- Research
- Open access
- Published:
Occurrence of Eucoleus aerophilus in wild and domestic animals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Parasites & Vectors volume 16, Article number: 245 (2023)
Abstract
Background
Eucoleus aerophilus (syn. Capillaria aerophila) is a nematode with a worldwide geographical distribution. It causes a disease called lung capillariosis by affecting the respiratory tract of wild and domestic animals, and has also occasionally been described in humans. Despite steady increases in knowledge of the morphology of this neglected parasite, many aspects are still poorly understood. Epidemiological data regarding, for example, geographic distribution, range of hosts, clinical relevance and the actual zoonotic potential of this nematode are scarce and incomplete.
Methods
This article is a systematic review based on the screening of three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Science Direct) to identify eligible studies published from 1973 to the end of 2022.
Results
From a total of 606 studies describing the occurrence of E. aerophilus, 141 articles from 38 countries worldwide were included in this meta-analysis, all of which presented results obtained mainly with flotation and necropsy. Due to the occurrence of E. aerophilus in many different species and different matrices (lungs and faeces), we decided to conduct the meta-analysis separately for each species with a given matrix. This systematic review confirmed the status of the Red fox as the main reservoir and main transmitter of E. aerophilus (average prevalence of 43% in faeces and 49% in lungs) and provided evidence of a higher prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild animals in comparison to domestic animals, such as dogs (3% in faeces) and cats (2% in faeces and 8% in lungs). Previous studies have investigated many host-related factors (age, sex, environmental/living conditions) in relation to the prevalence of E. aerophilus, but they show wide variations and no simple relationship has been demonstrates. Furthermore, mixed infections with other pulmonary nematodes, such as Crenosoma vulpis and/or Angiostrongylus vasorum, are reported very frequently, which greatly complicates the diagnosis.
Conclusions
This systematic review focused on identifying data gaps and promoting future research directions in this area. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that evaluates and summarizes existing knowledge on the occurrence and prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild and domestic animals originating from different geographical locations worldwide.
Graphical Abstract
Background
Eucoleus aerophilus (Creplin, 1839) Dujardin, 1845 (syn. Capillaria aerophila) is a nematode with a worldwide geographical distribution. It belongs to the order Trichocephalida and family Capillariidae (Railiet, 1915) [1]. Eucoleus aerophilus causes a disease called lung capillariosis by affecting the respiratory tract of wild carnivores and insectivores (mainly foxes, coyotes, wolves) and domestic animals (dogs, cats) [2]; also, it is potentially a zoonotic parasite and has occasionally been described in humans [3, 4]. It is not fully determined whether this parasite has a direct or indirect life-cycle, and there is some speculation that earthworms may act as intermediate hosts or paratenic hosts [5, 6]. In the review by Anderson [7], it was stated that Christenson [8] failed to experimentally infect cats and foxes by feeding them with larvated eggs; in contrast, Borovkova [7] was able to infect cats, dogs and foxes by feeding them with earthworms exposed to larvated eggs. Both studies were compromised by the likelihood of co-infections with Eucoleus boehmi in the canids they worked on. Many gaps in our knowledge of the biology of E. aerophilus remain today, and so far there are no studies confirming the role of the earlier mentioned invertebrates in the biology of this parasite [2, 5,6,7]. Adult worms live beneath the epithelium of the bronchioles, bronchi and trachea of the infected host, where they subsequently reproduce. Mature males reach 10–25 mm in length, while females reach 16–42 mm in length [9]. Mature females produce non-larvated eggs, which are coughed up and swallowed by the host, ultimately reaching the environment through the faeces. Eggs of E. aerophilus measure 60–83 µm × 25–40 µm, are barrel-shaped and have asymmetrically arranged bipolar plugs and walls with a network of anastomosing ridges and bridges [2, 10,11,12]. Released eggs embryonate within 5–6 weeks and remain viable for up to 1 year. The eggs can also mature within earthworms [5, 6]. Animals acquire infection through incidental ingestion of the larvated eggs. In the digestive tract of carnivores, the larvae hatch and within 7–10 days penetrate the intestinal wall and then, via the bloodstream or lymphatic vessels, reach the lungs, where they mature sexually (approximately 3–4 weeks after infection) [11].
In animals, infection with E. aerophilus can be either subclinical or lead to respiratory distress that ranges from mild disease to severe and potentially fatal pneumonia. The lung parenchyma becomes damaged by adult parasites, which is the causal factor resulting in bronchovesicular breath sounds, sneezing, wheezing and chronic dry or moist productive cough, particularly when the infection is accompanied by secondary bacterial infections [13]. Heavy infection can lead to life-threatening bronchopneumonia and respiratory failure [11].
Despite increases in our knowledge of the morphology of this neglected parasite [9, 11, 14,15,16], many aspects are still poorly understood. Epidemiological data regarding, for example, geographic distribution, range of hosts, clinical relevance and the actual zoonotic potential of this nematode are scarce and incomplete [9, 11]. Among wild animals, foxes are believed to be the most common host and reservoir of E. aerophilus, the prevalence of which is usually high, such as, for example, 41.8% in Italy [17], 46.8% in the Netherlands [18], 66% in Hungary [19], 74.1% in Denmark [20] and 88% in Norway [21]. Nevertheless, the spread of this parasite has been observed in companion animals (dogs and cats) in many parts of the world over the past few years, including in Italy [22, 23], Germany [24], Poland [25], Hungary [26], Romania [27], Canada [28], India [29, 30] and USA [31,32,33], among others. Moreover, genetic research has confirmed that some sub-populations of E. aerophilus co-infect wild and domestic animals [5]. The increase in the Red fox population in the last two decades [34,35,36,37], the decline in natural habitats due to progressive urbanization and the increased access of humans and companion animals to wilderness areas play a crucial role in the spread of this lungworm and the infection of companion animals [2, 5, 13]. This phenomenon significantly increases the risk of transmission of E. aerophilus to humans. Cases of pulmonary capillariosis in humans are described in the literature [3, 4, 38, 39], most of which were diagnosed incidentally as the clinical symptoms of the disease are usually non-specific or resemble those of bronchial pneumonia or even lung cancer. These incidental diagnoses suggest a possible underestimation of data on the prevalence of E. aerophilus in humans.
Eucoleus aerophilus as a nematode that parasitizes the lungs of companion animals is still an underestimated problem among veterinarians, possibly due to the lack of basic parasitological research conducted in this direction. Specific coprological diagnosis of E. aerophilus can be challenging because of the similarity in the structure of the eggs with those of other species infecting carnivores, such as the nasal parasite E. boehmi or the whipworm Trichuris vulpis [6, 23, 40]. Inaccurate diagnosis often results in a prolonged treatment of animals [11]. In Europe, the reported infection rate of E. aerophilus in foxes varies greatly, which may be the result of using different detection methods, such as examination of lung specimens and microscopic or PCR methods, which differ in sensitivity and specificity. From an epidemiological point of view, research into the occurrence and spread of E. aerophilus is very important, as it is a potential source of human infection.
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate and summarize existing knowledge on the occurrence and prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild and domestic animals originating from different geographical locations worldwide. The information obtained was used to compile tables on the prevalence of this nematode or to emphasize the lack of reliable reports. In this review, we specified information on the methods and techniques used for the detection of E. aerophilus in different hosts and data on the intensity of infection and co-infections when available. The secondary aim of this systematic review was to estimate E. aerophilus occurrence and prevalence in different hosts worldwide to identify data gaps.
Methods
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [41] and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) consensus statement [42].
Literature searches
Bibliographic searches of published studies were conducted on 20 February 2022 and again on 21 December 2022 to identify articles that had been published since the initial search. Three databases, namely PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Web of Science (www.webofknowledge.com) and ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com), were screened for studies using the following keywords and Boolean operator: “Eucoleus aerophilus” OR “Capillaria aerophila”. The results of these searches were combined and screened for duplicates using the EndNote 20 reference management tool (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA), and all duplicated articles were removed.
Study selection criteria
The pre-selection of studies was made on the basis of the information contained in the title and abstract; if no decision could be made, the full text was checked. Next, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility according to the pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria applied to select articles were: (i) cross-sectional or cohort studies; (ii) original peer-reviewed studies; (iii) studies containing extractable information on the prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild or domestic animals; (iv) studies providing a sufficient description of the method used; (v) studies providing an adequate description of the sample type; and (vi) available full-text articles. The articles considered not to be eligible for inclusion were those providing data on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in humans, case reports, reviews, book sections, retrospective studies, articles with no access to the full text, articles with no species affiliation to E. aerophilus, articles with no epidemiological/prevalence data on E. aerophilus and articles with no data on E. aerophilus. The study selection process is presented as a the flow chart in Fig. 1.
Flow diagram representing the search algorithm for Ecuoleus aerophilus studies in databases and the study selection process
Data extraction
Full texts of articles were checked, and essential data were extracted independently by two researchers (MSP and JK). In case of any doubts, the decision was made after discussion, and any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Information including the first author’s name, title of article, year of publication, type of study, time when the study was conducted, geographic location, animal species tested, animal age, animal sex, sample size, sample type, sampling strategy, stages of detected E. aerophilus, prevalence, 95% confidence interval (CI) and diagnostic methods were extracted from each article (if available). In the case of described co-infection in lungs, the number and name of co-infecting nematodes were extracted. If some information was not available in the text, it was categorized as “not available”. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019; Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). The database containing the extracted information was independently verified by two authors (MSP and JK).
Quality assessment
The quality assessment score of all included studies was assessed independently by two researchers using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale (NOS) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [43]. The NOS was modified for use in an animal model.
Statistical analysis
All calculations necessary for the meta-analysis were conducted in RStudio environment, using the R language version 4.2.1. [44]. Calculations were performed separately for each animal group: dogs (faecal samples), cats (faecal samples, lungs), foxes (faecal samples, lungs) and wild animals (faecal samples, lungs). The metafor package was used to compile results [45]. To determine the heterogeneity of the samples for different subgroups, the Cochran Q-test was applied with significance level of alpha = 0.05. Due to the high heterogeneity of the studies analysed, which involved dogs (faecal samples), cats (faecal samples and lungs) and foxes (faecal samples and lungs), the random-effects model with the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML) was applied [46, 47]. For subgroup analysis of small numbers of studies (wild animals—faecal and lung samples), where effect is the same across studies, the fixed-effects model was used [48]. The I2 value, the percentage of variation in a study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance, was determined. The average prevalence and 95% CIs were calculated using the binom package [49], which implements a modified Wilson method interval (corrected for Newcombe continuity) [50]. To visualize the results of the analysis, a forest plot was produced in R using the forestplot package [51]. Differences in prevalence were calculated using a Chi-square test (or Chi-square with Yates correction), with a significance level of P < 0.05 applied, in Statistica 10 (StatSoft Polska, Kraków, Poland).
Results
Literature search summary
The database search identified 606 articles, of which 183 records were removed by EndNote 20 because of duplications, leaving 423 potentially substantial articles for further evaluation. Of these 423 articles, 215 were excluded based on the screening of titles and abstracts; the remaining 208 articles were assessed for eligibility and subjected to full-text inspection. Of these 208 articles, 67 were deemed ineligible studies and excluded from the systematic review due to non-compliance with the pre-established inclusion criteria. Ultimately, a total of 141 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative (meta-analysis) synthesis. The flow diagram shown in Fig. 1 represents the database search algorithm, with presentation of the study selection process. The included studies are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1, and the excluded studies are listed in Additional file 2: Table S2. The quality assessment of the included studies was accomplished with the modified NOS, resulting in the allocation of rating to each individual study that ranged from four to seven stars.
Studies describing the occurrence of E. aerophilus included in the qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were available from 38 countries all around the world (Table 1). Most studies came from Italy (21 articles) and Spain (13 articles).
Findings from the meta-analysis of prevalence values
Studies included in the analysis presented results obtained by using microscopic methods (flotation) and necropsy, often additionally confirmed by PCR and sequencing (if available), including on the detection of E. aerophilus in dog faecal samples (24 articles), in the lungs of cats (7 articles), in cat faecal samples (27 articles), in the lungs of foxes (37 articles), in fox faecal samples (10 articles), in the lungs of wild animals (35 articles) and in wild animal faecal samples (15 articles). Due to the occurrence of E. aerophilus in many different species and different matrices (lungs and faeces), we decided to conduct a meta-analysis separately for each species with a given matrix. The above-mentioned studies included in the analysis were published from 1973 to the end of 2022.
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in fox lungs
Thirty-seven studies from 19 countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of foxes were included in the meta-analysis [9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. The average prevalence of this nematode, using a random effects model, was estimated based on a total of 10,124 sampled foxes and was 49.32% (95% CI 40.11–58.53). The heterogeneity was very high, 99.45% (Fig. 2). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in samples from Lithuania (97.12%, 95% CI 91.86–99.01) [55], Denmark (89.83%, 95% CI 83.06–94.09) [52] and Norway (88.40%, 95% CI 82.91–92.29) [21]. The lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in samples from Spain (0.5%, 95% CI 0.09–2.76) [53], Hungary (4.41%, 95% CI 1.51–12.19) [54] and Croatia (4.71%, 95% CI 1.85–11.48) [76].
Forest plot of the random effects model of E. aerophilus prevalence (%) calculated based on the results from fox lungs. Squares correspond to the prevalence of E. aerophilus in individual studies; horizontal lines correspond to 95% Wilson confidence intervals (%) of the prevalence from individual studies; the diamond corresponds to the average prevalence calculated using the random effects model. I2 Statistic that describes the percentage of variation in study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in fox faeces
Ten studies from eight countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the faeces of foxes were included in the meta-analysis [12, 17, 19, 66, 69, 75, 83,84,85,86]. The average prevalence of this nematode, using a random effects model, was estimated based on a total of 1,491 sampled foxes and was 43.36% (95% CI 28.00–58.71). The heterogeneity was 97.89% (Fig. 3). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Poland (76.16%, 95% CI 71.39–80.36) [84] and Canada (68.63%, 95% CI 54.97–79.67) [75]. The lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Spain (4.69%, 95% CI 1.61–12.90) [83].
Forest plot of the random effects model of E. aerophilus prevalence (%) calculated based on results from fox faeces. Squares correspond to the prevalence of E. aerophilus in individual studies; horizontal lines correspond to 95% Wilson confidence intervals (%) of the prevalence from individual studies; the diamond corresponds to the average prevalence calculated using the random effects model. I2 Statistic that describes the percentage of variation in study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in cat lungs
Seven studies from six countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of cats were included in the meta-analysis [25, 26, 87,88,89,90,91]. The average prevalence of this nematode, using a random effects model, was estimated based on a total of 283 sampled cats and was 8.16% (95% CI 1.07–15.25). The heterogeneity was 89.72% (Fig. 4). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Uruguay (50%, 95% CI 15.00–85.00) [87], and the lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Australia (1.49%, 95% CI 0.26–7.98) [88].
Forest plot of the random effects model of E. aerophilus prevalence (%) calculated based on the results from cat lungs. Squares correspond to the prevalence of E. aerophilus in individual studies; horizontal lines correspond to 95% Wilson confidence intervals (%) of the prevalence from individual studies; the diamond corresponds to the average prevalence calculated using the random effects model. I2 Statistic that describes the percentage of variation in study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in cat faeces
Twenty-nine studies from 16 countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the faeces of cats were included in the meta-analysis [23, 27, 30,31,32,33, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]. The average prevalence of this nematode, using a random effects model, was estimated based on a total of 14,551 sampled cats and was 2.01% (95% CI 1.42–2.60). The heterogeneity was 91.49% (Fig. 5). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in India (16%, 95% CI 10.10–24.42) [30], and the lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Australia (0.09%, 95% CI 0.02–0.53) [101].
Forest plot of the random effects model of E. aerophilus prevalence (%) calculated based on the results from cat faeces. Squares correspond to the prevalence of E. aerophilus in individual studies; horizontal lines correspond to 95% Wilson confidence intervals (%) of the prevalence from individual studies; the diamond corresponds to the average prevalence calculated using the random effects model. I2 Statistic that describes the percentage of variation in study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in dog faeces
Twenty-four studies from eight countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the faeces of dogs were included in the meta-analysis [23, 24, 28, 29, 40, 103, 112, 113, 115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130]. The average prevalence of this nematode, using a random effects model, was estimated based on a total of 14,949 sampled dogs and was 3.53% (95% CI 2.12–4.94). The heterogeneity was 98.90% (Fig. 6). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Italy (19.51%, 95% CI 10.23–34.01) [115]; 18.52%, 95% CI 13.63–24.66) [116]). The lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was also recorded in Italy (0.2%, 95% CI 0.07–0.59) [118]; 0.3%, 95% CI 0.08–1.07) [127].
Forest plot of the random effects model of E. aerophilus prevalence (%) calculated based on the results from faeces of dogs. Squares correspond to the prevalence of E. aerophilus in individual studies; horizontal lines correspond to 95% Wilson confidence intervals (%) of the prevalence from individual studies; the diamond corresponds to the average prevalence calculated using the random effects model. I2 Statistic that describes the percentage of variation in study that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in wild animal faeces
Fifteen studies from eight countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the faeces of 10 wild animal species were included in this systematic review [86, 131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144]. Due to the small number of studies included in the analysis, the average prevalence of E. aerophilus was estimated using a fixed-effects model. Wolf (Canis lupus) and badger (Meles meles) were the most frequently described species, with five and three articles, respectively. The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in the crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous) from Bolivia [135], at 33.33%. The lowest prevalence was observed in single studies on the brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus) (2.50%) [134] and the lynx (Lynx lynx) (5%) [140]. The results are presented in Table 2.
Occurrence of E. aerophilus in wild animal lungs
Thirty-five studies from 20 countries that reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of 18 species of wild animals were included in this systematic review [55, 67, 68, 91, 136, 145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170]. Due to the small number of studies included in the analysis, the average prevalence of E. aerophilus was estimated using a fixed-effects model. The European wildcat (Felis silvestris) and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) were the most frequently described species, with six and five articles, respectively. The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in the badger (Meles meles) and European pine marten (Martes martes), at 66.67% and 50.98%, respectively. The lowest prevalence was observed in the American marten (Martes americana) (0.99%) and raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) (3.03%). The results are presented in Table 3.
Impact of different factors on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in animals
During the data extraction, several factors emerged that could potentially affect the occurrence of the described lungworm in the analysed subgroups of animals, including age, sex and/or environmental/living conditions. All of these factors were divided into specific species and matrices, and statistically significant differences in prevalence were noted (if available).
Impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in fox lungs
Data describing the impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of foxes were available from seven studies [20, 58, 59, 64, 70, 72, 73]. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only two cases: in Serbia, in the study by Ilić et al. [64], and in Spain, in the study by Manas et al. [70]. The results are presented in Table 4.
Impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in fox lungs
Data describing the impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of foxes were available from seven studies [20, 21, 58, 59, 63, 73, 74]. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only two cases: in Romania, in the study by Deak et al. [58], and the UK, in the study by Morgan et al. [74]. The results are presented in Table 5.
Impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in cat faeces
Data describing the impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the faecal samples of cats were available from seven studies. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only one case: in the USA, in the study by Nagamori et al. [33]. The results are presented in Table 6.
Impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in cat lungs and faeces
Data describing the impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs and faecal samples of cats were available from five studies. There were no statistically significant differences in prevalence (P > 0.05). The results are presented in Table 7.
Impact of environmental conditions on the occurrence of E. aerophilus cat lungs and faeces
Data describing the impact of the environmental conditions on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs and faecal samples of cats were available from three studies. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only one case: in Romania, in the study by Mircean et al. [27]. The results are presented in Table 8.
Impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in dog faeces
Data describing the impact of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in faecal samples of dogs were available from four studies. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only one case: in Italy, in the study by Guardone et al. [117]. The results are presented in Table 9.
Impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in dog faeces
Data describing the impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in faecal samples of dogs were available from three studies. Statistically significant differences in prevalence (P < 0.05) occurred in only one case: in Italy, in the study by Guardone et al. [117]. The results are presented in Table 10.
Co-infections with other lungworms in a group of E. aerophilus-positive foxes
Data describing co-infections with other lungworms in a group of E. aerophilus-positive foxes were available from 11 studies [12, 17, 21, 52, 58,59,60,61, 63, 77, 81]. Simultaneously with E. aerophilus, species such as Crenosoma vulpis, Angiostrongylus vasorum, Eucoleus boehmi and Filaroides spp. were detected in the lungs of foxes. The most frequently detected co-infection was with C. vulpis, with a frequency ranging from 5.1% to 53.8%. The less frequently detected co-infection was with E. boehmi, with a frequency ranging from 14.9% to 18.8%. Triple co-infections (E. aerophilus + C. vulpis + A. vasorum) were described in eight studies, and a quadruple co-infection was detected in only one study (E. aerophilus + C. vulpis + A. vasorum + Filaroides spp.). The results are presented in Table 11.
Discussion
Eucoleus aerophilus is a zoonotic parasite affecting both domestic and wild animals, as well as humans. It causes respiratory capillariosis, with a subclinical course in most cases, but it can occasionally lead to respiratory distress ranging from mild disease to severe and potentially fatal pneumonia [13]. Despite steadily increasing knowledge of the morphology of this neglected parasite, many aspects are still largely unknown. Systematic epidemiological reviews or meta-analyses on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in wild and domestic animals have not yet been carried out. To the best of our knowledge, we present here the first systematic review to evaluate and summarize existing knowledge on the occurrence and prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild and domestic animals originating from different geographical locations worldwide. In our work, we used a comprehensive approach to extract eligible articles on E. aerophilus detection. Data from almost 50 years of research in this field, from 38 countries and describing 36 animal species, are summarized in this review. The information thus obtained was used to compile tables on the prevalence of this nematode, focusing on identifying data gaps and promoting future research directions in this area.
The most common host and reservoir of E. aerophilus is the red fox. The prevalence of this parasite in red foxes is usually high, with a wide geographic distribution (Figs. 2, 3). It is therefore not surprising that the largest number of articles on E. aerophilus detection concerned this group of animals, with 37 and 10 articles reporting the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of foxes (Fig. 2) and in the faeces (Fig. 3), respectively. The included studies refer to almost all European countries but also to Canada [75] and/or Australia [57]. The results obtained in this meta-analysis revealed that the average prevalence of E. aerophilus detected in fox lungs by necropsy was 49.32% (95% CI 40.11–58.53), with the highest prevalence of 97.12% (95% CI 91.86–99.01) reported in Lithuania [55] and the lowest prevalence of 0.50% (95% CI 0.09–2.76) reported in Spain [53]. Comparing the summary results for foxes from postmortem lung examination with faecal examination, we noted a rather similar percentage of positive results, with the average prevalence of E. aerophilus based on flotation being 43.36% (95% CI 28.00–58.71). The analysis of the results obtained by individual studies indicated that the results are quite diverse. For example, in the study by Al-Sabi et al. [12], the recovery of lungworm eggs with faecal examination was 32% lower than the postmortem recovery of E. aerophilus worms from lungs [12]. Notwithstanding, Nevárez et al. [75], in their study on the distribution of E. aerophilus in lungs, reported a 49% prevalence, while in faecal examination, 68.6% of foxes were positive for E. aerophilus. Such discrepancies can be explained by damage to eggs during the freezing and thawing cycles before testing due to the use of inappropriate flotation medium or techniques [171] or by the intermittent and irregular patterns of egg excretion [2]. Another factor that may have contributed to the disparity in the results is the fact that individual species of parasites have diversified distributions in the lungs. According to the study by Nevárez et al. [75], E. aerophilus is mainly restricted to the large bronchi of caudal lobes. Moreover, faecal examination can lead to misleading results, especially in relation to the whipworm T. vulpis, which has similar morphological and morphometric features to E. aerophilus [11].
An increase in the red fox population, coupled with a decrease in natural habitats due to progressive urbanization, plays a key role in the spread and transmission of E. aerophilus to domestic animals [5, 13]. In contrast to foxes, where the study of lungworms is mostly carried out with the use of necropsy, in domestic animals (such as dogs or cats), such infections are investigated principally by examining faecal samples, with the flotation test or by PCR. In this systematic review, a meta-analysis of articles referring to cats revealed that the detection of E. aerophilus from lungs gave a much higher average prevalence (8.16%) than detection from faecal samples (2.01%). It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of articles on the detection of E. aerophilus in cats tested faecal samples (29 studies) (Fig. 5), and only seven studies reported the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs (Fig. 4). The highest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Uruguay, at 50% [87] (detection in lungs), and in India, at 16% [30] (detection in faeces), and the lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus was recorded in Australia, at 1.49% (detection in lungs) [88] and 0.09% (detection in faeces) [101].
In our review, studies in dogs referred only to faecal samples (24 studies) (Fig. 6), as no article describing the detection of E. aerophilus in the lungs of these companion animals was available. The vast majority of articles (16 studies) originated from Italy [23, 40, 112, 113, 115,116,117,118,119, 121, 122, 125,126,127,128, 130], but there were also studies from other European countries [24, 120, 123, 129] or other parts of the globe, such as Canada [28], India [29] and Iran [124]. Meta-analysis of the data reported on this species revealed that the average prevalence of E. aerophilus was 3.53% (95% CI 2.12–4.94), which was similar to that found in cats. The highest and lowest prevalence of E. aerophilus in dogs was recorded in Italy, at 19.51% [115] and 0.09% [118], respectively. Despite increased concern for companion animal health and the use of highly efficient antiparasitic drugs, recent studies conducted throughout the world have shown that infections caused by lungworms remain a common occurrence in both dogs and cats. Nevertheless, the reported prevalence of this parasite is much lower in dogs and cats than in foxes. This difference may be related to an underestimation of lung capillariosis by veterinarians due to the lack of basic parasitological research conducted in this direction and, as already mentioned, to misdiagnosis of T. vulpis infection upon microscopic examination [11].
In addition to foxes, E. aerophilus has been reported in many different wild species, shown in Tables 2 and 3. The most frequently reported wild species infected with E. aerophilus in the lungs were the European wildcat [91, 136, 155,156,157,158], raccoon dog [55, 68, 165, 166, 172] and hedgehog [160,161,162,163]. On faecal examination, the most frequently reported species testing positive for E. aerophilus were the wolf [134, 141,142,143,144] and badger [86, 132, 133]. Analysis of the results from lungs of wild animals revealed an overall prevalence of E. aerophilus ranging from 66.67% [147] to 0.99% [145]; from faecal samples, overall prevalence ranged from 33.33% [135] to 2.50% [134]. These epidemiological data strongly support the hypothesis that wild carnivores act as the main definitive hosts for the analysed nematode [173] and are consistent with the results from foxes. The sharing of habitat between domestic and wild animals facilitates the transmission of parasites between them. The large number of studies on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of wild animals compared to domestic animals is because it was possible to collect the carcasses of animals killed in road accidents or by hunters, as well as other reasons.
It should be emphasized that all of the prevalence analyses in this review were performed globally for animal species. Analysed studies were divided into subgroups that considered dogs (faecal samples), cats (faecal samples and lungs), foxes (faecal samples and lungs) and wild animals (faecal samples and lungs) separately. Taking into account the large variation in the applied flotation variants that emerged during data extraction, we decided to group all flotation results (regardless of the variant) into one group within the animal species in order to be able to perform the analysis. Moreover, differences between regions, countries and groups of animals of the same species were not considered in the analysis of the prevalence. On the other hand, the impact of various factors on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in animals was analysed. During the data extraction, several factors emerged that could potentially affect the occurrence of the described lungworm, including age, sex or environmental/living conditions. All of these were categorized into specific species and matrices, and statistically significant differences in prevalence (if available) have been noted.
The data on the impact of host-related factors (age, sex or environmental/living conditions) on the prevalence of E. aerophilus vary widely. Analysis of the influence of age on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs of foxes was available from seven studies [20, 58, 59, 64, 70, 72, 73], and only in two cases [64, 70] was it shown that adult foxes were significantly more susceptible to pulmonary capillariosis (Table 4). Nevertheless, the number of examined juveniles was lower than the number of examined adults in almost every case, which could have had a significant impact on the results. Similarly, in the case of the influence of sex on susceptibility to E. aerophilus infection, out of the seven analysed articles [20, 21, 58, 59, 63, 73, 74], only two [58, 74] showed statistically significant differences and indicated that males were more susceptible to infection with E. aerophilus (Table 5). It is worth mentioning that the number of tested males was definitely higher than that of females. In the case of cats, three factors were analysed, namely age, sex and environmental conditions, all of which could influence the occurrence of E. aerophilus in lungs and faecal samples. Analysis of seven studies [22, 27, 32, 33, 98, 110, 114] referring to age revealed that only one study [33] reported that young cats were significantly more susceptible to E. aerophilus than adult cats (Table 6). No statistically significant differences were found when analysing the impact of sex on the occurrence of E. aerophilus in the lungs and faecal samples of cats (Table 7). Analysis of environmental conditions (Table 8) revealed that rural cats are more susceptible to E. aerophilus than urban cats [27]. This finding is associated with the outdoor access of cats in rural areas to wilderness areas. In the case of dogs, host-related factors, such as age and sex, were analysed in relation to the prevalence of E. aerophilus. Analysis of the extracted results referring to age (Table 9) indicates that only in the study by Guardone et al. [117] were younger dogs more liable to infection with E. aerophilus than adult dogs, which is consistent with the results in cats [33]. Also, female dogs were more vulnerable to lung capillariosis than male dogs [117] (Table 10).
Mixed infections are common among wild animals, which are regarded as potential reservoirs of parasites. In this systematic review, we analysed eleven articles describing co-infections in the lungs of E. aerophilus-positive foxes (Table 11) [12, 17, 21, 52, 58,59,60,61, 63, 77, 81]. The most frequent infection reported in all analysed studies was E. aerophilus + C. vulpis with a prevalence in a group of E. aerophilus-positive foxes ranging from 5.1% to 53.8%. In contrast to E. aerophilus, which is naturally restricted to the large bronchi and the caudal lobes, C. vulpis was reported in the small bronchi and bronchioles of all pulmonary lobes [75]. The next most frequent co-infection was with E. aerophilus + A. vasorum, ranging in a group of E. aerophilus-positive foxes from 9.4% to 55.1%, thus occurring at almost the same level as E. aerophilus + C. vulpis. Angiostrongylus vasorum, called the “French heartworm”, parasitizes the right ventricle and pulmonary arteries of canids and is distributed worldwide [74]. In addition to lung examination, the basic diagnosis of A. vasorum consists of the detection of larvae in the faeces by the Baermann method or in expectorated mucus, and the faecal flotation method is also used. These methods are laborious and limited due to the periodic excretion of larvae in faeces or bronchial secretions, the small number of larvae and the difficulty in distinguishing A. vasorum larvae from larval stages of other lungworms such as C. vulpis and Filaroides spp. [74]. Triple co-infections with E. aerophilus + C. vulpis + A. vasorum were reported in eight articles [12, 17, 52, 59,60,61, 77, 81]; additionally, in one article, a quadruple co-infection with E. aerophilus + C. vulpis + A. vasorum + Filaroides spp. was detected [17]. Mixed infection with E. aerophilus + E. boehmi was less frequently reported, and it was possible to extract data from only two articles [21, 63]. Eucoleus boehmi occurs in the nasal cavity and sinuses of wild and domestic canids, but its life-cycle is still undetermined. Moreover, in contrast to the investigated parasite, E. boehmi does not have zoonotic potential [10].
Conclusions
Ecoleus aerophilus is a nematode with zoonotic potential and worldwide geographical distribution. It affects both wild and domestic animals, causing lung capillariosis. This systematic review confirmed the status of the red fox as the main reservoir and transmitter of E. aerophilus and evidenced a higher prevalence of E. aerophilus in wild animals than in domestic animals. Wildlife migration and colonization of rural areas increase the transmission of this lungworm between wild and domestic carnivores, but also to humans. Many host-related factors (age, sex, environmental/living conditions) have been investigated in relation to the prevalence of E. aerophilus, but they show wide variations, and there is no simple relationship. Furthermore, mixed infections with other pulmonary nematodes, such as C. vulpis and/or A. vasorum, are reported very frequently, which greatly complicates diagnosis. To summarize, this systematic review focused on identifying data gaps and promoting future research directions in this area.
Availability of data and materials
All data and material are presented in the manuscript and supplementary material. The datasets used and/or analysed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- MOOSE:
-
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology
- NOS:
-
Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis
- REML:
-
Restricted maximum likelihood estimator
References
Zhang ZQ. Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness (Addenda 2013). Zootaxa. 2013;3703:1–82. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3703.1.1.
Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Conboy G. Canine and feline cardiopulmonary parasitic nematodes in Europe: emerging and underestimated. Parasit Vectors. 2010;3:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-3-62.
Aftandelians R, Raafat F, Taffazoli M, Beaver PC. Pulmonary capillariasis in a child in Iran. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1977;26:64–71. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.1977.26.64.
Lalosević D, Lalosević V, Klem I, Stanojev-Jovanović D, Pozio E. Pulmonary capillariasis miming bronchial carcinoma. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;78:14–6.
Di Cesare A, Otranto D, Latrofa MS, Veronesi F, Perrucci S, Lalosevic D, et al. Genetic variability of Eucoleus aerophilus from domestic and wild hosts. Res Vet Sci. 2014;96:512–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.03.018.
Conboy G. Helminth parasites of the canine and feline respiratory tract. Vet Clin N Am Small Animal Pract. 2009;39:1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2009.06.006.
Anderson RC. Nematode parasites of vertebrates. Their development and transmission. 2nd ed. Guilford: CABI Publishing; 2000.
Christenson RO. Life history and epidemiological studies on the fox lungworm, Capillaria aerophila (Creplin, 1839). Livro Jubilar de Prof. Lauro Travassos. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Oswaldo Cruz; 1938.
Lalošević V, Lalošević D, Capo I, Simin V, Galfi A, Traversa D. High infection rate of zoonotic Eucoleus aerophilus infection in foxes from Serbia. Parasite. 2013;20:3. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2012003.
Di Cesare A, Castagna G, Meloni S, Otranto D, Traversa D. Mixed trichuroid infestation in a dog from Italy. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-128.
Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Lia RP, Castagna G, Meloni S, Heine J, et al. New insights into morphological and biological features of Capillaria aerophila (Trichocephalida, Trichuridae). Parasitol Res. 2011;109:S97-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-011-2406-4.
Al-Sabi MNS, Kapel CMO. First report of Eucoleus boehmi in red foxes (Vulpis vulpis) in Denmark, based on coprological examination. Acta Parasitol. 2013;58:570–6. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-013-0182-2.
Otranto D, Cantacessi C, Dantas-Torres F, Brianti E, Pfeffer M, Genchi C, et al. The role of wild canids and felids in spreading parasites to dogs and cats in Europe part II: helminths and arthropods. Vet Parasitol. 2015;213:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.04.020.
Moravec F, Prokopic J, Shlikas AV. The biology of nematodes of the family Capillariidae Neveu-Lemaire, 1936. Folia Parasitol (Praha). 1987;34:39–56.
Christenson RO. Studies on the morphology of the common fox lungworm, Capillaria aërophila (Creplin, 1839). Trans Am Microsc Soc. 1935;54:145–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/3222122.
Butterworth EW, Beverley-Burton M. The taxonomy of Capillaria spp. (Nematoda: Trichuriodea) in carnivorous mammals from Ontario, Canada. Syst Parasitol. 1980;1:211–36.
Magi M, Guardone L, Prati MC, Mignone W, Macchioni F. Extraintestinal nematodes of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in north-west Italy. J Helminthol. 2015;89:506–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x1400025x.
Borgsteede FH. Helminth parasites of wild foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) in The Netherlands. Z Parasitenkd. 1984;70:281–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00927813.
Sréter T, Széll Z, Marucci G, Pozio E, Varga I. Extraintestinal nematode infections of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Hungary. Vet Parasitol. 2003;115:329–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4017(03)00217-6.
Saeed I, Maddox-Hyttel C, Monrad J, Kapel CM. Helminths of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Denmark. Vet Parasitol. 2006;139:168–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.02.015.
Davidson RK, Gjerde B, Vikøren T, Lillehaug A, Handeland K. Prevalence of Trichinella larvae and extra-intestinal nematodes in Norwegian red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Vet Parasitol. 2006;136:307–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.11.015.
Di Cesare A, Veronesi F, Grillotti E, Manzocchi S, Perrucci S, Beraldo P, et al. Respiratory nematodes in cat populations of Italy. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:4463–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4687-5.
Di Cesare A, Castagna G, Meloni S, Milillo P, Latrofa S, Otranto D, et al. Canine and feline infections by cardiopulmonary nematodes in central and southern Italy. Parasitol Res. 2011;109:S87-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-011-2405-5.
Rehbein S, Kaulfuß KH, Visser M, Sommer MF, Grimm F, Silaghi C. Parasites of sheep herding dogs in central Germany. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2016;129:56–64.
Wierzbowska IA, Kornaś S, Piontek AM, Rola K. The prevalence of endoparasites of free ranging cats (Felis catus) from urban habitats in southern Poland. Animals (Basel). 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040748.
Andras T, Peter T. Data on worm infestation of domestic cats (Felis catus) in Hungarian hunting areas. Magyar Allatorvosok Lapja. 2002;124:26–30.
Mircean V, Titilincu A, Vasile C. Prevalence of endoparasites in household cat (Felis catus) populations from Transylvania (Romania) and association with risk factors. Vet Parasitol. 2010;171:163–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.03.005.
Kotwa JD, French SK, Greer T, Elsemore DA, Hanna R, Jardine CM, et al. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs in southern Ontario, Canada, based on fecal samples tested using sucrose double centrifugation and Fecal Dx® tests. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2021;26:100618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2021.100618.
Kurumadas R, Chennuru S, Krovvidi S, Pattipati M. Assessing risk factors associated with prevalence of canine gastrointestinal parasitic zoonoses in Andhra Pradesh, India. Indian J Animal Sci. 2020;90:851–5.
Krecek RC, Moura L, Lucas H, Kelly P. Parasites of stray cats (Felis domesticus L., 1758) on St. Kitts, West Indies. Vet Parasitol. 2010;172:147–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.04.033.
Lucio-Forster A, Bowman DD. Prevalence of fecal-borne parasites detected by centrifugal flotation in feline samples from two shelters in upstate New York. J Feline Med Surg. 2011;13:300–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfms.2010.12.013.
Nagamori Y, Payton ME, Duncan-Decocq R, Johnson EM. Fecal survey of parasites in free-roaming cats in northcentral Oklahoma, United States. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2018;14:50–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2018.08.008.
Nagamori Y, Payton ME, Looper E, Apple H, Johnson EM. Retrospective survey of parasitism identified in feces of client-owned cats in North America from 2007 through 2018. Vet Parasitol. 2020;277:109008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.109008.
Gryz J, Krauze-Gryz D. Dynamika liczebności populacji lisa na terenie Puszczy Białowieskiej w latach 1981–2016. Sylwan. 2017;161:328–33.
Ponjiger I, Ristić Z, Marković V, Matejević M, Kovačević M. The dynamics of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and brown hare (Lepus europaeus) populations in the Vojvodina region (Serbia) in relation to rabies vaccination. Vet Arhiv. 2019;89:839–50. https://doi.org/10.24099/vet.arhiv.0334.
Bombik E, Wysokińska A, Górski K, Kondracki S, Paprocka A, Jakubczak P. The dynamics of fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations in selected hunting regions of the central-eastern Poland in relation to effectivness of rabies vaccination. Vet Med Zoot. 2014; 68 90.
Jackowiak M, Gryz J, Jasińska K, Brach M, Bolibok L, Kowal P, et al. Colonization of Warsaw by the red fox Vulpes vulpes in the years 1976–2019. Sci Rep. 2021;11:13931. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92844-2.
Vilella JM, Desmaret MC, Rouault E. Capillariose à Capillaria aerophila chez un adulte? Med Mal Infect. 1986;1:35–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0399-077X(86)80304-3.
Cockshott WP, Middlemiss JH. Clinical radiology in the tropics. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1979.
Magi M, Guardone L, Prati MC, Torracca B, Macchioni F. First report of Eucoleus boehmi (syn. Capillaria boehmi) in dogs in north-western Italy, with scanning electron microscopy of the eggs. Parasite. 2012;19:433–5. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2012194433.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Updated February 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
R Core Team. R. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2022. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educational Behav Stat. 2005;30:261–93. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030003261.
Raudenbush SW. Analyzing effect sizes: random-effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Manhattan: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 295–315.
Lin E, Tong T, Chen Y, Wang Y. Fixed-effects model: the most convincing model for meta-analysis with few studies. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04211. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
Dorai-Raj S: binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations_. R package version 1.1–1.1. 2022. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=binom>. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
Newcombe RG. Logit confidence intervals and the inverse sinh transformation. Am Stat. 2001;55:200–2. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001317098167.
Gordon M, Lumley T. Package forestplot: Advanced forest plot using 'grid' graphics. R package version 3.1.0. 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=forestplot. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.
Al-Sabi MN, Halasa T, Kapel CM. Infections with cardiopulmonary and intestinal helminths and sarcoptic mange in red foxes from two different localities in Denmark. Acta Parasitol. 2014;59:98–107. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-014-0214-6.
Alvarez F, Iglesias R, Bos J, Rey J, Sanmartin Durán ML. Lung and hearth nematodes in some Spanish mammals. Wiad Parazytol. 1991;37:481–90.
Andras T. Data on the parasitological status of the red fox in Hungary. Magyar Allatorvosok Lapja. 2001;123:100–7.
Bružinskaitė-Schmidhalter R, Šarkūnas M, Malakauskas A, Mathis A, Torgerson PR, Deplazes P. Helminths of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in Lithuania. Parasitology. 2012;139:120–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031182011001715.
Čabrilo OB, Simin V, Miljević M, Čabrilo B, Mijatović D, Lalošević D. Respiratory and cardiopulmonary nematode species of foxes and jackals in Serbia. Helminthologia. 2018;55:213–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/helm-2018-0019.
Calvani NED, Wright M, White J, Stepkovitch B, Francis E, Rivory P, et al. What the fox? Cryptic Eucoleus [Capillaria] sp. in the respiratory tract of a cat from Australia. Curr Res Parasitol Vector-Borne Dis. 2021;1:100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100028.
Deak G, Gherman CM, Ionică AM, Péter Á, Sándor DA, Mihalca AD. Biotic and abiotic factors influencing the prevalence, intensity and distribution of Eucoleus aerophilus and Crenosoma vulpis in red foxes, Vulpes vulpes from Romania. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2020;12:121–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2020.05.009.
Garrido-Castañé I, Ortuño A, Marco I, Castellà J. Cardiopulmonary helminths in foxes from the Pyrenees. Acta Parasitol. 2015;60:712–5. https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2015-0101.
Gavrilović P, Dobrosavljević I, Vasković N, Todorović I, Živulj A, Kureljušić B, et al. Cardiopulmonary parasitic nematodes of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Serbia. Acta Vet Hung. 2019;67:60–9. https://doi.org/10.1556/004.2019.007.
Gillis-Germitsch N, Tritten L, Hegglin D, Deplazes P, Schnyder M. Conquering Switzerland: the emergence of Angiostrongylus vasorum in foxes over three decades and its rapid regional increase in prevalence contrast with the stable occurrence of lungworms. Parasitology. 2020;147:1071–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031182020000700.
Gortázar C, Villafuerte R, Lucientes J, Fernández-de-Luco D. Habitat related differences in helminth parasites of red foxes in the Ebro valley. Vet Parasitol. 1998;80:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(98)00192-7.
Hodžić A, Alić A, Klebić I, Kadrić M, Brianti E, Duscher GG. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) as a potential reservoir host of cardiorespiratory parasites in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vet Parasitol. 2016;223:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.04.016.
Ilić T, Becskei Z, Petrović T, Polaček V, Ristić B, Milić S, et al. Endoparasitic fauna of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and golden jackals (Canis aureus) in Serbia. Acta Parasitol. 2016;61:389–96. https://doi.org/10.1515/ap-2016-0051.
Ilic T, Becskei Z, Tasic A, Stepanovic P, Radisavljevic K, Duric B, et al. Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) as reservoirs of respiratory capillariosis in Serbia. J Vet Res. 2016;60:153–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/jvetres-2016-0022.
Lassnig H, Prosl H, Hinterdorfer F. Parasites of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Styria. Wiener Tierarztliche Monatsschrift. 1998;85:116–22.
Laurimaa L, Moks E, Soe E, Valdmann H, Saarma U. Echinococcus multilocularis and other zoonotic parasites in red foxes in Estonia. Parasitology. 2016;143:1450–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031182016001013.
Lemming L, Jørgensen AC, Nielsen LB, Nielsen ST, Mejer H, Chriél M, et al. Cardiopulmonary nematodes of wild carnivores from Denmark: do they serve as reservoir hosts for infections in domestic animals? Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2020;13:90–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2020.08.001.
Magi M, Macchioni F, Dell’omodarme M, Prati MC, Calderini P, Gabrielli S, et al. Endoparasites of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in central Italy. J Wildl Dis. 2009;45:881–5. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-45.3.881.
Mañas S, Ferrer D, Castellà J, Maria López-Martı́n J. Cardiopulmonary helminth parasites of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Catalonia, northeastern Spain. Vet J. 2005;169:118–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2003.12.011.
Manke KJ, Stoye M. Parasitological studies of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes L) in the northern districts of Schleswig-Holstein. Tierarztliche Umschau. 1998;53:207–14.
Martinez-Carrasco C, de Ybanez MRR, Sagarminaga JL, Garijo MM, Moreno F, Acosta I, et al. Parasites of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758) in Murcia, southeast Spain. Rev Med Vet. 2007;158:331–5.
Martínez-Rondán FJ, Ruiz de Ybáñez MR, López-Beceiro AM, Fidalgo LE, Berriatua E, Lahat L, et al. Cardiopulmonary nematode infections in wild canids: does the key lie on host-prey-parasite evolution? Res Vet Sci. 2019;126:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.08.008.
Morgan ER, Tomlinson A, Hunter S, Nichols T, Roberts E, Fox MT, et al. Angiostrongylus vasorum and Eucoleus aerophilus in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Great Britain. Vet Parasitol. 2008;154:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.02.030.
Nevárez A, López A, Conboy G, Ireland W, Sims D. Distribution of Crenosoma vulpis and Eucoleus aerophilus in the lung of free-ranging red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005;17:486–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870501700516.
Rajkovic-Janje R, Marinculic A, Bosnic S, Benic M, Vinkovic B, Mihaljevic Z. Prevalence and seasonal distribution of helminth parasites in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from the Zagreb County (Croatia). Z Jagdwissenschaft. 2002;48:151–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02189989.
Schug K, Krämer F, Schaper R, Hirzmann J, Failing K, Hermosilla C, et al. Prevalence survey on lungworm (Angiostrongylus vasorum, Crenosoma vulpis, Eucoleus aerophilus) infections of wild red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in central Germany. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2672-4.
Segovia JM, Torres J, Miquel J. Helminth parasites of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes L., 1758) in the Iberian Peninsula: an ecological study. Acta Parasitol. 2004;49:67–79.
Smith HJ. Parasites of red foxes in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. J Wildl Dis. 1978;14:366–70. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-14.3.366.
Steinbach G, Welzel A, Vonkeyserlingk M, Stoye M. On the helminthic fauna of the red fox (Vulpes-vulpes L.) in southern lower Saxony 1 Nematodes and trematodes. Z Jagdwissenschaft. 1994;40:30–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02241503.
Taylor CS, Garcia Gato R, Learmount J, Aziz NA, Montgomery C, Rose H, et al. Increased prevalence and geographic spread of the cardiopulmonary nematode Angiostrongylus vasorum in fox populations in Great Britain. Parasitology. 2015;142:1190–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031182015000463.
Tolnai Z, Széll Z, Sréter T. Environmental determinants of the spatial distribution of Angiostrongylus vasorum, Crenosoma vulpis and Eucoleus aerophilus in Hungary. Vet Parasitol. 2015;207:355–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.12.008.
Criado-Fornelio A, Gutierrez-Garcia L, Rodriguez-Caabeiro F, Reus-Garcia E, Roldan-Soriano MA, Diaz-Sanchez MA. A parasitological survey of wild red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) from the province of Guadalajara, Spain. Vet Parasitol. 2000;92:245–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(00)00329-0.
Karamon J, Dąbrowska J, Kochanowski M, Samorek-Pieróg M, Sroka J, Różycki M, et al. Prevalence of intestinal helminths of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in central Europe (Poland): a significant zoonotic threat. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:436. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3021-3.
Lopez A, Aburto E, Jones K, Robbins W, Conboy G. Eucoleus boehmi infection in the nasal conchae and paranasal sinuses of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) on Prince Edward Island. Canada J Wildl Dis. 2016;52:279–85. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-06-149.
Stuart P, Golden O, Zintl A, de Waal T, Mulcahy G, McCarthy E, et al. A coprological survey of parasites of wild carnivores in Ireland. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:3587–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-013-3544-7.
Castro O, Venzal JM, Félix ML. Two new records of helminth parasites of domestic cat from Uruguay: Alaria alata (Goeze, 1782) (Digenea, Diplostomidae) and Lagochilascaris major Leiper, 1910 (Nematoda, Ascarididae). Vet Parasitol. 2009;160:344–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.11.019.
Foster SF, Martin P, Braddock JA, Malik R. A retrospective analysis of feline bronchoalveolar lavage cytology and microbiology (1995–2000). J Feline Med Surg. 2004;6:189–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfms.2003.12.001.
Holmes PR, Kelly JD. Capillaria aerophila in the domestic cat in Australia. Aust Vet J. 1973;49:472–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1973.tb09296.x.
Knaus M, Kusi I, Rapti D, Xhaxhiu D, Winter R, Visser M, et al. Endoparasites of cats from the Tirana area and the first report on Aelurostrongylus abstrusus (Railliet, 1898) in Albania. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2011;123:31–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-011-1588-1.
Krone O, Guminsky O, Meinig H, Herrmann M, Trinzen M, Wibbelt G. Endoparasite spectrum of wild cats (Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777) and domestic cats (Felis catus L.) from the Eifel, Pfalz region and Saarland, Germany. Eur J Wildl Res. 2008;54:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-007-0116-0.
Blasco X, Salas A, Manuelian CL, Torre C, Ortuno A. Intestinal parasitic infection in multi-cat shelters in Catalonia. Israel J Vet Med. 2017;72:16–21.
Crisi PE, Aste G, Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Febo E, Vignoli M, et al. Single and mixed feline lungworm infections: clinical, radiographic and therapeutic features of 26 cases (2013–2015). J Feline Med Surg. 2017;19:1017–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612x16670563.
Crisi PE, Paoletti B, Morelli S, Simonato G, Colombo M, Tiscar PG, et al. Tritrichomonas foetus in cats from Central Italy: Clinical signs and risk factors. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2021;24:100577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2021.100577.
Di Cesare A, Iorio R, Crisi P, Paoletti B, Di Costanzo R, Dimitri CF, et al. Treatment of Troglostrongylus brevior (Metastrongyloidea, Crenosomatidae) in mixed lungworm infections using spot-on emodepside. J Feline Med Surg. 2015;17:181–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612x14533552.
Giannelli A, Capelli G, Joachim A, Hinney B, Losson B, Kirkova Z, et al. Lungworms and gastrointestinal parasites of domestic cats: a European perspective. Int J Parasitol. 2017;47:517–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2017.02.003.
Hansen AP, Skarbye LK, Vinther LM, Willesen JL, Pipper CB, Olsen CS, et al. Occurrence and clinical significance of Aelurostrongylus abstrusus and other endoparasites in Danish cats. Vet Parasitol. 2017;234:31–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.12.015.
Hoggard KR, Jarriel DM, Bevelock TJ, Verocai GG. Prevalence survey of gastrointestinal and respiratory parasites of shelter cats in northeastern Georgia, USA. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2019;16:100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2019.100270.
Hoopes J, Hill JE, Polley L, Fernando C, Wagner B, Schurer J, et al. Enteric parasites of free-roaming, owned, and rural cats in prairie regions of Canada. Can Vet J. 2015;56:495–501.
Mugnaini L, Papini R, Gorini G, Passantino A, Merildi V, Mancianti F. Pattern and predictive factors of endoparasitism in cats in Central Italy. Rev Med Vet. 2012;163:89–94.
Palmer CS, Thompson RCA, Traub RJ, Rees R, Robertson ID. National study of the gastrointestinal parasites of dogs and cats in Australia. Vet Parasitol. 2008;151:181–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.10.015.
Raschka C, Haupt W, Ribbeck R. Studies on endoparasitization of stray cat. Monatshefte Veterinarmed. 1994;49:307–15.
Remesar S, Garcia-Dios D, Calabuig N, Prieto A, Diaz-Cao JM, Lopez-Lorenzo G, et al. Cardiorespiratory nematodes and co-infections with gastrointestinal parasites in new arrivals at dog and cat shelters in north-western Spain. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022;69:E3141–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14670.
Riggio F, Mannella R, Ariti G, Perrucci S. Intestinal and lung parasites in owned dogs and cats from central Italy. Vet Parasitol. 2013;193:78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.11.026.
Shamaev ND, Fedotova AY, Galiullina AV, Mukminov MN, Shuralev EA. Prevalence and risk factors of toxoplasma-like and intestinal parasites in cats from urbanized area of Tatarstan, Russia. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2018;9:465–71.
Spada E, Proverbio D, Della Pepa A, Domenichini G, Bagnagatti De Giorgi G, Traldi G, et al. Prevalence of faecal-borne parasites in colony stray cats in northern Italy. J Feline Med Surg. 2013;15:672–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612x12473467.
Stepanović P, Despotović D, Dimitrijević S, Ilić T. Clinical-parasitological screening for respiratory capillariosis in cats in Urban environments. Helminthologia. 2020;57:322–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/helm-2020-0046.
Symeonidou I, Gelasakis AI, Arsenopoulos K, Angelou A, Beugnet F, Papadopoulos E. Feline gastrointestinal parasitism in Greece: emergent zoonotic species and associated risk factors. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:227. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2812-x.
Takeuchi-Storm N, Mejer H, Al-Sabi MN, Olsen CS, Thamsborg SM, Enemark HL. Gastrointestinal parasites of cats in Denmark assessed by necropsy and concentration McMaster technique. Vet Parasitol. 2015;214:327–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.06.033.
Tamponi C, Varcasia A, Pinna S, Melis E, Melosu V, Zidda A, et al. Endoparasites detected in faecal samples from dogs and cats referred for routine clinical visit in Sardinia, Italy. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2017;10:13–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2017.07.001.
Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Di Giulio E, Castagna G, Schaper R, Braun G, et al. Efficacy and safety of imidacloprid 10%/moxidectin 1% spot-on formulation in the treatment of feline infection by Capillaria aerophila. Parasitol Res. 2012;111:1793–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-012-3025-4.
Traversa D, Cesare AD, Milillo P, Iorio R, Otranto D. Infection by Eucoleus aerophilus in dogs and cats: Is another extra-intestinal parasitic nematode of pets emerging in Italy? Res Vet Sci. 2009;87:270–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2009.02.006.
Traversa D, Morelli S, Cassini R, Crisi PE, Russi I, Grillotti E, et al. Occurrence of canine and feline extra-intestinal nematodes in key endemic regions of Italy. Acta Trop. 2019;193:227–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.03.009.
Tull A, Moks E, Saarma U. Endoparasite prevalence and infection risk factors among cats in an animal shelter in Estonia. Folia Parasitol (Praha). 2021. https://doi.org/10.14411/fp.2021.010.
Abbate JM, Napoli E, Arfuso F, Gaglio G, Giannetto S, Halos L, et al. Six-month field efficacy and safety of the combined treatment of dogs with frontline Tri-Act® and NexGard Spectra®. Parasit Vectors. 2018;11:425. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-2957-7.
Di Cesare A, Morelli S, Morganti G, Simonato G, Veronesi F, Colombo M, et al. Efficacy of milbemycin oxime/afoxolaner chewable tablets (NEXGARD SPECTRA(®)) against Capillaria aerophila and Capillaria boehmi in naturally infected dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-04648-y.
Guardone L, Magi M, Prati MC, Macchioni F. Cardiorespiratory and gastrointestinal parasites of dogs in north-west Italy. Helminthologia. 2016;53:318–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/helmin-2016-0032.
Hinney B, Gottwald M, Moser J, Reicher B, Schäfer BJ, Schaper R, et al. Examination of anonymous canine faecal samples provides data on endoparasite prevalence rates in dogs for comparative studies. Vet Parasitol. 2017;245:106–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.08.016.
La Torre F, Di Cesare A, Simonato G, Cassini R, Traversa D, di Regalbono AF. Prevalence of zoonotic helminths in Italian house dogs. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2018;12:666–72. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.9865.
Mircean V, Györke A, Cozma V. Prevalence and risk factors of Giardia duodenalis in dogs from Romania. Vet Parasitol. 2012;184:325–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.08.022.
Morelli S, Colombo M, Traversa D, Iorio R, Paoletti B, Bartolini R, et al. Zoonotic intestinal helminthes diagnosed in a 6-year period (2015–2020) in privately owned dogs of sub-urban and urban areas of Italy. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep. 2022;29:100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2022.100689.
Paoletti B, Traversa D, Iorio R, De Berardinis A, Bartolini R, Salini R, et al. Zoonotic parasites in feces and fur of stray and private dogs from Italy. Parasitol Res. 2015;114:2135–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4402-6.
Pipikova J, Papajova I, Soltys J, Schusterova I, Kocisova D, Tohathyova A. Segregated settlements present an increased risk for the parasite infections spread in Northeastern Slovakia. Helminthologia. 2017;54:199–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/helm-2017-0026.
Sarvi S, Daryani A, Sharif M, Rahimi MT, Azami D, Marhaba Z, et al. Domestic dog as a human health hazard in north of Iran. J Parasit Dis. 2016;40:930–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-014-0608-2.
Sauda F, Malandrucco L, Macrì G, Scarpulla M, De Liberato C, Terracciano G, et al. Leishmania infantum, Dirofilaria spp. and other endoparasite infections in kennel dogs in central Italy. Parasite. 2018;25:2. https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2018001.
Scaramozzino P, Carvelli A, Iacoponi F, De Liberato C. Endoparasites in household and shelter dogs from Central Italy. Int J Vet Sci Med. 2018;6:45–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijvsm.2018.04.003.
Simonato G, Cassini R, Morelli S, Di Cesare A, La Torre F, Marcer F, et al. Contamination of Italian parks with canine helminth eggs and health risk perception of the public. Prev Vet Med. 2019;172:104788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104788.
Simonato G, Danesi P, di Regalbono AF, Dotto G, Tessarin C, Pietrobelli M, et al. Surveillance of zoonotic parasites in animals involved in animal-assisted interventions (AAIs). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:7914. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217914.
Šmigová J, Papajová I, Šoltys J, Pipiková J, Šmiga Ľ, Šnábel V, et al. The occurence of endoparasites in Slovakian household dogs and cats. Vet Res Commun. 2021;45:243–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-021-09804-4.
Traversa D, Di Cesare A, Simonato G, Cassini R, Merola C, Diakou A, et al. Zoonotic intestinal parasites and vector-borne pathogens in Italian shelter and kennel dogs. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017;51:69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2017.04.003.
Skírnisson K, Eydal M, Gunnarsson E, Hersteinsson P. Parasites of the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) in Iceland. J Wildl Dis. 1993;29:440–6. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-29.3.440.
Byrne RL, Fogarty U, Mooney A, Harris E, Good M, Marples NM, et al. The helminth parasite community of European badgers (Meles meles) in Ireland. J Helminthol. 2019;94:e37. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x19000051.
Kelly DJ, Marples NM, Byrne RL, Fogarty U, Kenny K, Cameron H, et al. An investigation of Mycobacterium bovis and helminth coinfection in the European badger Meles meles. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2022;19:311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2022.11.001.
Paoletti B, Iorio R, Traversa D, Di Francesco CE, Gentile L, Angelucci S, et al. Helminth infections in faecal samples of Apennine wolf (Canis lupus italicus) and Marsican brown bear (Ursus arctos marsicanus) in two protected national parks of central Italy. Ann Parasitol. 2017;63:205–12. https://doi.org/10.17420/ap6303.107.
Fiorello CV, Robbins RG, Maffei L, Wade SE. Parasites of free-ranging small canids and felids in the Bolivian Chaco. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2006;37:130–4. https://doi.org/10.1638/05-075.1.
Diakou A, Migli D, Dimzas D, Morelli S, Di Cesare A, Youlatos D, et al. Endoparasites of European wildcats (Felis silvestris) in Greece. Pathogens. 2021;10:5941. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10050594.
Napoli E, Anile S, Arrabito C, Scornavacca D, Mazzamuto MV, Gaglio G, et al. Survey on parasitic infections in wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris Schreber, 1777) by scat collection. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:255–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-015-4742-2.
Barutzki D, Laubmeier E, Forstner MJ. Endoparasitic infestation of wild hedgehogs and hedgehogs in human care with a contribution to therapy. Tierarztl Prax. 1987;15:325–31.
Mizgajska-Wiktor H, Jarosz W, Piłacińska B, Dziemian S. Helminths of hedgehogs, Erinaceus europaeus and E. roumanicus from Poznań region, Poland–coprological study. Wiad Parazytol. 2010;56:329–32.
Szczesna J, Popiołek M, Schmidt K, Kowalczyk R. Coprological study on helminth fauna in Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) from the Białowieza Primeval Forest in eastern Poland. J Parasitol. 2008;94:981–4. https://doi.org/10.1645/ge-1440.1.
Di Francesco CE, Smoglica C, Paoletti B, Angelucci S, Innocenti M, Antonucci A, et al. Detection of selected pathogens in Apennine wolf (Canis lupus italicus) by a non-invasive GPS-based telemetry sampling of two packs from Majella National Park. Italy Eur J Wildl Res. 2019;65:84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1326-y.
Figueiredo AM, Barros T, Valente AM, Fonseca C, de Carvalho LM, Torres RT. Prevalence of zoonotic parasites in an endangered Iberian wolf (Canis lupus signatus) population in Portugal. Mamm Biol. 2019;98:154–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.09.008.
Popiołek M, Szczesnaa J, Nowaka S, Mysłajeka RW. Helminth infections in faecal samples of wolves Canis lupus L. from the western Beskidy Mountains in southern Poland. J Helminthol. 2007;81:339–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x07821286.
Szafrańska E, Wasielewski O, Bereszyński A. A faecal analysis of helminth infections in wild and captive wolves, Canis lupus L., in Poland. J Helminthol. 2010;84:415–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x10000106.
Seville RS, Addison EM. Nongastrointestinal helminths in marten (Martes americana) from Ontario, Canada. J Wildl Dis. 1995;31:529–33. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-31.4.529.
Nugaraitė D, Mažeika V, Paulauskas A. Helminths of mustelids with overlapping ecological niches: Eurasian otter Lutra Lutra (Linnaeus, 1758), American mink Neovison Vison Schreber, 1777, and European polecat Mustela Putorius Linnaeus, 1758. Helminthologia. 2019;56:66–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/helm-2018-0035.
Takacs A, Szemethy L, Takacs AA, Takacs PT, Heltai M. Data on the parasitological state of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) in Hungary. Magyar Allatorvosok Lapja. 2012;134:106–10.
Panayotova-Pancheva M, Dakova V. New data on helminth parasites of the stone marten Martes foina (Erxleben, 1777) (Carnivora: Mustelidae) in Bulgaria. Acta Zool Bulg. 2021;73:113–8.
Sato H, Inaba T, Ihama Y, Kamiya H. Parasitological survey on wild carnivora in north-western Tohoku, Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 1999;61:1023–6. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.61.1023.
Tiekotter KL. Helminth species diversity and biology in the bobcat, Lynx rufus (Schreber), from Nebraska. J Parasitol. 1985;71:227–34.
Morrison EE, Gier HT. Lungworms in coyotes on the Great Plains. J Wildl Dis. 1978;14:314–6. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-14.3.314.
Morrison EE, Gier HT. Parasitic infection of Filaroides osleri, Capillaria aerophila and Spirocera lupi in coyotes from the Southwestern United States. J Wildl Dis. 1979;15:557–9. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-15.4.557.
Takeuchi-Storm N, Al-Sabi MNS, Chriel M, Enemark HL. Systematic examination of the cardiopulmonary, urogenital, muscular and gastrointestinal parasites of the Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) in Denmark, a protected species recovering from a dramatic decline. Parasitol Int. 2021;84:102418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2021.102418.
Segovia JM, Torres J, Miquel J, Sospedra E, Guerrero R, Feliu C. Analysis of helminth communities of the pine marten, Martes martes, in Spain: mainland and insular data. Acta Parasitol. 2007;52:156–64. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11686-007-0012-5.
Deak G, Ionica AM, Pop RA, Mihalca AD, Gherman CM. New insights into the distribution of cardio-pulmonary nematodes in road-killed wild felids from Romania. Parasit Vectors. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05281-z.
Falsone L, Brianti E, Gaglio G, Napoli E, Anile S, Mallia E, et al. The European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) as reservoir hosts of Troglostrongylus brevior (Strongylida: Crenosomatidae) lungworms. Vet Parasitol. 2014;205:193–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.06.024.
Takacs A, Szemethy L, Heltai M, Takacs AA. Data on the parasitological state of wild cats (Felis silvestris Schreber 1777) and of their hybrids with feral domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus L. 1758) on Hungarian hunting areas. Magyar Allatorvosok Lapja. 2011;133:670–4.
Veronesi F, Traversa D, Lepri E, Morganti G, Vercillo F, Grelli D, et al. Occurrence of lungworms in European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris) of central Italy. J Wildl Dis. 2016;52:270–8. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-07-187.
Acuña-Olea F, Sacristán I, Aguilar E, García S, López MJ, Oyarzún-Ruiz P, et al. Gastrointestinal and cardiorespiratory endoparasites in the wild felid guigna (Leopardus guigna) in Chile: richness increases with latitude and first records for the host species. Int J Parasitol Parasit Wildl. 2020;13:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2020.07.013.
Cirak VY, Senlik B, Aydogdu A, Selver M, Akyol V. Helminth parasites found in hedgehogs (Erinaceus concolor) from Turkey. Prev Vet Med. 2010;97:64–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.007.
Gaglio G, Allen S, Bowden L, Bryant M, Morgan ER. Parasites of European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) in Britain: epidemiological study and coprological test evaluation. Eur J Wildl Res. 2010;56:839–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0381-1.
Naem S, Pourreza B, Gorgani-Firouzjaee T. The European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), as a reservoir for helminth parasites in Iran. Vet Res Forum. 2015;6:149–53.
Rasmussen SL, Hallig J, van Wijk RE, Petersen HH. An investigation of endoparasites and the determinants of parasite infection in European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) from Denmark. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2021;16:217–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2021.10.005.
Torres J, Garciá-Perea R, Gisbert J, Feliu C. Helminth fauna of the Iberian lynx, Lynx pardinus. J Helminthol. 1998;72:221–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x00016473.
Richardson DJ, Owen WB, Snyder DE. Helminth parasites of the raccoon (Procyon lotor) from north-central Arkansas. J Parasitol. 1992;78:163–6.
Thiess A, Schuster R, Nöckler K, Mix H. Helminth findings in indigenous raccoon dogs Nyctereutes procyonoides (Gray, 1843). Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2001;114:273–6.
Bagrade G, Kirjusina M, Vismanis K, Ozoliņs J. Helminth parasites of the wolf Canis lupus from Latvia. J Helminthol. 2009;83:63–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022149x08123860.
Estevez-Sanchez E, Checa R, Montoya A, Barrera JP, Lopez-Beceiro AM, Fidalgo LE, Miro G. A high prevalence of cardiopulmonary worms detected in the Iberian wolf (Canis lupus): A threat for wild and domestic canids. Animals. 2022;12(17):2289. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172289.
Takács A, Szabó L, Juhász L, Takács AA, Lanszki J, Takács PT, Heltai M. Data on the parasitological status of golden jackal (Canis aureus L. 1758) in Hungary. Acta Vet Hung. 2014;62(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1556/avet.2013.058.
Torres J, Miquel J, Fournier P, Fournier-Chambrillon C, Liberge M, Fons R, Feliu C. Helminth communities of the autochthonous mustelids Mustela lutreola and M. putorius and the introduced Mustela vison in south-western France. J Helminthol. 2008;82(4):349–355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022149X08046920.
Dryden MW, Payne PA, Ridley R, Smith V. Comparison of common fecal flotation techniques for the recovery of parasite eggs and oocysts. Vet Ther. 2005;6:15–28.
Laurimaa L, Suld K, Davison J, Moks E, Valdmann H, Saarma U. Alien species and their zoonotic parasites in native and introduced ranges: the raccoon dog example. Vet Parasitol. 2016;219:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2016.01.020.
Otranto D, Deplazes P. Zoonotic nematodes of wild carnivores. Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2019;9:370–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2018.12.011.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This investigation was supported by statutory programme (S/517) from the National Veterinary Research Institute—State Research Institute, Puławy, Poland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: MSP. Methodology: MSP and JK. Literature search and screening of abstracts: MSP and JK. Screening of full-text articles: MSP and JK. Data extraction: MSP and JK. Statistical and quantitative analyses of the data: EŁ, MPS and MP. Writing—original draft preparation: MSP. Writing—review and editing: EBZ and WKD. Visualization: AB, MP. Supervision: TC and JK. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1: Table S1.
List of included studies.
Additional file 2: Table S2.
List of excluded studies.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Samorek-Pieróg, M., Cencek, T., Łabuć, E. et al. Occurrence of Eucoleus aerophilus in wild and domestic animals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasites Vectors 16, 245 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-023-05830-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-023-05830-0