Volume 15, Number 5—May 2009
Dispatch
Canine Leishmaniasis in Southeastern Spain
Table 1
Variables | No. dogs | % Dogs with canine leishmaniasis | Relative likelihood | p value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bioclimatic level | 439 | 13.0 | – | 0.005 |
Thermo-Mediterranean | 210 | 13.3 | Ref | – |
Meso-Mediterranean | 139 | 20.1 | 1.640 | 0.092 |
Supra-Mediterranean |
90 |
1.1 |
0.073 |
0.011 |
Habitat | 438 | 13.0 | – | 0.999 |
Rural | 435 | 13.1 | Ref | – |
Urban/peri-urban |
3 |
0.0 |
0.000 |
– |
Sex | 435 | 12.4 | 0.662 | 0.178 |
Male | 253 | 14.2 | ||
Female |
182 |
9.9 |
||
Age, y | 421 | 13.0 | 2.094 | <0.001 |
<4 | 232 | 9.5 | ||
>4 |
189 |
18.0 |
||
Weight, kg | 405 | 13.6 | 1.859 | 0.048 |
<25 | 316 | 11.9 | ||
>25 |
89 |
20.0 |
||
Fur length | 349 | 15.5 | 0.494 | 0.069 |
Short/ medium | 255 | 17.6 | ||
Long |
94 |
9.6 |
||
Activity | 439 | 13.0 | – | <0.001 |
Pet | 258 | 8.5 | Ref | – |
Hunting | 133 | 15.0 | 1.899 | 0.052 |
Other† |
48 |
31.3 |
4.876 |
<0.001 |
Location during daytime | 373 | 15.3 | – | <0.001 |
House | 151 | 4.0 | Ref | – |
Outside | 122 | 28.7 | 9.722 | <0.001 |
In kennels |
100 |
16.0 |
4.603 |
0.002 |
Location at night | 435 | 13.1 | 0.384 | 0.001 |
Outdoors | 186 | 19.4 | ||
Indoors |
249 |
8.4 |
||
Travel away from home | 438 | 13.0 | 1.384 | 0.461 |
No | 396 | 12.6 | ||
Yes |
42 |
16.7 |
||
Clinical signs of leishmaniasis | 439 | 13.0 | 2.129 | 0.122 |
No | 413 | 12.3 | ||
Yes |
26 |
23.1 |
||
Fly protection | 375 | 15.2 | 1.551 | 0.969 |
No | 361 | 15.0 | ||
Yes |
14 |
21.4 |
||
Phlebotomus perniciosus density | 439 | 13.0 | – | 0.005 |
<4 sandflies/m2 | 303 | 9.9 | Ref | |
>4 sandflies/m2 |
136 |
19.9 |
2.254 |
|
P. ariasi density | 439 | 13.0 | – | <0.001 |
<6 sandflies/m2 | 383 | 10.7 | Ref | |
>6 sandflies/m2 | 56 | 28.6 | 3.337 |
*Univariate analysis by logistic regression. Dogs considered to have canine leishmaniasis were those with antibody titer >160. We investigated the existence of interaction and/or confusion between variables by constructing and comparing logistic regression models. The statistical analysis was performed using the software package SPSS 15.0 (www.spss.com). Confusion was noted between the location during daytime and location at night, so location during daytime was excluded from the multivariate analysis. No interaction was detected between any pair of independent variables. Ref, referent.
†Guard dogs (n = 34), sheepdogs (n = 8), stray dogs (n = 4), dogs in kennel (n = 2).
Page created: December 16, 2010
Page updated: December 16, 2010
Page reviewed: December 16, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.