Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAI) represent an increasingly important therapeutic, educational, and rehabilitative resource. However, close contact between animals and beneficiaries, who often belong to vulnerable groups, can facilitate the transmission of zoonotic pathogens such as parasites, bacteria, and fungi, especially in the absence of proper hygiene and sanitation. From a One Health perspective, epidemiological monitoring plays a central role in protecting human and animal health and in fighting antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluated the main zoonotic agents transmissible between dogs and humans in the context of AAI, analysing their association with animal management and behavioural factors. The study included 141 dogs working in AAI from December 2024 to April 2026. Dogs were tested for a comprehensive diagnostic screening including copromicroscopic and faecal antigen tests, cultural tests for Salmonella spp. and dermatophytes isolation from faeces and fur samples, respectively, ear swabs (testing for Pseudomonas spp., fungi and yeasts), nasal swabs (for Staphylococcus spp.), and oral swabs (for fungi and yeasts). At the same time, the dog-handlers were given a questionnaire to gather information on the dogs’ care and daily life management and identify any risk factors through statistical analyses based on Relative Risk (RR), p-values (p<0.05), and 95% confidence intervals. The surveys showed a 19% prevalence of copromicroscopic positivity, with Giardia duodenalis being the most frequently detected agent (10.6%) by antigen testing. In addition, two asymptomatic faecal carriers of Salmonella spp. and three nasal carriers of potentially zoonotic staphylococci, including MRSA and MRSP strains, were identified. Mycological positivity was primarily found in the oral cavity and ear canals, with a predominance of opportunistic yeast Malassezia pachydermatis. Statistical analysis revealed significant associations between lifestyle and health risk: coprophagia increased the risk of copromicroscopic positivity by more than threefold (RR=3.36), while daily visits to urban dog-walking areas significantly increased the risk of giardiasis (RR=4.6). Conversely, regular off-leash walks were found to be a protective factor (RR = 0.26), confirmed by the nearly fourfold higher risk observed in dogs positive for giardiasis that never had the opportunity for off-leash walks (RR = 3.81). Uncontrolled access to external sources of food and water was also associated with a higher frequency of oral mycological positivity (RR = 2.80). The high frequency of direct contact between dogs and beneficiaries, especially in Animal-Assisted Activities, makes the presence of animals, that appear healthy but are subclinical carriers of parasites, yeasts, or multidrug-resistant bacteria particularly significant. The results demonstrate that standard prophylaxis alone is not sufficient to ensure biosecurity in AAI settings; rather, preventive measures are necessary in terms of risk-based management and diagnostic monitoring. In conclusion, the study highlights the need to adopt an integrated One Health model in which a veterinarian specializing in AAI plays a central role in assessing individual risk factors and defining personalized diagnostic and preventive protocols that can protect public health without compromising the therapeutic value of the human–animal relationship.
Gli Interventi Assistiti con gli Animali (IAA) rappresentano una risorsa terapeutica, educativa e riabilitativa di crescente importanza. Tuttavia, il contatto ravvicinato tra animali e utenti, spesso appartenenti a categorie vulnerabili, può favorire la trasmissione di patogeni zoonosici quali parassiti, batteri e miceti, soprattutto in presenza di carenze igienico-sanitarie. In un'ottica One Health, il monitoraggio epidemiologico assume quindi un ruolo centrale per la tutela della salute umana e animale e per il contrasto dell'antimicrobico-resistenza. Il presente studio ha valutato i principali agenti zoonosici trasmissibili tra cane e uomo nell'ambito degli IAA, analizzandone l'associazione con i fattori gestionali e comportamentali dell'animale. Sono stati inclusi 141 cani operativi negli IAA tra dicembre 2024 e aprile 2026, sottoposti a screening diagnostico completo comprendente esami copromicroscopici e antigenici fecali, test colturali per l’isolamento di Salmonella spp. e dermatofiti rispettivamente da campioni di feci e pelo, tamponi auricolari (ricerca di Pseudomonas spp., funghi e lieviti), nasali (Staphylococcus spp.) e orali (funghi e lieviti). Parallelamente, a coadiutori/trici è stato somministrato un questionario anamnestico per raccogliere informazioni sul management del cane e identificare eventuali fattori di rischio mediante analisi statistiche basate su Rischio Relativo (RR), p-value (p<0,05) e intervalli di confidenza al 95%. Le indagini hanno evidenziato una prevalenza del 19% di positività copromicroscopiche, con Giardia duodenalis quale agente più frequentemente rilevato (10,6%) mediante test antigenico. Sono stati inoltre identificati due eliminatori fecali asintomatici di Salmonella spp. e tre portatori nasali di stafilococchi potenzialmente zoonosici, inclusi ceppi MRSA e MRSP. Le positività micologiche hanno interessato prevalentemente cavo orale e condotto uditivo, con predominanza del lievito opportunista Malassezia pachydermatis. L'analisi statistica ha evidenziato importanti associazioni tra stile di vita e rischio sanitario: la coprofagia aumentava di oltre tre volte il rischio di positività copromicroscopica (RR=3,36), mentre la frequentazione quotidiana delle aree di sgambamento urbane incrementava significativamente il rischio di giardiosi (RR=4,6). Al contrario, le escursioni regolari in libertà si configuravano come fattore protettivo (RR=0,26), confermato dal rischio quasi quattro volte superiore dei cani positivi a giardiosi che non hanno mai possibilità di escursioni libere (RR=3,81). Anche l'accesso incontrollato a fonti esterne di cibo e acqua risultava associato a una maggiore frequenza di positività micologiche orali (RR=2,80). L'elevata frequenza di contatto diretto tra cane e utenza, soprattutto nelle Attività Assistite con gli Animali, rende particolarmente rilevante la presenza di soggetti apparentemente sani ma portatori subclinici di parassiti, lieviti o batteri multiresistenti. I risultati dimostrano che le sole profilassi standard non sono sufficienti a garantire la biosicurezza nei contesti IAA ma è necessario intervenire a livello preventivo in termini di gestione e di monitoraggio diagnostico in funzione del rischio. In conclusione, lo studio evidenzia la necessità di adottare un modello integrato One Health nel quale il Medico Veterinario esperto in IAA svolga un ruolo centrale nella valutazione dei fattori di rischio individuali e nella definizione di protocolli diagnostici e preventivi personalizzati, capaci di tutelare la salute pubblica senza compromettere il valore terapeutico della relazione uomo–animale.
One Health e interventi assistiti con gli animali: modello integrato per la valutazione dei patogeni zoonosici nei cani
TEDESCHI, ILARIA
2025/2026
Abstract
Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAI) represent an increasingly important therapeutic, educational, and rehabilitative resource. However, close contact between animals and beneficiaries, who often belong to vulnerable groups, can facilitate the transmission of zoonotic pathogens such as parasites, bacteria, and fungi, especially in the absence of proper hygiene and sanitation. From a One Health perspective, epidemiological monitoring plays a central role in protecting human and animal health and in fighting antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluated the main zoonotic agents transmissible between dogs and humans in the context of AAI, analysing their association with animal management and behavioural factors. The study included 141 dogs working in AAI from December 2024 to April 2026. Dogs were tested for a comprehensive diagnostic screening including copromicroscopic and faecal antigen tests, cultural tests for Salmonella spp. and dermatophytes isolation from faeces and fur samples, respectively, ear swabs (testing for Pseudomonas spp., fungi and yeasts), nasal swabs (for Staphylococcus spp.), and oral swabs (for fungi and yeasts). At the same time, the dog-handlers were given a questionnaire to gather information on the dogs’ care and daily life management and identify any risk factors through statistical analyses based on Relative Risk (RR), p-values (p<0.05), and 95% confidence intervals. The surveys showed a 19% prevalence of copromicroscopic positivity, with Giardia duodenalis being the most frequently detected agent (10.6%) by antigen testing. In addition, two asymptomatic faecal carriers of Salmonella spp. and three nasal carriers of potentially zoonotic staphylococci, including MRSA and MRSP strains, were identified. Mycological positivity was primarily found in the oral cavity and ear canals, with a predominance of opportunistic yeast Malassezia pachydermatis. Statistical analysis revealed significant associations between lifestyle and health risk: coprophagia increased the risk of copromicroscopic positivity by more than threefold (RR=3.36), while daily visits to urban dog-walking areas significantly increased the risk of giardiasis (RR=4.6). Conversely, regular off-leash walks were found to be a protective factor (RR = 0.26), confirmed by the nearly fourfold higher risk observed in dogs positive for giardiasis that never had the opportunity for off-leash walks (RR = 3.81). Uncontrolled access to external sources of food and water was also associated with a higher frequency of oral mycological positivity (RR = 2.80). The high frequency of direct contact between dogs and beneficiaries, especially in Animal-Assisted Activities, makes the presence of animals, that appear healthy but are subclinical carriers of parasites, yeasts, or multidrug-resistant bacteria particularly significant. The results demonstrate that standard prophylaxis alone is not sufficient to ensure biosecurity in AAI settings; rather, preventive measures are necessary in terms of risk-based management and diagnostic monitoring. In conclusion, the study highlights the need to adopt an integrated One Health model in which a veterinarian specializing in AAI plays a central role in assessing individual risk factors and defining personalized diagnostic and preventive protocols that can protect public health without compromising the therapeutic value of the human–animal relationship.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Tedeschi_Ilaria.pdf
embargo fino al 21/07/2027
Dimensione
1.28 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.28 MB | Adobe PDF |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/111843