VN June 2021

Vetnuus | Junie 2021 36 Recent Clinically Relevant Research from Around theWorld DOGS Dog breeds and body conformations with predisposition to osteosarcoma in the UK: a case-control study Osteosarcoma is an aggressive and painful bone neoplasm in dogs. Previous studies have reportedepidemiological associations suggesting that largebodymass, longbone length and the genetics of certain breeds including the Rottweiler are associated with elevated osteosarcoma risk. However, these studies were often limited by selection bias and confounding factors, and have rarely offered insights into breed-associated protection for osteosarcoma. The current study by Grace L Edmunds and co-workers included 1756 appendicular and axial osteosarcoma cases presenting to VPG Histology (Bristol, UK) compared against a control population of 905,211 dogs without osteosarcoma from primary care electronic patient records in the VetCompass™ dataset.They identified several breeds with increased and reduced odds of osteosarcoma. At highest risk were the Rottweiler and Great Dane, with >10 times the odds of osteosarcoma compared with crossbreds, and the Rhodesian Ridgeback, which has not featured in previous lists of at-risk breeds for osteosarcoma, and had an odds ratio of 11.31 (95% confidence interval 7.37–17.35). Breeds at lowest risk of osteosarcoma (protected breeds) included the Bichon Frise, the French Bulldog and the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, all with odd ratios of less than 0.30 compared with crossbreds. Body mass was strongly associated with osteosarcoma risk; dogs over 40 kg exhibited osteosarcoma odds of 45.44 (95% confidence interval 33.74–61.20) comparedwith dogs less than 10 kg. Chondrodystrophic breeds had an osteosarcoma odds ratio of 0.13 (95% confidence interval 0.11–0.16) compared with non-chondrodystrophic breeds. The study provides evidence of strong breed-associated osteosarcoma risk and protection, suggesting a genetic basis for osteosarcoma pathogenesis. It highlights that breeds selected for long legs/large body mass are generally overrepresented amongst at-risk breeds, whilst those selected for short leg length/small body mass are generally protected. v (Source: Canine Medicine and Genetics) People with disabilities may benefit from an assistance dog (AD). Despite regulations that prohibit the denial of ADs to public places, this still occurs on a regular basis. The main argument for denial of access is that dogs compromise hygiene with their presence, which could cause a health hazard. Meanwhile, people are allowed to walk into and out of public places freely. The objective of this study by S. Jasmyn Vos and co-workers was to investigate the number of Enterobacteriaceae and the presence of Clostridiumdifficile bacteria on the paws of ADs and pet dogs (PDs) as well as the shoe soles of their users and owners. In total, 25 ADs, 25 PDs, and their 50 users/owners participated in the study. Each participant walked their dog for 15–30 min prior to the samplingofthefrontpaws.EachPDownerorADuserfilledoutageneral questionnaire about the care of their dogs, and AD users were asked to fill out an additional questionnaire on their experiences regarding the admittance of their ADs to public places (in particular, hospitals). Dutch hospitals were questioned on their protocols regarding the admittance of ADs and their visitor numbers, including the percentage of AD users, to put these numbers into perspective. Dog paws weremore often negative for Enterobacteriaceae compared to shoe soles (72% and 42%, respectively) and also had significantly lower bacterial counts (mean of 3.54log 10 and 5.03log 10 colony-forming units (CFUs), respectively; p < 0.05). This was most distinct in the comparison between PDs and their owners (3.75log 10 and 5.25log 10 CFUs; p < 0.05); the numbers were similar between ADs and their users (3.09log 10 and 4.58log 10 CFUs; p = 0.2). C. difficile was found on one (4%) AD user’s shoe soles. Moreover, 81%of AD users had been denied access with their current AD once or several times, the main reason being hygiene. The results of the visibly and invisibly disabled were significantly different. The number of AD users as opposed to the total number of hospital visitors was 0.03% in one hospital and is estimated to be 0.02% in the Netherlands. The general hygiene of dogs’ paws is far better than that of shoe soles, mostly demonstrated by the better general hygiene of PD paws compared with their owners’ shoe soles; ADs and their users had comparable levels of general hygiene. In addition, the number of AD users amongst the total number of hospital visitors in the Netherlands is very limited. Thus, hygiene measures to reduce any contamination due to dog paws do not seemnecessary. v (Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ) A Pilot Study on the Contamination of Assistance Dogs’ Paws and Their Users’ Shoe Soles in Relation to Admittance to Hospitals and (In)Visible Disability