vides WM. Determinación de la presencia del antígeno de Dirofilaria inmitis por inmunocromatografía en pacientes caninos de cinco clínicas veterinarias en la zona norte de San Salvador. Vet Med Thesis, Univ El Salvador, Facul Agron Sci, Dep Zootecn, San Salvador, El Salvador; 2005.Google Scholar
  527. 527.
    Alvarado Sorto JM, Orellana Menjívar SE, Pichinte Gálvez LA. Determinación de presencia del gusano del corazón (Dirofilaria immitis) en perros domésticos (Canis lupus familiaris) en El Puerto de La Libertad, Departamento de La Libertad y Suchitoto, Departamento de Cuscatlán, El Salvador. Vet Med Thesis, Univ El Salvador, Facul Agron Sci, Dep Med Vet, San Salvador, El Salvador; 2013.Google Scholar
  528. 528.
    Melby PC, Kreutzer RD, McMahon-Pratt D, Gam AA, Neva FA. Cutaneous leishmaniasis: review of 59 cases seen at the National Institutes of Health. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:924–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  529. 529.
    Cedillos RA, Warren M, Wilton DP, Jeffery GM, Sauerbrey M. Estudio epidemiológico del Trypanosoma cruzi en El Salvador. Rev Inst Invest Med El Salvador. 1976;5:119–30.Google Scholar
  530. 530.
    Dedet JP. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in French Guiana: a review. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1990;43:25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  531. 531.
    Dedet JP, Pradinaud R, Gay F. Epidemiological aspects of human cutaneous leishmaniasis in French Guiana. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1989;83:616–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  532. 532.
    Martin-Blondel G, Iriart X, El Baidouri F, Simon S, Mills D, Demar M, et al. Outbreak of Leishmania braziliensis cutaneous leishmaniasis, Saül, French Guiana. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:892–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  533. 533.
    Pajot FX, Le Pont F, Gentile B, Besnard R. Epidemiology of leishmaniasis in French Guiana. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1982;76:112–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  534. 534.
    Raccurt CP, Pratlong F, Moreau B, Pradinaud R, Dedet JP. French Guiana must be recognized as an endemic area of Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis in South America. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1995;89:372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  535. 535.
    Simon S, Nacher M, Carme B, Basurko C, Roger A, Adenis A, et al. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in French Guiana: revising epidemiology with PCR-RFLP. Trop Med Health. 2017;45:5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  536. 536.
    Rotureau B, Joubert M, Clyti E, Djossou F, Carme B. Leishmaniasis among gold miners, French Guiana. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:1169–70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  537. 537.
    Rotureau B, Ravel C, Nacher M, Couppié P, Curtet I, Dedet J-P, Carme B. Molecular epidemiology of Leishmania (Viannia) guyanensis in French Guiana. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:468–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  538. 538.
    Rotureau B, Ravel C, Aznar C, Carme B, Dedet J-P. First report of Leishmania infantum in French Guiana: canine visceral leishmaniasis imported from the Old World. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:1120–2.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  539. 539.
    Rougeron V, Catzeflis F, Hide M, de Meeûs T, Bañuls A-L. First clinical case of cutaneous leishmaniasis due to Leishmania (Viannia) braziliensis in a domestic cat from French Guiana. Vet Parasitol. 2011;181:325–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  540. 540.
    Aznar C, Ruche G, Laventure S, Carme B, Liegeard P, Hontebeyrie M. Seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in French Guiana. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2004;99:805–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  541. 541.
    Blanchet D, Brenière SF, Schijman AG, Bisio M, Simon S, Véron V, et al. First report of a family outbreak of Chagas disease in French Guiana and posttreatment follow-up. Infect Genet Evol. 2014;28:245–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  542. 542.
    Bwititi PT, Browne J. Seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi in blood donors at the National Blood Transfusion Services - Guyana. West Indian Med J. 2012;61:559–63.Google Scholar
  543. 543.
    Carme B, Aune I, Nguyen G, Aznar C, Beaudet B. Four cases of acute chagasic myocarditis in French Guiana. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001;64:162–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  544. 544.
    Esterre P, Dedet JP. Current status of Chagas disease in French Guiana. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1987;20:139–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  545. 545.
    Raccurt CP. Trypanosoma cruzi en Guyane Francaise: revue des donnees accumulees depuis. Med Trop (Mars). 1996;56:79–87.Google Scholar
  546. 546.
    Raccurt CP. Résurgence de la maladie de Chagas en Guyane française: Un défi a relever. Med Trop (Mars). 1999;59:99.Google Scholar
  547. 547.
    Dahmani M, Marie J-L, Mediannikov O, Raoult D, Davoust B. First identification of Anaplasma platys in the blood of dogs from French Guiana. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2015;15:170–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  548. 548.
    Davoust B, Keundjian A, Rous V, Maurizi L, Parzy D. Validation of chemoprevention of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis with doxycycline. Vet Microbiol. 2005;107:279–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  549. 549.
    Ryan PR, Arana BA, Ryan JR, Wirtz RA, Wortmann GW, Rizzo NR. The domestic dog, a potential reservoir for Leishmania in the Peten region of Guatemala. Vet Parasitol. 2003;115:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  550. 550.
    Bustamante DM, de Urioste-Stone SM, Juarez JG, Pennington PM. Ecological, social and biological risk factors for continued Trypanosoma cruzi transmission by Triatoma dimidiata in Guatemala. PLoS One. 2014;9:e104599.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  551. 551.
    Bai Y, Rizzo MF, Alvarez D, Moran D, Peruski LF, Kosoy M. Coexistence of Bartonella henselae and B clarridgeiae in populations of cats and their fleas in Guatemala. J Vector Ecol. 2015;40:327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  552. 552.
    Orihel TC. Canine filariasis in British Guiana. J Parasitol. 1964;50:33 (abstract 55).Google Scholar
  553. 553.
    Low-A-Chee RM, Rose P, Ridley DS. An outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Guyana: epidemiology, clinical and laboratory aspects. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1983;77:255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  554. 554.
    Rawlins SC, Tiwari T, Chadee DD, Validum L, Alexander H, Nazeer R, Rawlins SR. American cutaneous leishmaniasis in Guyana, South America. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2001;95:245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  555. 555.
    Thierry J, Borel E, Courrier PL, Courtois D, Mojon M. Leishmaniose cutanee sud-americaine Diagnostic parasitologique et serologique par immunofluorescence indirecte (IFI) et enzyme linked immuno assay (ELISA). A propos de 94 cas. Med Trop (Mars). 1991;51:43–8.Google Scholar
  556. 556.
    Soto Castro SJ. Determinación de la incidencia de la Dirofilaria immitis por medio del método de Knott, en el municipio de Roatán, Islas de la Bahía. Vet Med Thesis, Univ San Carlos de Guatemala, Facul Vet Med and Zootecn, Guatemala, Guatemala; 2007.Google Scholar
  557. 557.
    McCown M, Grzeszak B. Zoonotic and infectious disease surveillance in Central America: Honduran feral cats positive for Toxoplasma, Trypanosoma, Leishmania, Rickettsia, and Lyme disease. J Spec Oper Med. 2010;10:41–3.Google Scholar
  558. 558.
    Acosta L, Romanha AJ, Cosenza H, Krettli AU. Trypanosomatid isolates from Honduras: differentiation between Trypanosoma cruzi and Trypanosoma rangeli. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1991;44:676–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  559. 559.
    Navin TR, Sierra M, Custodio R, Steurer F, Porter CH, Ruebush TK. Epidemiologic study of visceral leishmaniasis in Honduras, 1975–1983. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1985;34:1069–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  560. 560.
    Noyes H, Chance M, Ponce C, Ponce E, Maingon R. Leishmania chagasi: genotypically similar parasites from Honduras cause both visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis in humans. Exp Parasitol. 1997;85:264–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  561. 561.
    Ponce C, Ponce E, Morrison A, Cruz A, Kreutzer R, McMahon-Pratt D, Neva F. Leishmania donovani chagasi: new clinical variant of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Honduras. Lancet. 1991;337:67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  562. 562.
    Sosa-Ochoa W, Bonilla E, Fontecha G. Caracterización molecular de especies de Ehrlichia en perros, Distrito Central, Honduras. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:86, B-2.Google Scholar
  563. 563.
    Lira-Amaya JJ, Comas-González AG, Álvarez-Martínez JA, Rojas-Martínez C, Figueroa-Millán JV. Detección molecular en perros de co-infección múltiple con patógenos transmitidos por garrapatas. Primer reporte en México. Actualidad Med Vet Zootecn Mexico. 2013;5:30–5.Google Scholar
  564. 564.
    Osorno BM, Ristic M. Babesia canis en perros de México. Rev Mex Cienc Pecuarias. 1974;26:1–5.Google Scholar
  565. 565.
    Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Sauri-Arceo CH, Gutierrez-Blanco E, Ortega-Pacheco A, Colin-Flores RF. Prevalence of the Dirofilaria immitis infection in dogs from Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Vet Parasitol. 2007;148:166–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  566. 566.
    Caro-Gonzalez JA, Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Escobedo-Ortegon FJ, Manrique-Saide P, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Rodriguez-Buenfil JC, Sauri-Arceo CH. Prevalence of Dirofilaria immitis infection in dogs from Celestun, Mexico, using polymerase chain reaction test. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:193–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  567. 567.
    Cruz-Chan JV, Quijano-Hernandez I, Ramirez-Sierra MJ, Dumonteil E. Dirofilaria immitis and Trypanosoma cruzi natural co-infection in dogs. Vet J. 2010;186:399–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  568. 568.
    Arjona-Jiménez G, Villegas N, López-Céspedes A, Marín C, Longoni SS, Bolio-González ME, et al. Prevalence of antibodies against three species of Leishmania (L. mexicana, L. braziliensis, L. infantum) and possible associated factors in dogs from Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012;106:252–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  569. 569.
    López Céspedes Á. Fe-SODe: Diagnóstico y seroprevalencia de la leishmaniasis y la enfermedad de Chagas en Mexico. Thesis: Univ de Granada, Facul Cienc, Dep Parasitol, Granada, Spain; 2013.Google Scholar
  570. 570.
    López-Céspedes A, Longoni SS, Sauri-Arceo CH, Sanchez-Moreno M, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Escobedo-Ortegon FJ, et al. Leishmania spp epidemiology of canine leishmaniasis in the Yucatan Peninsula. Sci World J. 2012;2012:945871.Google Scholar
  571. 571.
    Pastor-Santiago JA, Chavez-Lopez S, Guzman-Bracho C, Flisser A, Olivo-Diaz A. American visceral leishmaniasis in Chiapas, Mexico. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:108–14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  572. 572.
    Balan LU, Yerbes IM, Pina MAN, Balmes J, Pascual A, Hernandez O, et al. Higher seroprevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in dogs than in humans in an urban area of Campeche, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:843–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  573. 573.
    Barbabosa-Pliego A, Gil PC, Hernandez DO, Aparicio-Burgos JE, de Oca-Jimenez RM, Martinez-Castaneda JS, et al. Prevalence of Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs (Canis familiaris) and triatomines during 2008 in a sanitary region of the State of Mexico, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  574. 574.
    Estrada-Franco JG, Bhatia V, Diaz-Albiter H, Ochoa-Garcia L, Barbabosa A, Vazquez-Chagoyan JC, et al. Human Trypanosoma cruzi infection and seropositivity in dogs, Mexico. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:624–30.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  575. 575.
    Jiménez-Coello M, Guzman-Marin E, Ortega-Pacheco A, Acosta-Viana KY. Serological survey of American trypanosomiasis in dogs and their owners from an urban area of Merida Yucatan, Mexico. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2010;57:33–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  576. 576.
    Jimenez-Coello M, Ortega-Pacheco A, Guzman-Marin E, Guiris-Andrade DM, Martinez-Figueroa L, Acosta-Viana KY. Stray dogs as reservoirs of the zoonotic agents Leptospira interrogans, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Aspergillus spp. in an urban area of Chiapas in southern Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010;10:135–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  577. 577.
    Jimenez-Coello M, Poot-Cob M, Ortega-Pacheco A, Guzman-Marin E, Ramos-Ligonio A, Sauri-Arceo CH, Acosta-Viana KY. American trypanosomiasis in dogs from an urban and rural area of Yucatan, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8:755–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  578. 578.
    Longoni SS, Marin C, Sauri-Arceo CH, Lopez-Cespedes A, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Villegas N, et al. An iron-superoxide dismutase antigen-based serological screening of dogs indicates their potential role in the transmission of cutaneous leishmaniasis and trypanosomiasis in Yucatan, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011;11:815–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  579. 579.
    López-Cespedes A, Longoni SS, Sauri-Arceo CH, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Villegas N, Escobedo-Ortegon J, et al. Seroprevalence of antibodies against the excreted antigen superoxide dismutase by Trypanosoma cruzi in dogs from the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico). Zoonoses Public Hlth. 2013;60:277–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  580. 580.
    Jiménez-Coello M, Acosta-Viana KY, Guzman-Marin E, Gomez-Rios A, Ortega-Pacheco A. Epidemiological survey of Trypanosoma cruzi infection in domestic owned cats from the tropical southeast of Mexico. Zoonoses Public Hlth. 2012;59(Suppl 2):102–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  581. 581.
    Longoni SS, López-Cespedes A, Sánchez-Moreno M, Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Sauri-Arceo CH, Rodríguez-Vivas RI, Marín C. Detection of different Leishmania spp. and Trypanosoma cruzi antibodies in cats from the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) using an iron superoxide dismutase excreted as antigen. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;35:469–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  582. 582.
    Silva AB, Canseco S, Torre MDP, Mayoral Silva A, Mayoral MA, Mayoral L, et al. Infeccion humana asintomatica por contacto con perros. Un caso de ehrlichiosis humana. Gac Med Mex. 2014;150:171–4.Google Scholar
  583. 583.
    Salinas Meléndez JA, Hernández Escareño JJ, Riojas Valdés VM, Avalos Ramírez R, Zarate Ramos JJ, Zamora Ávila DE, et al. Prevalencia de Anaplasma phagocytophilum en caninos de Monterrey; 2011. In: Proceedings XXVI Congreso Nacional de Investigación en Medicina. Cintermex, Monterrey, Nuevo Léon, Mexico, 22–24 September, 2011.Google Scholar
  584. 584.
    Almazán C, González-Álvarez VH, Mera IG, Cabezas-Cruz A, Rodríguez-Martínez R, La Fuente J. Molecular identification and characterization of Anaplasma platys and Ehrlichia canis in dogs in Mexico. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016;7:276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  585. 585.
    Galaviz-Silva L, Perez-Trevino KC, Molina-Garza ZJ. Distribution of ixodid ticks on dogs in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, and their association with Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Exp Appl Acarol. 2013;61:491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  586. 586.
    Tinoco-Gracia L, Quiroz-Romero H, Quintero-Martinez MT, Renteria-Evangelista TB, Barreras-Serrano A, Lopez-Valencia G, et al. Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in dogs from a Mexico-US border desert region: pilot study. J Anim Vet Adv. 2007;6:787–9.Google Scholar
  587. 587.
    Gordillo G, Torres J, Solorzano F, Cedillo-Rivera R, Tapia-Conyer R, Muñoz O. Serologic evidences suggesting the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi infection in Mexico. Arch Med Res. 1999;30:64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  588. 588.
    Gordillo-Perez G, Torres J, Solorzano-Santos F, Garduno-Bautista V, Tapia-Conyer R, Munoz O. Estudio seroepidemiologico de borreliosis de Lyme en la Ciudad de Mexico y el noreste de la Republica Mexicana. Salud Publica Mex. 2003;45:351–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  589. 589.
    Gordillo-Pérez G, Vargas M, Solórzano-Santos F, Rivera A, Polaco OJ, Alvarado L, et al. Demonstration of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto infection in ticks from the northeast of Mexico. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15:496–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  590. 590.
    Jiménez-Coello M, Perez-Osorio C, Vado-Solis I, Rodriguez-Buenfil JC, Ortega-Pacheco A. Serological survey of Ehrlichia canis in stray dogs from Yucatan, Mexico, using two different diagnostic tests. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009;9:209–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  591. 591.
    Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Albornoz REF, Bolio GME. Ehrlichia canis in dogs in Yucatan, Mexico: seroprevalence, prevalence of infection and associated factors. Vet Parasitol. 2005;127:75–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  592. 592.
    Sosa-Gutierrez CG, Quintero Martinez MT, Gaxiola Camacho SM, Cota Guajardo S, Esteve-Gassent MD, Gordillo-Perez M-G. Frequency and clinical epidemiology of canine monocytic ehrlichiosis in dogs infested with ticks from Sinaloa, Mexico. J Vet Med. 2013;2013:797019.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  593. 593.
    Pat-Nah H, Rodriguez-Vivas RI, Bolio-Gonzalez ME, Villegas-Perez SL, Reyes-Novelo E. Molecular diagnosis of Ehrlichia canis in dogs and ticks Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Yucatan, Mexico. J Med Entomol. 2015;52:101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  594. 594.
    Álvarez-Hernández G, Roldán JFG, Milan NSH, Lash RR, Behravesh CB, Paddock CD. Rocky Mountain spotted fever in Mexico: past, present, and future. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:e189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  595. 595.
    Zavala-Velazquez JE, Zavala-Castro JE, Vado-Solis I, Ruiz-Sosa JA, Moron CG, Bouyer DH, Walker DH. Identification of Ctenocephalides felis fleas as a host of Rickettsia felis, the agent of a spotted fever rickettsiosis in Yucatan, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002;2:69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  596. 596.
    Zavala-Castro JE, Zavala-Velazquez JE, del Rosario Garcia M, Leon JJA, Dzul-Rosado KR. A dog naturally infected with Rickettsia akari in Yucatan, Mexico. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009;9:345–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  597. 597.
    Dzul-Rosado K, López Ávila K, Reyes-Novelo E, Sauri-Arceo C, Zavala-Castro J. Rickettsia spp en ectoparásitos de perros de una comunidad rural de Yucatán. México. Acta Med Costarric. 2013;55:80, A-13.Google Scholar
  598. 598.
    Wei L, Kelly P, Ackerson K, Zhang J, El-Mahallawy HS, Kaltenboeck B, Wang C. First report of Babesia gibsoni in Central America and survey for vector-borne infections in dogs from Nicaragua. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:126.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  599. 599.
    Rimbaud E, Mayorga M, Molina L, Sandoval ML. Primer diagnóstico de Dirofilaria immitis afectando caninos en Managua, Nicaragua. Bol Parasitol UNA Costa Rica. 2009;10:1–4.Google Scholar
  600. 600.
    Belli A, García D, Palacios X, Rodriguez B, Valle S, Videa E, et al. Widespread atypical cutaneous leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania (L.) chagasi in Nicaragua. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:380–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  601. 601.
    Belli AA, Miles MA, Kelly JM. A putative Leishmania panamensis/Leishmania braziliensis hybrid is a causative agent of human cutaneous leishmaniasis in Nicaragua. Parasitology. 1994;109:435–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  602. 602.
    Oca NV, Alonso C, Martinez R, Francisco N, Perez Insueta O. Estudio serologico para el diagnostico de la enfermedad de Chagas en estudiantes nicaraguenses de la Isla de la Juventud. Rev Cubana Med Trop. 1989;41:405–12.Google Scholar
  603. 603.
    Palacios X, Belli A, Espino AM. Deteccion de anticuerpos contra Trypanosoma cruzi en Somoto, Nicaragua, mediante ELISA indirecto e IFI en muestras de sangre en papel de filtro. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2000;8:411–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  604. 604.
    Rivas Lara V, Morales Arancibia D, Saenz M, Bonilla JL. Hallazgo de ehrlichiosis canina causada por E. canis en una comunidad del Municipio de León, Nicaragua. Rev Electr Vet (REDVET) 1695–7504. 2010;11:1–10.Google Scholar
  605. 605.
    Schicht S, Montenegro VM, Wölfel S, Schaper SR, Chitimia-Dobler L, Siebert S, et al. Nachweis von Rickettsia monacensis und Rickettsia amblyommii in Zecken aus Mittelamerika. In: Proceedings Tagung DVG-Fachgruppe “Parasitologie und parasitäre Krankheiten”. Hannover, Germany, 12–14 June, 2017. Gießen, Germany: DVG Service GmbH; 2017. p. 159–61.Google Scholar
  606. 606.
    Herrer A, Christensen HA. Epidemiological patterns of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Panama. I. Epidemics among small groups of settlers. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1976;70:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  607. 607.
    Herrer A, Christensen HA. Natural cutaneous leishmaniasis among dogs in Panama. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1976;25:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  608. 608.
    Herrer A, Christensen HA. Epidemiological patterns of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Panama. III. Endemic persistence of the disease. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1976;25:54–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  609. 609.
    Herrer A, Christensen HA, Beumer RJ. Epidemiological patterns of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Panama. II. Incidental occurrence of cases in non-endemic settlements. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1976;70:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  610. 610.
    Calzada JE, Saldana A, Gonzalez K, Rigg C, Pineda V, Santamaria AM, et al. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in dogs: is high seroprevalence indicative of a reservoir role? Parasitology. 2015;142:1202–14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  611. 611.
    Pineda V, Saldana A, Monfante I, Santamaria A, Gottdenker NL, Yabsley MJ, et al. Prevalence of trypanosome infections in dogs from Chagas disease endemic regions in Panama, Central America. Vet Parasitol. 2011;178:360–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  612. 612.
    Santamaria A, Calzada JE, Saldana A, Yabsley MJ, Gottdenker NL. Molecular diagnosis and species identification of Ehrlichia and Anaplasma infections in dogs from Panama, Central America. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014;14:368–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  613. 613.
    Eremeeva ME, Karpathy SE, Levin ML, Caballero CM, Bermudez S, Dasch GA, Motta JA. Spotted fever rickettsiae, Ehrlichia and Anaplasma, in ticks from peridomestic environments in Panama. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15(Suppl. 2):12–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  614. 614.
    Bermúdez CSE, Zaldivar AY, Spolidorio MG, Moraes-Filho J, Miranda RJ, Caballero CM, et al. Rickettsial infection in domestic mammals and their ectoparasites in El Valle de Anton, Cocle, Panama. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177:134–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  615. 615.
    Bermúdez S, Miranda R, Zaldivar Y, Gonzalez P, Berguido G, Trejos D, et al. Deteccion de Rickettsia spp. en ectoparasitos de animales domesticos y silvestres de la Reserva Natural Privada Cerro Chucanti y comunidades aledanas, Panama, 2007–2010. Biomedica. 2012;32:189–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  616. 616.
    Bermúdez SE, Castro AM, Trejos D, García GG, Gabster A, Miranda RJ, et al. Distribution of spotted fever group rickettsiae in hard ticks (Ixodida: Ixodidae) from Panamanian urban and rural environments (2007–2013). EcoHealth. 2016;13:274–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  617. 617.
    Ferrell AM, Brinkerhoff RJ, Bernal J, Bermúdez SE. Ticks and tick-borne pathogens of dogs along an elevational and land-use gradient in Chiriquí Province, Panamá. Exp Appl Acarol. 2017;71:371–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  618. 618.
    Inácio EL, Pérez-Macchi S, Alabi A, Bittencourt P, Müller A. Prevalence and molecular characterization of piroplasmids in domestic dogs from Paraguay. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2019;10:321–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  619. 619.
    Masi Pallares R, Rojas E, Usher C, Vergara G. Helmintiosis en perros de Asunción (Paraguay). Rev Parag Microbiol. 1967;2:67–70.Google Scholar
  620. 620.
    Canese A. Leishmaniosis visceral canina en el area metropolitana de la “Gran Asunción”, Paraguay. Medicina (Buenos Aires). 2000;60(Suppl. 3):65.Google Scholar
  621. 621.
    Miret J, Medina M, Velázquez AL, Sosa L, Castagnino M. Leishmaniosis visceral en caninos errantes en la ciudad de Asunción, Paraguay. Rev Parag Epidemiol. 2011;2:13–22.Google Scholar
  622. 622.
    Sosa L, Castagnino M, Miret J, Páez M. Prevalencia de leishmaniosis visceral canina a partir de intervenciones de focos de leishmaniosis visceral humana, en la ciudad de San Lorenzo (Paraguay), año 2009. Rev Parag Epidemiol. 2011;2:23–32.Google Scholar
  623. 623.
    Chapman MD, Baggaley RC, Godfrey-Fausset PF, Malpas TJ, White G, Canese J, Miles MA. Trypanosoma cruzi from the Paraguayan Chaco: isoenzyme profiles of strains isolated at Makthlawaiya. J Protozool. 1984;31:482–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  624. 624.
    Fujita O, Sanabria L, Inchaustti A, de Arias AR, Tomizawa Y, Oku Y. Animal reservoirs for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in an endemic area in Paraguay. J Vet Med Sci. 1994;56:305–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  625. 625.
    Pérez-Macchi S, Pedrozo R, Bittencourt P, Müller A. Prevalence, molecular characterization and risk factor analysis of Ehrlichia canis and Anaplasma platys in domestic dogs from Paraguay. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;62:31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  626. 626.
    Adrianzén JG, Chávez AV, Casas EA, Li OE. Seroprevalencia de la dirofilariosis y ehrlichiosis canina en tres distritos de Lima. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2003;14:43–8.Google Scholar
  627. 627.
    Labarthe N, Guerrero J. Epidemiology of heartworm: what is happening in South America and Mexico? Vet Parasitol. 2005;133:149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  628. 628.
    Acuña PU, Chávez AV. Determinación de la prevalencia de Dirofilaria immitis en los distritos de San Martín de Porres, Rímac y Cercado de Lima. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2002;13:108–10.Google Scholar
  629. 629.
    Bravo RM, Chávez AV, Casas EA, Suárez FA. Dirofilariosis canina en los distritos colindantes con la ribera del río Lurín. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2002;13:80–3.Google Scholar
  630. 630.
    Chipana CQ, Chávez AV, Casas EA, Suárez FA. Estudio de la dirofilariosis canina en la ribera del río Chillón, Lima. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2002;13:72–6.Google Scholar
  631. 631.
    Llanos-Cuentas EA, Roncal N, Villaseca P, Paz L, Ogusuku E, Perez JE, et al. Natural infections of Leishmania peruviana in animals in the Peruvian Andes. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999;93:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  632. 632.
    Reithinger R, Lambson BE, Barker DC, Davies CR. Use of PCR to detect Leishmania (Viannia) spp in dog blood and bone marrow. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38:748–51.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  633. 633.
    Reithinger R, Espinoza JC, Davies CR. The transmission dynamics of canine American cutaneous leishmaniasis in Huanuco, Peru. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2003;69:473–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  634. 634.
    Reithinger R, Canales Espinoza J, Llanos-Cuentas A, Davies CR. Domestic dog ownership: a risk factor for human infection with Leishmania (Viannia) species. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2003;97:141–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  635. 635.
    Reithinger R, Davies CR. American cutaneous leishmaniasis in domestic dogs: an example of the use of the polymerase chain reaction for mass screening in epidemiological studies. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2002;96(Suppl. 1):S123–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  636. 636.
    Castillo-Neyra R, Chou Chu L, Quispe-Machaca V, Ancca-Juarez J, Malaga Chavez FS, Bastos Mazuelos M, et al. The potential of canine sentinels for reemerging Trypanosoma cruzi transmission. Prev Vet Med. 2015;120:349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  637. 637.
    Alroy KA, Huang C, Gilman RH, Quispe-Machaca VR, Marks MA, Ancca-Juarez J, et al. Prevalence and transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi in people of rural communities of the high jungle of northern Peru. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003779.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  638. 638.
    García JM, Lázaro LM, Chía JP, Escalante MA. Frecuencia de pobladores y animales domésticos del caserío de Chirinos (Piura) con anticuerpos a Trypanosoma cruzi entre abril a diciembre del 2000. Rev Peru Parasitol. 2002;16:35–40.Google Scholar
  639. 639.
    Rubio A, Salas E, Gómez G. Presencia de anticuerpos contra Borrelia burgdorferi y Anaplasma sp. en canes de la ciudad de Lima. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2011;22:233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  640. 640.
    Tateishi VT, Lí OE, Hoyos LS, Rivera HG, Manchego AS, Barrios LA, More JB. Identificación hematológica y molecular de Anaplasma platys en caninos domésticos de Lima Metropolitana con signos clínicos compatibles con anaplasmosis. Rev Invest Vet Perú. 2015;26:111–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  641. 641.
    Diniz PPVP, Morton BA, Tngrian M, Kachani M, Barron EA, Gavidia CM, et al. Infection of domestic dogs in peru by zoonotic Bartonella species: a cross-sectional prevalence study of 219 asymptomatic dogs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2393.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  642. 642.
    Rizzo MF, Billeter SA, Osikowicz L, Luna-Caipo DV, Caceres AG, Kosoy M. Fleas and flea-associated Bartonella species in dogs and cats from Peru. J Med Entomol. 2015;52:1374–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  643. 643.
    Glenny MA, Mendoza LU, Falconí ER. Detección de anticuerpos contra Borrelia burgdorferi e identificación de garrapatas ixodidas en Piura Y Amazonas, Perú. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2004;20:23–7.Google Scholar
  644. 644.
    Macedo SA, Cuadra ALK, Cáceres I, Elliot A, Avila G, Arévalo JA, et al. Diagnóstico serológico (ELISA) de borreliosis de Lyme en un grupo humano de riesgo, Piura-Perú. Rev Peru Med Trop. 1992;6:31–7.