-
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023In equine stables and their surroundings, a large number of insects are present that can be a nuisance to their equine hosts. Previous studies about dipterans... (Review)
Review
In equine stables and their surroundings, a large number of insects are present that can be a nuisance to their equine hosts. Previous studies about dipterans transmitting infectious agents to Equidae have largely focused on Nematocera. For the preparation of this systematic review, the existing literature (until February 2022) was systematically screened for various infectious agents transmitted to Equidae via insects of the suborder Brachycera, including Tabanidae, Muscidae, Glossinidae and Hippoboscidae, acting as pests or potential vectors. The PRISMA statement 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. The two concepts, Brachycera and Equidae, were combined for the search that was carried out in three languages (English, German and French) using four different search engines. In total, 38 articles investigating Brachycera as vectors for viral, bacterial and parasitic infections or as pests of equids were identified. Only 7 of the 14 investigated pathogens in the 38 reports extracted from the literature were shown to be transmitted by Brachycera. This review clearly shows that further studies are needed to investigate the role of Brachycera as vectors for pathogens relevant to equine health.
PubMed: 37111454
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12040568 -
Parasites & Vectors Jan 2023Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry many parasites. In the present study, we performed a systematic overview of the different species of parasites carried by non-biting flies, as well as of isolation methods, different geographical distribution, seasonality and risk assessment.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was carried out with the aim to review the global prevalence of parasite transmission in non-biting flies. A total sample size of 28,718 non-biting flies reported in studies worldwide satisfied the predetermined selection criteria and was included in the quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.9-53.2%; n = 15,888/28,718), with the highest prevalence found for non-biting flies in Africa (58.3%; 95% CI 47.4-69.3%; n = 9144/13,366). A total of 43% (95% CI 32.1-54.4%; n = 7234/15,282) of house flies (M. domestica), the fly species considered to be the most closely associated with humans and animals, were found with parasites. The prevalence of parasites in the intestine of non-biting flies was 37.1% (95% CI 22.7-51.5%; n = 1045/3817), which was significantly higher than the prevalence of parasites isolated from the body surface (35.1%; 95% CI 20.8-49.4%; n = 1199/3649; P < 0.01). Of the 27 reported parasites, a total of 20 known zoonotic parasites were identified, with an infection rate of 38.1% (95% CI 28.2-48.0%; n = 13,572/28,494).
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a theoretical basis for the public health and ecological significance of parasites transmitted by non-biting flies.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Parasites; Prevalence; Australia; Diptera; Houseflies; Calliphoridae
PubMed: 36691084
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-023-05650-2 -
Veterinary Medicine and Science Mar 2022Housefly (Musca domestica) is an excellent candidate for the distribution of susceptible and resistant bacterial strains that potentially threaten public health. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Housefly (Musca domestica) is an excellent candidate for the distribution of susceptible and resistant bacterial strains that potentially threaten public health. To date, there is a paucity of information on the global distribution of pathogenic bacteria of medical and veterinary importance from diverse environmental settings. Therefore, this study was undertaken to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to estimate occurrence of various bacterial species of medical and veterinary importance harboured by houseflies around the world. Published articles from 1980 to 2020 were retrieved from electronic databases and assessed for eligibility according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Seventy-eight studies were included in the review with only 44 studies being eligible for meta-analysis. Results indicated that eligible studies used in this review were from four continents, i.e., Asia (47.4%) America (23.1%), Africa (20.5%) and Europe (8.9%). The majority of the studies (56.4%) used the culture method for the identification of bacterial pathogens, while 30.7% used both culture and PCR techniques. For meta-analysis, we focused on five pathogenic bacterial species including Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecium, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. High heterogeneity was found among studies investigating different pathogens including E. coli (Q = 10,739.55; I = 99.60; Q-p 0.0001), E. faecium (Q = 317.61; I = 86.46; Q-p < 0.0001), K. pneumonia (Q = 1,576.61; I = 97.27; Q-p < 0.0001), S. aureus (Q = 2,439.12; I = 98.24; Q-p < 0.0001) and P. aeruginosa (Q = 1,283.0; I = 96.65; Q-p < 0.0001). Furthermore, it was observed that houseflies carried a considerable number of susceptible and antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains that pose considerable threats to public health. Findings from this study have provided more insight on the vectoral potential of houseflies in the transmission of significant bacterial pathogens from different regions across the world. Further investigation is required to quantify the bacterial contamination and dissemination by houseflies.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Escherichia coli; Houseflies; Humans; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 33955703
DOI: 10.1002/vms3.496