==== Front Vet Med (Auckl)Vet Med (Auckl)Veterinary Medicine: Research and ReportsVeterinary Medicine : Research and Reports2230-2034Dove Medical Press 10.2147/VMRR.S59521vmrr-6-245ReviewRecent advances in canine leptospirosis: focus on vaccine development (Eric) Klaasen Henricus LBM 1Adler Ben 2 1 Global Companion Animals Research and Development, Merck Sharp and Dohme Animal Health, Boxmeer, the Netherlands, eric.klaasen@merck.com 2 Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, AustraliaCorrespondence: Eric Klaasen, Global Companion Animals Research and Development, Merck Sharpe and Dohme Animal Health, PO Box 31, 5830 AA Boxmeer, the Netherlands, Tel +31 04 8558 7323, Fax +31 04 8558 7490, Email eric.klaasen@merck.com2015 19 6 2015 6 245 260 © 2015 Klaasen and Adler. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License2015The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.Leptospirosis is a global infection of humans and animals caused by pathogenic Leptospira spp. Leptospirosis is a major zoonosis, with infection acquired from wild and domestic animals. It is also a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and economic loss in production and companion animals. Leptospirosis in dogs is prevalent worldwide and as well as a cause of canine disease, it presents a zoonotic risk to human contacts. Canine leptospirosis does not differ greatly from the syndromes seen in other animal species, with hepatic, renal, and pulmonary involvement being the main manifestations. While the pathogenesis of disease is well documented at the whole animal level, the cellular and molecular basis remains obscure. Killed, whole-cell bacterin vaccines are licensed worldwide and have not changed greatly over the past several decades. Vaccine-induced immunity is restricted to serologically related serovars and is generally short-lived, necessitating annual revaccination. The appearance of new serovars as causes of canine leptospirosis requires constant epidemiological surveillance and tailoring of vaccines to cover emerging serovars. At the present time, there is no realistic prospect of alternative, non-bacterin vaccines in the foreseeable future. Keywords canine leptospirosisvaccinesdiagnosisepidemiologypathogenesis ==== Body Introduction to leptospirosis Leptospirosis is almost certainly the most widespread global zoonosis. It has been reported on all continents and in virtually all mammalian species examined.1 Leptospirosis arises from infection with one of the more than 230 serovars belonging to one of at least ten pathogenic species of the Leptospira genus.2 As well being a serious human infection with upward of one million severe cases annually, leptospirosis is a major cause of disease in production and companion animals such as dogs, cattle, swine, horses, deer, and probably sheep.3 Leptospirosis is a systemic disease, characterized by fever, renal and hepatic insufficiency, pulmonary manifestations, and reproductive failure. In cattle and pigs, signs of leptospirosis include reproductive failure, abortion, weak piglets or calves, and agalactia. A commonly seen chronic manifestation of leptospirosis in horses presents as recurrent uveitis.4 Typical signs of leptospirosis in dogs may include fever, jaundice, vomiting, diarrhea, intravascular disseminated coagulation, uremia caused by renal failure, hemorrhages, and death.3,5 Animals that have either recovered from acute infection or have acquired inapparent infection may then go on to become asymptomatic renal carriers for extended periods and shed infectious leptospires into the environment. Susceptible animals can then acquire the infection by either direct or indirect contact with the urine or tissues of infected animals. Other species such as rats, mice, and other rodents may serve as reservoirs for their host-adapted serovars, such as Copenhageni in rats and Arborea in mice. They usually do not show signs of infection, but can harbor leptospires in their kidneys for the life of the animal, thereby constituting an important source of infection for other animals or humans. While most human cases of leptospirosis are contracted from farm animals or rodents, the potential of infection from dogs should always be borne in mind;5–9 in particular, vaccinated and/or treated dogs may continue to excrete leptospires in their urine, constituting a human infection risk. For more detailed descriptions of the biology and taxonomy of Leptospira, the reader is referred to the appropriate chapter(s) in Leptospira and leptospirosis.10 Pathogenesis of leptospirosis: the basics At the level of the whole animal, leptospirosis in dogs does not differ from syndromes seen in other animal species. Leptospires enter via mucosal membranes or damaged skin and spread hematogenously throughout the body during a febrile, bacteremic phase, which may last up to several days. When numbers of leptospires in various tissues reach a critical level, characteristic signs appear, such as pulmonary hemorrhage, jaundice due to liver damage, and nephritis due to kidney damage. In general, the appearance of circulating antibodies results in the clearance of leptospires by opsonophagocytosis and/or complement-mediated killing; recovery is usually complete as long as irreversible organ damage has not occurred. The exception to this clearance occurs in the proximal renal tubules, in which leptospires may persist for extended periods of time and can be shed, continuously or intermittently, sometimes for the life of the animal.3 At the molecular and cellular level, the picture is far less clear.11 It would appear to be a sine qua non that leptospires must adhere to host tissues in order to initiate infection. Indeed, a large range of leptospiral proteins has been shown to interact with a large number of host components.12 Some proteins appear to associate with multiple host proteins; for example, the lipoprotein LipL32 was shown to interact with laminin, fibronectin, and several collagens.13 The reverse is also true, with some host proteins apparently binding a multitude of leptospiral proteins; at least 20 leptospiral proteins have been reported to interact with laminin.11 In almost all cases, the studies involved recombinant leptospiral proteins, usually expressed in Escherichia coli.12 While these in vitro studies are clearly real, a caveat should be considered when assessing the biological significance of these reported interactions. Even taking into account the high functional redundancy within pathogenic Leptospira spp.,14 is it really the case that leptospires possess more than 20 specific, laminin-binding proteins? Genetic studies confirming the absolute requirement or even relevance of these putative adhesins are not yet available. In fact, defined lipL32 and ligB mutants retained virulence and host component binding capacity.15,16 The availability of genome sequences and the development of transposon and directed mutagenesis systems have allowed the identification of a small number of defined virulence factors; these include lipopolysaccharide (LPS), motility, heme oxygenase, catalase, collagenase, the stress proteins ClpB and HtpG, the cell entry protein Mce, and the ApoA1-interacting protein LruA. For a detailed description of these factors the reader is referred to Murray11 and Adler,12 where the original references may also be found. Comparative genomic analysis has indicated that genes of unknown function are highly overrepresented in the subset of genes unique to pathogenic Leptospira spp. Likewise, transcriptomic analyses have found that the majority of genes differentially regulated when leptospires were grown under simulated in vivo conditions were genes of unknown, or poorly defined, function.14,17 These findings are consistent with the notion that the Leptospira genus possesses unique virulence factors not found in other bacterial species. Canine leptospirosis: epidemiology and clinical characteristics The clinical signs of leptospirosis in humans and animals, including dogs, are mostly vague and always non-specific. Therefore, in practice, laboratory tests are needed to achieve a definitive diagnosis. Since isolation of the Leptospira spp. bacteria requires specific growth media and skills, and because PCR testing is not yet a routine test, the definitive diagnosis is mostly based on the microscopic agglutination test (MAT; see the “Laboratory diagnosis” section), which is the reference method for serological diagnosis of leptospirosis.18 As a consequence, most of the information relating to canine leptospirosis worldwide is based on sero-epidemiological studies performed using the MAT. However, direct comparisons between different studies are complicated by the variability in cut-off MAT titers used, ranging from 10 to 800. As is generally applied to large human populations, a low titer would be appropriate in a population in which exposure to leptospirosis is uncommon, but if exposure is frequent, as in most tropical countries, a higher cut-off titer is necessary.19 Therefore, part of the observed variation between studies in cut-off MAT titers may be attributed to the presumed level of exposure in the geographic region of the dogs studied. In addition, within their studies, some investigators used two different cut-off titers: a higher titer (eg, 800) for vaccine serovars and a lower titer (eg, 100) for non-vaccine serovars. As explained by Ellis et al,20 the leptospirosis literature has been bedeviled by the question of usage for arbitrary, “significant titers”. They emphasized the high risk of errors in interpretation of results against arbitrary cut-off MAT titers in sero-epidemiological studies, most commonly greater than or equal to 100, when conclusions based solely on MAT titers are drawn with regard to (sub)acute versus chronic infections, infection titers versus vaccine-induced titers, and the identity of the infecting serogroup. The identity of the infecting serogroup may be erroneous in the case of paradoxical reactions in acute phase sera. Provided that the caveats of this assay and the interpretation thereof are taken into account, sero-epidemiological studies can roughly indicate the prevalence of leptospirosis and which serogroups (not serovars21) of Leptospira spp. are predominant in dogs in a certain geographical area. Table 1 gives an overview of data on seroprevalence and predominating serogroups from peer-reviewed scientific papers of sero-epidemiological studies in dogs worldwide published in the period 1973–2014. Apart from the caveats described above, the large variety between the published studies in sample size, type of dog population studied, and the number of MAT antigens (serovars) used makes it difficult to draw conclusions. The seroprevalence in randomly sampled groups of privately owned or stray dogs is an indicator of the spread of, and exposure to, Leptospira spp. bacteria in these dog populations. The variation in seroprevalence in this category of dogs, even after removal of “low MAT titers possibly induced by vaccine serovars”, appears to be strikingly large: Europe, 13%–57%; North America, 6%–38%; South and Central America and the Caribbean, 7%–62%; Asia and the South Pacific, 7%–46%; and Africa and the Middle East, 5%–27%. Seroprevalence in ten studies was lower than or equal to 15% (Table 1). In seven of these ten studies, at least eleven serovars representing eleven serogroups were used for the MAT, suggesting that most of the low seroprevalences were not due to missing serovars in the MAT. However, the use of only single-serum samples in most studies and the large variation in MAT cut-off titers (20–400 in healthy dogs and 100–3,200 in dogs with acute leptospirosis) are two factors that undoubtedly contribute to the large variation in seropositivity. Despite these limitations and confounding factors, it can be concluded from the reviewed studies that canine leptospirosis is an important infectious and zoonotic disease in dogs worldwide, with an increasing prevalence of seropositive dogs in time as reported in publications from various countries, including Canada,22 USA,23 Switzerland,24 and the Netherlands (EM Broens, personal communication, 2015). As explained earlier in this section, assessment of the predominant infecting serogroups based on only serological tests is unreliable. In the reviewed studies (Table 1), very few serological data were generated with paired serum samples, and high MAT titers in acute sera from patients are unreliable indicators of the infecting serogroup, therefore, the serological results on serogroups in these studies must be interpreted with caution. However, when in a certain region the same serogroup patterns based on representative numbers of dogs are observed repeatedly and are complemented with results of identification of the infecting serovar(s) isolated from clinical cases, assessment of the predominant serovars or serogroups is more reliable. Table 2 provides an overview of the large variety of clinical pictures and courses of leptospiral infections in dogs. The clinical presentation varies from subclinical disease (probably the majority of cases) and minimal clinical signs to severe renal, hepatic, or pulmonary disease, sometimes with intestinal complications. Whereas formerly it was considered that distinct clinical syndromes were associated with specific serogroups, more intense study over the past 30 years has refuted this hypothesis.18 Apart from the poor ability of the MAT to predict the infecting serogroup, variations in the host’s immune response and possibly lateral transfer of virulence factors between serovars are other main determinants for the type and severity of clinical disease. Lateral gene transfer has not been demonstrated experimentally in Leptospira spp., but appears likely given the high degree of plasticity in leptospiral genomes. In the early years, there was a reported predominance of the classical syndromes: severe hepatic failure and acute renal insufficiency, which were thought to be caused mainly by strains of serogroups Icterohaemorrhagiae and Canicola, respectively. It is unclear whether the introduction in the 1960s in USA and Europe of bivalent vaccines directed against these two serogroups is the main cause of the observed shift in serogroup prevalence in USA and Europe, with serogroups Grippotyphosa, Pomona, and Australis emerging in dogs. In addition, increased awareness by veterinarians and more adequate tests, and subsequently, more frequent recognition of less apparent forms of the disease in dogs may well have contributed to a higher frequency of reported cases of other serogroups and other clinical presentations. In two different studies25,26 in a group of clinically healthy laboratory beagle dogs used for research or quality control purposes, an association between subclinical infection with a serovar from serogroup Sejroe and interstitial nephritis were demonstrated. In two other studies with laboratory beagle dogs,27,28 it was strongly suggested that a leptospiral infection was the cause of the observed chronic hepatitis. These studies underline the broad spectrum of clinical symptoms of canine leptospirosis and in particular, the contrast between the reported and true prevalence of the chronic as well as subclinical forms of the disease. One of the clinical forms that has been reported more frequently in the last decade is the pulmonary form of canine leptospirosis. These investigations might partly have been triggered by the increasing number of reports of the leptospiral pulmonary hemorrhagic syndrome (LPHS) in humans.29–31 In the 1990s, there were two publications of cases of confirmed canine leptospirosis in which a small minority of the dogs showed pulmonary lesions in addition to other pathology.32,33 In other studies,34,35 pulmonary lesions were observed by radiographic examination in dogs with leptospirosis. In the study of Baumann and Fluckiger35 it was concluded that the pulmonary findings might be misinterpreted as other lung diseases. In recent studies36,37 into LPHS-like pulmonary lesions in dogs with leptospirosis, the most important necropsy finding and cause of death was severe, acute, pulmonary hemorrhages. Severe lung involvement in canine leptospirosis is more prevalent than expected based on clinical examination and causes increased case fatality rates. For a description of pathology findings in animal leptospirosis, the reader is referred to Ellis.3 Clinical diagnosis Achieving a definitive diagnosis of leptospirosis in dogs should be of special importance to veterinary practitioners because of the zoonotic potential of the disease.5–8 In order to prevent misdiagnosis, a complete anamnesis should be carried out, particularly an assessment of potential previous exposure of the dog to sources of Leptospira spp. infection. These sources, mostly being urine from chronically infected rodents or other wild maintenance hosts, can vary greatly between geographic regions and seasons. In the past, within the group of privately owned dogs, mainly dogs in rural environments and sporting dogs were considered to be at risk. However, reports from the last decades showed that the risk of exposure to sources of Leptospira spp. infection can also be present in urban areas, particularly when dogs live in the vicinity of forests or parks or have free access to standing water. The first difficulty in making the correct diagnosis is that the clinical signs are vague and typically non-specific.9 Anorexia, lethargy, and depression are the most predominant, or the only signs. In addition, reluctance to move, abdominal pain on palpation, vomiting, polyuria/polydipsia, and diarrhea are frequently observed in cases of subacute disease. When ileus is suspected based on findings of abdominal palpation, intestinal intussusception as the underlying cause may be revealed using abdominal radiography. Particularly in young dogs with gastrointestinal complaints and intestinal intussusception, leptospirosis should be included in the differential diagnosis.38–40 On initial presentation, overt icterus and fever (associated with the classical icteric form of leptospirosis) are less common. Peracute or acute death (rare and uncommon, respectively) probably occur more often in young dogs.41 A definitive diagnosis of canine leptospirosis thus requires laboratory confirmation. Laboratory diagnosis The laboratory diagnosis of canine leptospirosis does not differ from that used in other animal species or in humans; it is beyond the scope of this review to cover in detail what is readily available elsewhere.3,5 As with most bacterial infections, culture of the infecting organism provides a definitive diagnosis. However, in the case of Leptospira spp., there are several problems with culture. Pathogenic Leptospira spp. require specialized media and are slow growing; cultures therefore require long-term incubation (up to 3 months) with weekly checking by darkfield microscopy for the presence of leptospires. Contamination may also be a problem when culturing from urine or tissues at necropsy. For details of media and culture techniques, see Cameron.42 Culture is therefore of very limited use in individual diagnosis. However, for a proper understanding of local epizootiology, it is very important that prevalent serovars are isolated and identified in order to inform the selection of serovars for inclusion in vaccine formulations. In regions where appropriate equipment and facilities are available, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) offers an alternative to culture. There exists now an extensive literature on the use of PCR to detect leptospiral deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA);3,43 procedures are equally applicable to animal and human tissues. A range of qualitative and quantitative PCR protocols and primers has been described, mostly designed to detect all leptospires (eg, rRNA, secY) or genes unique to pathogenic species (eg, lipL32). Sequencing of PCR products can be used to identify the leptospiral species and to drill down further to identify so-called “genotypes”.44 There is currently no PCR protocol available that will identify the infecting serovar, although with the availability of genome sequences for all serovars, this may be possible in the near future. The large number of serovars, and therefore LPS biosynthesis loci, suggests that any serovar-specific PCR would need to be tailored for local serovars, again reinforcing the necessity of sound, regional epidemiological data. As with all PCR protocols, the potential presence of inhibitors in animal tissues must be borne in mind. It is therefore very important to remember that, as for any diagnostic test, a negative PCR does not necessarily exclude the presence of leptospires, nor does a diagnosis of leptospirosis. Antigen detection or staining methods such as Warthin–Starry and other silver deposition stains, fluorescent antibodies, or immunohistochemistry techniques in general lack sensitivity, but are useful for detecting leptospires in histological sections taken by biopsy or at necropsy (Figure 1). The use of darkfield microscopy on clinical specimens (blood, urine, or other tissues) lacks sensitivity and may give rise to false positives; it is not recommended. Serological diagnosis remains the most commonly used method, with the MAT still considered the gold standard. Because of its serovar (or at best, serogroup) specificity, good epidemiological knowledge of locally prevalent serovars is critical so that they can be included in the battery of MAT test strains. As with all serological tests, a rise in paired sera is diagnostic. A single high titer (≥400) together with appropriate clinical signs (see Clinical Diagnosis section) is highly suggestive. As with other animal species or humans, so-called paradoxical reactions may occur in which the highest titer is not necessarily against the infecting serovar. Serological surveys are therefore unreliable indicators of locally circulating serovars, highlighting the importance of obtaining local isolates for diagnosis and vaccine usage and development. The MAT is problematic for the detection of renal carrier animals, which may have titers below the usually accepted minimal significant value, or may even be sero-negative. The presence of antibodies in the fetal circulation is an indicator of in utero infection.3 The most commonly used alternative to the MAT is the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Most published ELISA protocols use either whole cell lysates or conserved recombinant proteins (eg, LipL32, LigA) as antigens. They are therefore genus-specific and provide no information on the infecting serovar. An immunoglobulin M (IgM) ELISA may detect acute infection.45 Several commercial ELISA kits for canine diagnosis are available, although proper validation presents a problem because of the imperfect nature of the MAT in situations where paired sera are not available. Other tests such as lateral flow tests46 do not seem to have gained widespread use. Older tests such as those using complement fixation, macroscopic slide agglutination, or passive hemagglutination are not recommended. Treatment strategies Table 3 provides an overview of the most important treatments of peracute, acute, subacute, and chronic leptospirosis in dogs. Wohl47 described the therapeutic management of acute renal failure, which is the most prevalent clinical syndrome in canine leptospirosis, although in some European countries an increased prevalence of severe pulmonary signs has been reported.6 In (sub)acute leptospirosis, dogs have to be treated immediately with adequate antibiotics (Table 3) to eliminate the leptospires from the bloodstream. Aggressive supportive therapy can be life-saving for many dogs with severe anuric leptospirosis or other severe conditions. If facilities are available, hemodialysis can be life-saving in cases of severe uremia (also known as azotemia48). Ideally, serum biochemistry panels of dogs with acute leptospirosis should be performed every 24 hours during hospitalization to monitor renal function, liver enzyme activities, serum protein concentrations, and electrolyte and acid–base derangements. In chronic leptospirosis, antibiotics (particularly to clear leptospires from the kidneys) and supportive therapy may be needed as well. In particular, treatment of hypertension, one of the systemic complications of chronic renal failure, can be life-saving. Current perspectives on vaccines and vaccine development Safe and effective vaccines are one of the most important advances in veterinary medicine in the last 60 years. Licensed inactivated vaccines against canine leptospirosis have been on the market since the 1960s. In the remainder of this review, we will discuss current scientific information will be discussed with regard to efficacy of commercial, inactivated leptospirosis bacterin vaccines; the need for multivalent bacterins protective against newly emerging serovars; the risk of allergic reactions of dogs to immunization with these bacterins, particularly in small-breed dogs; growth media for bacterin vaccines; and the potential for recombinant vaccines. Efficacy of current bacterin vaccines Successful pioneering research on leptospirosis vaccines was performed a century ago in Japan49 with guinea pigs. In the following period, a variety of chemical and physical inactivation methods was tested to develop effective bacterins. Some of these methods, in particular formaldehyde, thiomersal, or heat inactivation, have been used for decades for the development and licensing of commercial whole cell vaccines against leptospirosis in dogs, pigs, and cattle. In the 1970s, the focus of leptospirosis vaccine research shifted toward defining the primary structural component(s) responsible for protection.50 Various groups tested the efficacy of the outer envelope of leptospires, mainly in hamsters. However, outer envelope vaccines and other inactivated acellular51 vaccines have not gained widespread support, the main reasons being lack of efficacy, lack of consistency of production, and high production costs. In this period of the 1970s, it had already been demonstrated that a higher dose of immunogen (whole cells, or outer envelope, or other cellular components) was required to protect hamsters or guinea pigs from renal infection than from death.52,53 Publications in the 1970s implicated vaccinated dogs as the source of leptospiral infections in humans and have expressed doubt as to the ability of commercial leptospirosis bacterins to protect dogs against renal infection and the carrier state.7,54 However, other studies with leptospirosis bacterins demonstrated protection from renal infection in dogs.54,55 Huhn et al,56 using a commercial vaccine, showed that protection from renal infection in dogs with serovar Canicola or Icterohaemorrhagiae was vaccine dose-dependent. Apart from differences in design of efficacy studies and interpretation of results, an important reason for differences in efficacy results is the immunogenicity of the bacterins used.57,58 As in veterinary and human vaccines in general, adjuvants may increase the efficacy of canine leptospirosis vaccines. Since efficacy claims of licensed vaccines, specified in the “Summary of Product Characteristics” and the leaflet of the product,59 have to comply with local regulatory requirements (eg, the 9CFR in the US and the European Pharmacopoeia in Europe),60 veterinary practitioners are informed about the ability of current commercial vaccines to protect dogs from the renal carrier state. A specific drawback of leptospirosis bacterins that cannot be solved by an increase of the amount of protective antigen is the efficacy spectrum; protection is directed only against the vaccine serovars or closely related serovars.18,61 Evidence of cross-protection by bacterins or LPS preparations against serovars from different serogroups has only rarely been published,62 although cross-protection following recovery from infection was reported in the 1970s.61 The restricted efficacy spectrum of bacterins requires a good knowledge of the regional epidemiology, which can be reliably gained only by culture and identification of locally prevalent serovars. This implies that, where multiple serovars are predominant in dogs, multivalent vaccines for dogs are necessary. This topic will be discussed in the following “Newly emerging serovars and multivalent bacterins” section. A complicating factor in assessment of the onset and duration of immunity induced with vaccines is the unreliability of the MAT as an indicator of protection. In several vaccination-challenge studies in dogs using experimental infection, no correlation was found between protection and the titer of agglutinating antibodies prior to challenge.58,63–67 In bacterin-vaccinated dogs, MAT titers in general show a rapidly declining pattern, but in various studies, dogs without detectable agglutinating antibodies have been demonstrated to be protected, even 12 months after the last vaccination.64,65 Therefore, the MAT is unsuitable to assess the onset or duration of immunity elicited by vaccination of dogs. As long as there is no alternative laboratory assay correlating with protection, leptospiral challenge of dogs, unfortunately, is necessary to determine the efficacy of vaccines. In vaccination studies with cattle, cell-mediated immunity has been detected for at least 4 months after completion of a two-dose vaccination regimen.68,69 To the authors’ knowledge, since the work of Bey and Johnson in the 1980s,70 who used a lymphocyte stimulation test to measure serovar-specific, cell-mediated responses in dogs vaccinated with several leptospiral vaccines, no cell-mediated immunity studies in dogs have been reported. Even when serovar-specific, cell-mediated responses could be measured in vaccinated dogs, this type of assay would be less suitable than serological assays for routine efficacy testing by vaccine manufacturers, since blood or cells have to be tested immediately after sampling from the animals. Therefore, it is necessary to continue the search for an alternative serological response that does show some correlation with protection, and, as is necessary for vaccines containing more than one serovar, is serovar-specific. So far, however, for dogs only Leptospira genus-specific and no serovar-specific antibody ELISAs have been developed and validated for diagnostic purposes (see the “Laboratory diagnosis” section). Studies of duration of immunity of leptospirosis bacterins in dogs, assessed by Leptospira spp. challenge, have been reported less frequently than onset of immunity studies, probably due to the higher costs of the former. Whereas a duration of immunity of less than 6 months after the primary course and 1 year after each annual re-vaccination was determined in a serological study in dogs,45 vaccination-challenge studies performed by vaccine manufacturers show that protective immunity elicited by commercial bacterins lasts approximately 12 months.64,66 In humans, agglutinating (anti-LPS) antibodies are predominantly, but not exclusively, IgM. However, this is not necessarily the case in animals, where IgG agglutinating antibodies are often produced. Indeed, in revaccination studies in dogs with a novel tetravalent bacterin (Klaasen, unpublished data, 2006), an anamnestic MAT serological response was observed, with at least a fourfold difference between titers done after annual revaccination and those after primary vaccination (Klaasen, unpublished data, 2006). Newly emerging serovars and multivalent bacterins As described in the Canine leptospirosis: epidemiology and clinical characteristics section, an increased prevalence of dogs seropositive for Leptospira spp. has been reported in various countries around the world (EM Broens, personal communication, 2015).22–24 Changes in the epidemiology of canine leptospirosis in North America have led to the inclusion of serovars Grippotyphosa and Pomona in bacterins available there. In Europe, serovars other than the two “classical” bivalent bacterin serovars, Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae, have been reported as emerging serovars, particularly serovars Grippotyphosa and Bratislava.71,72 In recent years, trivalent (serogroups Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, and Grippotyphosa) and tetravalent vaccines (serogroups Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Grippotyphosa, and Australis) have been licensed in European countries. In Australia, commercial bacterins for dogs containing strains of serogroups Icterohaemorrhagiae and/or Australis have been on the market for some time. The US Department of Agriculture, responsible for licensing of new animal vaccines in USA and involved in research into infectious diseases in animals, published a Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) notice Requirements for Addition of Leptospira bratislava in Canine Bacterins73 describing “the minimum evidence required for inclusion of the L. bratislava antigen in licensed leptospira-containing bacterins”. The reason for this requirement was the lack of evidence by isolation for serovar Bratislava as a significant pathogen of dogs in the US. Nevertheless, in several European countries, strains of serovar Bratislava have been isolated from dogs with nephritis or reproductive diseases.71 Serovar Bratislava is associated with clinical and subclinical leptospirosis in several animal species, including reproductive disease.74–77 Since cases of mild or latent forms of canine leptospirosis are frequently missed by veterinary practitioners, either because the dog owners do not visit their veterinarian or due to misdiagnosis, the chance of underdiagnosis of serovar Bratislava infections in dogs is relatively high. As long as no novel efficacious and broadly protecting leptospirosis vaccines have been developed, multivalent bacterins such as the tetravalent vaccines in the US and Europe will aid in the battle against canine leptospirosis. Vaccination with these bacterins, however, will only result in significant reduction of clinical disease and spreading by infected dogs when the major serovars of a given region are included in the vaccine. This limitation causes several hurdles in vaccine development. Apart from the difficulties in identifying the most important local serovars, the second hurdle in developing multivalent bacterins is to overcome the risk of insufficient efficacy with higher numbers of serovars in one vaccine. Here again, the use of appropriate adjuvants can minimize this possible risk. However, in the US and Europe (and countries that follow the US or European guidelines), efficacy claims of newly licensed canine leptospirosis bacterins are based on vaccine-challenge studies in dogs, by demonstrating protection against the relevant regional serovars. Therefore, non-efficacious vaccines will not be licensed. Growth media for vaccines Up to the present time, all licensed canine leptospirosis vaccines have been chemically or physically inactivated whole bacterial cell vaccines (bacterins) or “purified” bacterial cell wall vaccines. Early experimental or commercial bacterins were prepared by inactivating leptospires cultivated in media containing rabbit serum. Due to the use of rabbit serum and the variability in rabbit serum batches, the manufacturing processes were inconsistent, bacterial harvest often insufficient, and the vaccines unsafe for the target animals because of the allergenic effects of the foreign serum proteins. Clearly, any serum used must be free of anti-leptospirosis antibodies. Later, “serum-free”, semi-defined, albumin-containing media were developed in which polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) replaced the essential fatty acids that were supplied by the rabbit serum and that are required by the Leptospira spp. bacteria as the sole source of energy and carbon.42 These media (one of which is the Ellinghausen–McCullough–Johnson–Harris [EMJH] medium, named after Ellinghausen and McCullough and modified by Johnson and Harris) are still widely used by researchers and vaccine manufacturers, and contain essential vitamins, salts, and minerals, 0.125% v/v polysorbate 80, and up to 1% w/v bovine serum albumin (BSA).42 As Leptospira spp. bacteria in vitro do not utilize protein, the main function of the albumin component of EMJH is considered to be the detoxification of the fatty acids provided by the polysorbate 80 in the culture medium by reversibly complexing them, while keeping them biologically available. There is batch variation in the ability of BSA to support growth of leptospires. The delipidation of BSA with chloroform/methanol improves growth,42 but is not suitable for large-scale processes. During the 1960s and 1970s, scientists attempted to develop chemically defined media free of serum and/or albumin. These media did not gain wide acceptance by vaccine manufacturers because adaptation of the Leptospira spp. strains to the new medium was mostly required, and many strains could not be cultivated at all. Additionally, a method of detoxification of polysorbates using charcoal to enhance growth of leptospires in the absence of albumin, although feasible at lab scale, appeared not to be suitable for (large-scale) manufacturing purposes, because the detoxification was not consistent, and the processes were time-consuming and expensive, and resulted in inadequate antigen yields. In 2006, a patent application78 was published by a manufacturer reporting a novel method to culture Leptospira spp. bacteria in a protein-free and fatty acid-free medium, whereby fatty acids were “fed” to the bacteria through continuous feeding of low amounts of untreated (non-detoxified) polysorbates. Risk of allergic reactions in small-breed dogs Adverse reactions frequently observed in canine vaccination are allergic reactions such as urticaria, pruritus, facial edema, weakness/depression, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, and hypotension. In a study in the US79 using electronic records of 1,226,159 dogs, a vaccine-associated adverse event (VAAE) rate was recorded as 38.2/10,000 dogs. Young adult, small-breed, neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE. In a random sample of 400 dogs in this study, predominant adverse reactions (observed within 3 days of vaccine administration) consisted of facial or periorbital edema (31%), wheals or urticaria (21%), generalized pruritus (15%), and vomiting (10%). A Japanese research group80 suggested that immediate-type allergic reactions in dogs after vaccination were induced by type I hypersensitivity mediated by IgE directed against vaccine components such as fetal calf serum (FCS), gelatin, and casein. In their subsequent study,81 they detected IgE reactivity against BSA and other unknown bovine serum components, and they recommended elimination of FCS, BSA, and stabilizer proteins from the live and inactivated components of canine vaccines. Day,82 however, concluded that although there have always been adverse reactions to vaccinations in dogs and cats, the prevalence of such reactions is extremely low. Nevertheless, in a more recent study in Japan83 with data from 57,300 dogs vaccinated with non-rabies combined vaccines, the VAAE rate was 62.7/10,000 dogs, which is almost twice as high as the VAAE rate in USA study. The authors suggested that the overrepresentation of small breeds in Japan and the proposed higher risk of VAAEs in dogs of small breeds (≤10 kg body weight) may have contributed to the higher VAAE rate in comparison with other countries. Despite the generally accepted view that small-breed dogs may be at higher risk of VAEEs, there is no consensus of whether or not the currently licensed canine leptospirosis vaccines are safe enough for small-breed dogs.6 Although the exact cause(s) of adverse reactions in dogs after vaccination with one of the available commercial leptospirosis vaccines are yet to be identified, some vaccine manufacturers have introduced refinements of their production processes to reduce the content of potentially allergenic compounds.84,85 Potential for recombinant vaccines As outlined in the previous “Risk of allergic reactions in small-breed dogs” section, bacterin vaccines induce immunity that is restricted to serovars that are closely related through surface-exposed, agglutinating, LPS antigens. Immunity following natural infection is likewise generally accepted as being serovar, or at best serogroup, specific. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that cross-protective immunity can be stimulated and that it is mediated by proteins (reviewed by Adler61). Vaccines based upon conserved leptospiral proteins would offer significant advantages, including broad coverage, ease and consistency of production, and reduced cost. There is now a substantial literature on protection studies performed with a large range of recombinant proteins in laboratory animals, most commonly hamsters, guinea pigs, or gerbils. Unfortunately, almost all of the claims of protection do not withstand rigorous scrutiny and are therefore dubious. The most common problems are inappropriate statistical analyses, lack of reproducibility, the use of incorrect controls, and the use of inadequate challenge doses.61 The outer membrane protein LigA currently represents the most promising candidate antigen. However, there is evidence that it may not protect against some serovars; for example, clear protective homologous immunity in hamsters has been shown with serovar Copenhageni, while homologous LigA did not protect against Manilae or Canicola.61 The reasons for this disparity are unknown. Alternative delivery methods such as adenovirus vector (lipL32)86 and plasmid DNA (lipL32, flaB)87,88 have been reported; however, the results do not withstand biological and statistical scrutiny, and these approaches have not been developed further. A recent study89 suggested that immunization with LipL32 reduced kidney invasion in hamsters, but notably, there was no protection from lethality, thus limiting the value of these results. Indeed, a recent re-evaluation indicated that LipL32, the main candidate in these and many other vaccine studies, is not exposed on the leptospiral surface.90 A further caveat is that vaccination studies cannot necessarily be extrapolated to different animal species. Proper vaccination and challenge experiments in the target animal species are the only valid criteria for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Therefore, there is no prospect of a recombinant vaccine for canine leptospirosis in the foreseeable future. Disclosure EK is an employee of, and BA has acted as an expert adviser to, Merck, Sharp and Dohme Animal Health. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work. Figure 1 Kidney cortex, transverse section through convoluted tubules, Warthin-Starry staining (magnification 400×). Notes: Dog from non-vaccinated control group challenged with serovar Canicola. White arrow indicates massive presence of leptospires in lumen of convoluted tubule; black arrows indicate mononuclear infiltration. Table 1 Overview of most common serogroups in dogs in different geographical regions and periods based on serological data published between 1973 and 2014 Geographic region Country Reference Year(s) of investigations Number of sera, % positivea Predominant serogroups, expressed in % of seropositive dogsb Remarks Europe Scotland 91 ≤1973 120, 39% Can, 79%; Ict, 11% Vaccinated and non-vaccinated urban dogs Germany 92 ≤1974 347, 13% Grip, 56%, Ict, 15%; Sej, 15% Different service and working breeds Ireland 93 ≤1974 446, 34% Can, 50%; Ict, 46% Urban and suburban dogs the Netherlands 38 1969–1982 1,289, 10% Ict, 76%; Can, 24% Serum samples submitted for MAT Germany 94 1985–1988 993, 31% Grip + Aus, 28%; Sej, 3% South Bavaria 408, 33% Grip + Aus, 18%; Sej, 6% North Bavaria and other regions Italy 95 ≤2002 245, 29% Aus, 36%; Gri, 19%; Can, 11%; Ict, 8% Privately owned dogs and kenneled dogs (most stray dogs) Greece 96 ≤2003 254, 12% Ict Randomly selected serum samples Germany 97 1999–2002 3,671, 42% Ict; Gri; Can; Aus; Sejc Serum samples submitted for MAT by veterinary practitioners France 98 ≤2006 (5-year period) 2,457, N/A% Ict, Aus, Sej, Can, Gric N/A Germany 99 1990–2003 42, 100% Gri, 31%; Sej, 24%; Ict, 17%; Can, 12%; Aus, 7% Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis Germany 100 2003–2006 39, 100% Ict, 26%; Aus, 26%; Sej, 8%; Gri, 5%; Pom, 5% Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis France 101 2003–2008 37, 100% Ictc Dogs suspected of leptospirosis the Netherlands 102 2003 86, 74% Ict, Canc Healthy dogs 2003 26, 85% Ict, Ausc Non-vaccinated dogs in hunting pack 2009 100, 37% Ictc Dog sera submitted to commercial labs Switzerland 103 2007–2008 52, 100% Aus, Gri, Pom, Aut, Ictc Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis Germany 104 2006–2011 329, N/A% Aus, 24%; Gri, 20%; Pom, 9% Dogs suspected of leptospirosis Switzerland 24 2003–2012 298, 44% Aus, Gri, Pom, Autc Dogs suspected of leptospirosis France 105 2008–2011 232, 100% Aus, Gric Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis North America Canada 106 ≤1976 619, 6% Aut, 40%; Can, 30% 600 stray dogs; 19 patients USA 107 ≤1980 433, 38% Ict Urban stray dogs 123, 19% Ict Suburban stray dogs Canada 108 ≤1991 474, 39% Can + Ict, 14% Dog sera submitted for MAT: Can, 10%; Ict, 10%; Aus, 3% Likely post-vaccination titers Post-infection titers Canada 22 1998–2001 462, 26% Aut (paradoxical) Dog sera submitted for MAT Canada 109 1996–2001 1,260, 29% (≥1:800) Gri; Ausc Dog sera submitted for MAT 15, 100% (≥1:800) Gri, 100% Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis USA 110 2001 500, 21% Gri; Ict; Canc Privately owned dogs and patients USA 111 1997–2002 470, 11% Gri, Aus, Ict, Pomc Dog sera submitted for MAT 34, 100% Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis USA 112 1999–2001 950, 23% Gri, 14%; Aus, 6% Healthy vacc dogs 291, 30% Gri, 13%; Can, 8%; Aus, 4% Healthy non-vacc dogs USA 113 1998–2000 43, 100% Pom, 40%; Can, 9%; Aus, 5%; Gri, 5% Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis USA 114 2000–2007 33,119, 8% Gri, Pom, Aus, Autc Dog sera submitted for MAT South, Central Argentina 115 ≤1980 143, 51% Can, 37%; Pyr, 5%; Aut, 2% Stray dogs America; Chile 116 ≤1996 25, 28% All dogs: Dogs diagnosed with leptospirosis Caribbean 12, 17% Can, 36%; Pyr, 27% Dogs with other diagnosis 13, 61% Dogs without diagnosis Barbados 117 ≤1997 48, 62% Aut, 22%; Ict, 8%; Aus, 8% Healthy control dogs 46, 75% Ict, 36%; Aus, 13%; Aut, 8% Acutely ill dogs Eight countries in this region 118 2002–2014 Per reviewed study:,100 to .400, N/A% Depending on country: Ict, Can, Aut, Tar, Aus, Gri, Pom, Sej, Louc Different categories of dogs Asia, South Australia 119 1971–1972 600, 7% Ict, 73%; Pom, 15% Dogs from Sydney Pacific Fiji 120 ≤1984 100, 57% Bal, 12%; Aus, 11%; Ict, 5% N/A Micronesia 121 1995–1996 Unclear Aus (serovars Aus and Bra) Majority dogs: farm dogs New Zealand 122 ≤2002 466, 14% Ict, 62% Healthy dogs (lower North Island, New Zealand) Taiwan 123 2004 241, 46% She, Can, Aus, Ictc Stray dogs Thailand 124 2004 210, 11% Bat, Can, Aus, Ictc Randomly selected dog sera (university hospital) Australia 125 ≤2008 956, 1.9% Bal, 39%; Ict, 22% (percentages of 18 seropositive dogs) Dogs from different regions in Australia Japan 126 2006–2007 801, 27% Ict; Autc Patients from vet clinics from all 47 prefectures Japan 127 2007–2011 58, 52% Heb, Aus, Autc Dogs suspected of leptospirosis India 128 2006–2008 40, 18% Pyr, 100% Dogs suspected of leptospirosis Africa; Middle Egypt 129 ≤1973 50, 12% Can, 83%; Ict, 17% Stray dogs East Turkey 130 ≤2005 116, 44% Aus, Canc Healthy stray dogs Nigeria 131 2005–2006 52, 100% Gri, Aus, Pomc Privately owned dogs suspected of leptospirosis South Africa 132 2008–2009 530, 5% Can, Pyrc Privately owned dogs and stray dogs Zimbabwe 133 ≤2012 250, 16% Not tested (ELISA used instead of MAT) Randomly selected urban dogs Uganda 134 2011 105, 27% Ict, Can, Pyrc Privately owned rural dogs a Notes: Percentage of seropositive dogs, with criterion for seropositivity (MAT cut-off) varying between studies from 1:20 to 1:400 in healthy dogs, and from 1:100 to 1:3,200 in dogs with acute leptospirosis; b mixed reactions with same titers against different serogroups not included; c percentages with predominant serogroups not given. Abbreviations: MAT, microscopic agglutination test; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; Can, Canicola; Ict, Icterohaemorrhagiae; Gri, Grippotyphosa; Sej, Sejroe; Aus, Australis; Bal, Ballum; Pom, Pomona; Aut, Autumnalis; Pyr, Pyrogenes; Tar, Tarassovi; Heb, Hebdomadis; Bat, Bataviae; She, Shermani; Bra, Bratislava; Lou, Louisiana; pos, positive; N/A, not available; vacc, vaccinated; non-vacc, not vaccinated. Table 2 Clinical characteristics of canine leptospirosis Clinical presentation Reported frequency of clinical signs Clinical signs References Peracute (<24 hours; rarelydiagnosed)a Most frequent Either sudden death or death preceded by few clinical signs, eg, lethargy/depression, anorexia 9,32,38,135–137 Less frequent Lethargy/depression, anorexia, vomiting, diarrhea Acute (1–2 days; not often diagnosed) Most frequent Lethargy/depression, anorexia, vomiting, muscle weakness, myalgia, death 9,32,33,38,39,48, 135–140 Less frequent Fever, hypothermia, diarrhea, dehydration, PUPD, jaundice, red eyes, intestinal invaginations Subacute (2–7 days; most common form of diagnosed cases) Most frequent Lethargy/depression, anorexia, vomiting, fever, hypothermia, dehydration, polyuria and polydipsia, abdominal pain on palpation, diarrhea 6,9,32,33,36,38,39, 48,135–140 Less frequent Intestinal invaginations, weight loss, muscle weakness, myalgia, coughing, dyspnea, jaundice, pale mucous membranes, petechiae, abortion, death Chronic (> 1 week; not often diagnosed) Most frequent polyuria and polydipsia, jaundice, weight loss, emaciation, anterior uveitis 6,28,36,137 Less frequent Petechiae, hemoptysis, ascites, abortion, death None = subclinical leptospirosis (probably majority of infected dogs) Not applicable Not applicable 25,137 Note: a Time after commencement of clinical signs. Abbreviation: PUPD, polyuria/polydipsia. Table 3 Treatment strategies in different clinical presentations of canine leptospirosis Speed of onset and progress of clinical signs Affected organ system Pathology and disorders Antibiotic therapy6 Supportive therapy6,47,48,141–143 aIntravenous fluid replacement therapy/dialysis Other treatments Peracute, acute, subacute Liver Acute hepatitis Vomiting/diarrhea (ie, oral medication not effective): ampicillin, 20 mg/kg BW IV every 6 hrs for 2 wks or penicillin G, 25,000–40,000 U/kg Hypoalbuminemia: plasma or colloids N/A Kidneys Acute interstitial nephritis, acute renal failure, uremia (also known as azotemia) Lactate Ringer’s solution (≥60 mL/kg BW/day) Pain medication: buprenorphine, 0.01 mg/kg BW IV every 6 hrs Oliguria: idem with diuretics (eg, furosemide or mannitol) Severe anuria: hemodialysis; hypoalbuminemia: plasma or colloids Lungs Pulmonary hemorrhages, lung edema BW IV every 12 hrs for 2 wks After vomiting/diarrhea have subsided: doxycycline, 5 mg/kg Pulmonary edema (secondary): plasma or colloids Pulmonary hemorrhages: oxygen therapy (eg, with nasal tube) If severe: mechanical ventilation Gastro-intestinal tract Acute gastritis, acuteenteritis, intestinal intussusception BW orally every 12 hrs for 2 wks No vomiting/diarrhea: doxycyclin, 5 mg/kg BW orally every 12 hrs for 2 wks N/A Uremic gastritis/vomiting: histamine receptor blockers or proton pump inhibitors, orally Intestinal intussusception: manual reduction or intestinal resection Pain medication: buprenorphine, 0.01 mg/kg BW IV every 6 hrs Blood vessels, blood Vasculitis, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, hemorrhages Coagulation disorders: whole blood or plasma N/A Chronic Liver Chronic hepatitis When dog is still leptospiruric: doxycycline, 5 mg/kg orally every 12 hrs for at least 2 wks N/A N/A Kidneys Chronic interstitial nephritis, chronic renal disease Hypertension: antihypertensive agents (either against renin- or volume-dependent hypertension) Hypokalemia, hyperphosphatemia: treatment with phosphate-binding salts (preferably calcium) N/A Lungs None N/A N/A Gastro-intestinal tract Chronic (uremic) gastritis, chronic enteritis N/A Uremic gastritis/vomiting: histamine receptor blockers or proton pump inhibitors, orally Prolonged inappetence: enteral or parenteral nutrition Blood vessels, blood None N/A N/A Note: a Caveat: life-threatening fluid overload must be prevented. Abbreviations: BW, body weight; IV, intravenous; hrs, hours; wks, weeks; N/A, not applicable; idem, Lactate Ringer’s solution. ==== Refs References 1 Adler B de la Peña Moctezuma A Leptospira and leptospirosis Vet Microbiol 2010 140 3 287 296 19345023 2 Levett PN Systematics of Leptospiraceae Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2015 387 11 20 25388130 3 Ellis WA Animal leptospirosis Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2015 387 99 137 25388134 4 Verma A Stevenson B Adler B Leptospirosis in horses Vet Microbiol 2013 167 61 66 23647816 5 Goldstein RE Canine leptospirosis Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2010 40 1091 1101 20933138 6 Sykes JE Hartmann K Lunn KF Moore GE Stoddard RA Goldstein RE 2010 ACVIM small animal consensus statement on leptospirosis: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment, and prevention J Vet Intern Med 2011 25 1 1 13 21155890 7 Feigin RD Lobes LA Jr Anderson D Pickering L Human leptospirosis from immunized dogs Ann Intern Med 1973 79 6 777 785 4586815 8 Gay N Soupé-Gilbert ME Goarant C Though not reservoirs, dogs might transmit Leptospira in New Caledonia Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014 11 4316 4325 24747539 9 Greene CE Sykes JE Moore GE Leptospirosis Greene CE Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat St Louis, Missouri Elsevier 2012 431 447 10 Adler B Leptospira and leptospirosis Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Verlag 2015 11 Murray GL The molecular basis of leptospiral pathogenesis Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2015 387 139 185 25388135 12 Adler B Pathogenesis of leptospirosis: cellular and molecular aspects Vet Microbiol 2014 172 353 358 24999234 13 Murray GL The lipoprotein LipL32, an enigma of leptospiral biology Vet Microbiol 2013 162 2–4 305 314 23206414 14 Adler B Lo M Seemann T Murray GL Pathogenesis of leptospirosis: the influence of genomics Vet Microbiol 2011 153 1–2 73 81 21440384 15 Croda J Figueira CP Wunder EA Jr Targeted mutagenesis in pathogenic Leptospira species: disruption of the LigB gene does not affect virulence in animal models of leptospirosis Infect Immun 2008 76 12 5826 5833 18809657 16 Murray GL Srikram A Hoke DE Major surface protein LipL32 is not required for either acute or chronic infection with Leptospira interrogans Infect Immun 2009 77 3 952 958 19103763 17 Caimano MJ Sivasankaran SK Allard A A model system for studying the transcriptomic and physiological changes associated with mammalian host-adaptation by Leptospira interrogans serovar Copenhageni PLoS Pathog 2014 10 3 e1004004 24626166 18 Levett PN Leptospirosis Clin Microbiol Rev 2001 14 2 296 326 11292640 19 Mussot D La Scola B Laboratory diagnosis of leptospirosis: a challenge J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2013 46 245 252 23639380 20 Ellis WA Thrusfield MV Van den Broek AHM Letters to the Editors J Small Animal Pract 1991 91 2 432 21 Levett PN Usefulness of serologic analysis as a predictor of the infecting serovar in patients with severe leptospirosis Clin Infect Dis 2003 36 447 452 12567302 22 Prescott JF McEwen B Taylor J Woods JP Abrams-Ogg A Wilcock B Resurgence of leptospirosis in dogs in Ontario: recent findings Can Vet J 2002 43 12 955 961 12561690 23 Moore GE Guptill LF Glickman NW Caldanaro RJ Aucoin D Glickman LT Canine leptospirosis, United States, 2002–2004 Emerg Infect Dis 2006 12 3 501 503 16704794 24 Major A Schweighauser A Francey T Increasing incidence of canine leptospirosis in Switzerland Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014 11 7 7242 7260 25032740 25 Scanziani E Crippa L Giusti AM Leptospira interrogans serovar sejroe infection in a group of laboratory dogs Lab Anim 1995 29 3 300 306 7564215 26 Rühl-Fehlert CI Brem S Feller W Kopp H Meyer P Rinke M Clinical, microbiological and pathological observations in laboratory beagle dogs infected with leptospires of the serogroup Sejroe Exp Toxicol Pathol 2000 52 201 207 10930120 27 Bishop L Strandberg JD Adams RJ Brownstein DG Patterson R Chronic active hepatitis in dogs associated with leptospires Am J Vet Res 1979 40 6 839 844 475136 28 Adamus C Buggin-Daubié M Izembart A Chronic hepatitis associated with leptospiral infection in vaccinated beagles J Comp Pathol 1997 117 4 311 328 9502268 29 Silva JJ Dalston MO Carvalho JE Setúbal S Oliveira JM Pereira MM Clinicopathological and immunohistochemical features of the severe pulmonary form of leptospirosis Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 2002 35 4 395 359 12170336 30 Tattevin P Léveiller G Flicoteaux R Respiratory manifestations of leptospirosis: a retrospective study Lung 2005 183 4 283 289 16211464 31 Gouveia EL Metcalfe J de Carvalho AL Leptospirosis-associated severe pulmonary hemorrhagic syndrome, Salvador, Brazil Emerg Infect Dis 2008 14 3 505 508 18325275 32 Rentko VT Clark N Ross LA Schelling SH Canine leptospirosis. A retrospective study of 17 cases J Vet Intern Med 1992 6 4 235 244 1522555 33 Birnbaum N Barr SC Center SA Schermerhorn T Randolph JF Simpson KW Naturally acquired leptospirosis in 36 dogs: serological and clinicopathological features J Small Anim Pract 1998 39 5 231 236 9631358 34 Gendron K Christe A Walter S Serial CT features of pulmonary leptospirosis in 10 dogs Vet Rec 2014 174 7 169 24420873 35 Baumann D Flückiger M Radiographic findings in the thorax of dogs with leptospiral infection Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2001 42 4 305 307 11499704 36 Kohn B Steinicke K Arndt G Pulmonary abnormalities in dogs with leptospirosis J Vet Intern Med 2010 24 1277 1282 20738768 37 Klopfleisch R Kohn B Plog S An emerging pulmonary haemorrhagic syndrome in dogs: similar to the human leptospiral pulmonary haemorrhagic syndrome? Vet Med Int 2010 2010 928541 21274452 38 Hartman EG Van den Ingh TS Rothuizen J Clinical, pathological and serological features of spontaneous canine leptospirosis. An evaluation of the IgM- and IgG-specific ELISA Vet Immunol Immunopathol 1986 13 261 271 3798734 39 Schweighauser A Burgener IA Gaschen F Small intestinal intussusception in five dogs with acute renal failure and suspected leptospirosis (L. australis ) J Vet Emerg Crit Care 2009 19 4 363 368 40 Schulz BS Seybold N Adamik KN Ludwig E Hartmann K Ileocolic intestinal intussusception in a dog with leptospirosis Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 2010 38 6 403 405 22212754 41 Rissi D Brown CA Diagnostic features in 10 naturally occurring cases of acute fatal canine leptospirosis J Vet Diagn Invest 2014 26 6 799 804 25274745 42 Cameron CE Leptospiral structure, physiology, and metabolism Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2015 387 21 41 25388131 43 Picardeau M Diagnosis and epidemiology of leptospirosis Med Mal Infect 2013 43 1 9 23337900 44 Perez J Goarant C Rapid Leptospira identification by direct sequencing of the diagnostic PCR products in New Caledonia BMC Microbiol 2010 10 325 21176235 45 Hartman EG An IgM- and IgG-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect anti-leptospiral immunoglobulins in dogs Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A 1984 257 508 510 6506923 46 Abdoel TH Houwers DJ van Dongen AM Rapid test for the serodiagnosis of acute canine leptospirosis Vet Microbiol 2011 150 1–2 211 213 21310556 47 Wohl J Canine leptospirosis Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1996 18 11 1215 1224 48 Adin CA Cowgill LD Treatment and outcome of dogs with leptospirosis: 36 cases (1990–1998) J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000 216 3 371 375 10668536 49 Ido Y Hoki R Ito H Wani H The prophylaxis of Weil’s disease (Spirochaetosis icterohaemorrhagica) J Exp Med 1916 24 471 483 19868055 50 Bey RF Johnson RC Current status of leptospiral vaccines Prog Vet Microbiol Immunol 1986 2 175 197 3078649 51 Fort Dodge Animal Health unveils Leptospira vaccine [webpage on the Internet] Lenexa KS Advanstar Communications, Veterinary Group Available from: http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/fort-dodge-animal-health-unveils-leptospira-vaccine Accessed February 1, 2015 52 Bey RF Auran NE Johnson RC Immunogenicity of whole cell and outer envelope vaccines in hamsters Infect Immun 1974 10 1051 1056 16558088 53 Takashima I Yanagawa R Immunizing effects of structural components of Leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A 1975 233 1 93 98 1202875 54 Reif JS Marshak RR Editorial: Leptospirosis: a contemporary zoonosis Ann Intern Med 1973 79 6 893 894 4761913 55 Meyer KF Brunner KT Chemotherapy and immunity in Leptospira canicola and L. icterohaemorrhagiae infections Acta Tropica 1950 7 1 6 56 Huhn RG Baldwin CD Cardella MA Immunity to leptospirosis: bacterins in dogs and hamsters Am J Vet Res 1975 36 1 71 74 234704 57 Marshall V Efficacy of Leptospira vaccine J Am Vet Med Assoc 1983 183 1 12 34 6874516 58 André-Fontaine G Branger C Gray AW Klaasen HL Comparison of the efficacy of three commercial bacterins in preventing canine leptospirosis Vet Rec 2003 153 165 169 12934727 59 European Medicines Agency Veterinary Regulatory. Product-Information Requirements Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000204.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058002d4ee Accessed May 22, 2015 60 Code of Federal Regulations Title 9, Chapter I, Subchapter E, Part 102, §102.5 U.S. Veterinary Biological Product License Available from: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=838dbafb69eff2574b8aa7f800b9d61c&mc=true&node=se9.1.102_15&rgn=div8 Accessed May 22, 2015 61 Adler B Vaccines against leptospirosis Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2015 387 251 272 25388138 62 Sonrier C Branger C Michel V Ruvoën-Clouet N Ganière JP André-Fontaine G Evidence of cross-protection within Leptospira interrogans in an experimental model Vaccine 2000 19 86 94 10924790 63 Broughton ES Scarnell J Prevention of renal carriage of leptospirosis in dogs by vaccination Vet Rec 1985 117 307 311 4060538 64 Klaasen HL Molkenboer MJCH Vrijenhoek MP Kaashoek MJ Duration of immunity in dogs vaccinated against leptospirosis with a bivalent inactivated vaccine Vet Microbiol 2003 95 1–2 121 132 12860082 65 Schreiber P Martin V Najbar W Sanquer A Gueguen S Lebreux B Prevention of renal infection and urinary shedding in dogs by a Leptospira vaccination Vet Microbiol 2005 108 1–2 113 118 15917139 66 Minke JM Bey R Tronel JP Onset and duration of protective immunity against clinical disease and renal carriage in dogs provided by a bi-valent inactivated leptospirosis vaccine Vet Microbiol 2009 137 1–2 137 145 19179023 67 Klaasen HL van der Veen M Molkenboer MJ Sutton D A novel tetravalent Leptospira bacterin protects against infection and shedding following challenge in dogs Vet Rec 2013 172 7 181 23180149 68 Brown RA Blumerman S Gay C Bolin C Duby R Baldwin CL Comparison of three different leptospiral vaccines for induction of a type 1 immune response to Leptospira borgpetersenii serovar Hardjo Vaccine 2003 21 27–30 4448 4458 14505928 69 Naiman BM Alt D Bolin CA Zuerner R Baldwin CL Protective killed Leptospira borgpetersenii vaccine induces potent Th1 immunity comprising responses by CD4 and gammadelta T lymphocytes Infect Immun 2001 69 12 7550 7558 11705932 70 Bey RF Johnson RC Immunogenicity and humoral and cell-mediated immune responses to leptospiral whole cell, outer envelope, and protoplasmic cylinder vaccines in hamsters and dogs Am J Vet Res 1982 43 5 835 840 7201285 71 Ellis WA Control of canine leptospirosis in Europe: time for a change? Vet Rec 2010 167 16 602 605 21257439 72 Renaud C Andrews S Djelouadji Z Prevalence of the Leptospira serovars bratislava, grippotyphosa, mozdok and pomona in French dogs Vet J 2013 196 1 126 127 23141966 73 United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Notice No 05-06: Requirements for Addition of Leptospira bratislava in Canine Bacterins Aimes, IA United Sates Department of Agriculture 2005 Available from: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/publications/notice_05_06.pdf Accessed February 1, 2015 74 Bolin CA Cassells JA Isolation of Leptospira interrogans serovar bratislava from stillborn and weak pigs in Iowa J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990 196 1601 1604 2189848 75 Graham EM Taylor DJ Bacterial reproductive pathogens of cats and dogs Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2012 42 561 582 22482819 76 Hamond C Pinna A Martins G Lilenbaum W The role of leptospirosis in reproductive disorders in horses Trop Anim Health Prod 2014 46 1 10 23990441 77 Nielsen JN Cochran GK Cassells JA Hanson LE Leptospira interrogans serovar bratislava infection in two dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991 199 3 351 352 1917641 78 Pierre N Carboulec Y Merial Ltd, assignee. Leptospirosis culture process United States Patent US 8642316 B2 4 20 2006 79 Moore GE Guptill LF Ward MP Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005 227 7 1102 1108 16220670 80 Ohmori K Masuda K Maeda S IgE reactivity to vaccine components in dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2005 104 3–4 249 256 15734545 81 Ohmori K Masuda K DeBoer DJ Sakaguchi M Tsujimoto H Immunoblot analysis for IgE-reactive components of fetal calf serum in dogs that developed allergic reactions after non-rabies vaccination Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2007 115 1–2 166 171 17118462 82 Day MJ Vaccine side effects: fact and fiction Vet Microbiol 2006 117 51 58 16701964 83 Miyaji K Suzuki A Shimakura H Large-scale survey of adverse reactions to canine non-rabies combined vaccines in Japan Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2012 145 447 452 22264736 84 Klaasen E Adriaanse HMA van der Veen M Reduced risk of allergic reactions in dogs to a new tetravalent canine leptospirosis vaccine Presented at: Voorjaarsdagen 46th European Veterinary Conference 2013 Amsterdam, the Netherlands 85 Pfizer Animal Health [webpage on the Internet] Product Guide – Pfizer Family of Vaccines New Jersey, USA Available from: https://www.zoetisus.com/_locale-assets/mcm-portal-assets/my-resources/species-landing-page-pdf/dog/canine_vaccines.pdf Accessed February 1, 2015 86 Branger C Sonrier C Chatrenet B Identification of the hemolysis-associated protein 1 as a cross-protective immunogen of Leptospira interrogans by adenovirus-mediated vaccination Infect Immun 2001 69 11 6831 6838 11598056 87 Branger C Chatrenet B Gauvrit A Protection against Leptospira interrogans sensu lato challenge by DNA immunization with the gene encoding hemolysin-associated protein 1 Infect Immun 2005 73 7 4062 4069 15972494 88 Dai B You Z Chen Z Yan H Fang Z Protection against leptospirosis by immunization with plasmid DNA encoding 33 kDa endoflagellin of L. interrogans serovar lai Chin Med Sci J 2000 15 1 14 19 12899392 89 Humphryes PC Weeks ME AbuOun M Thomson G Núñez A Coldham NG Vaccination with leptospiral outer membrane lipoprotein LipL32 reduces kidney invasion of Leptospira interrogans serovar canicola in hamsters Clin Vaccine Immunol 2014 21 4 546 551 24521782 90 Pinne M Haake DA LipL32 is a subsurface lipoprotein of Leptospira interrogans : presentation of new data and reevaluation of previous studies PLoS One 2013 8 1 e51025 23323152 91 Michna S Ellis W Incidence of antibodies for leptospirosis in dogs in Glasgow, and a comparison of the conventional (Schuffner’s) and rapid microscopical agglutination (RMAT) tests Vet Rec 1973 93 24 633 634 4785354 92 Fuchs GHP Hartmann H Über das Vorkommen von Leptospireninfektionen bei Dienst und Gebrauchshunderassen im Bezirk Dresden [Occurrence of Leptospira infections among service and working breeds of dogs in the Dresden region] Arch Exp Veterinärmed 1974 28 6 869 877 German 93 Timoney JF Sheahan BJ Timoney PJ Leptospira and infectious canine hepatitis (ICH) virus antibodies and nephritis in Dublin dogs Vet Rec 1974 94 14 316 319 4832072 94 Brem S Staak C Schönberg A Kopp H Meyer P Investigations of leptospiral serology in dogs Tierarztliche Umschau 1999 54 2 83 87 95 Scanziani E Origgi F Giusti AM Serological survey of leptospiral infection in kennelled dogs in Italy J Small Anim Pract 2002 43 4 154 157 11996391 96 Burriel AR Dalley C Woodward MJ Prevalence of Leptospira species among farmed and domestic animals in Greece Vet Rec 2003 153 5 146 148 12934797 97 Geier-Dömling D Heil-Franke G Müller E The prevalence of serum antibodies against some Leptospira in dogs Kleintierpraxis 2003 48 12 755 758 98 André-Fontaine G Canine leptospirosis – do we have a problem? Vet Microbiol 2006 117 1 19 24 16684591 99 Geisen V Stengel C Hartmann K Epidemiologische Situation der Leptospirose beim Hund in Südddeutschland [Epidemiological situation of leptospirosis in dogs in South Germany] Tierärztl Prax [Vet pract] 2008 36 K 329 336 German 100 Gerlach T Stephan I Epidemiologische Situation der kaninen Leptospirose in Norddeutschland in den Jahren 2003–2006 [Epidemiological situation of canine leptospirosis in North Germany in the period 2003–2006. A retrospective study]. Eine Retrospektive Studie. Tierärztl Prax [Vet pract ] 2007 35 K 421 429 German 101 Hazart G Hugonnard M Kodjo A La leptospirose canine en France: étude rétrospective de 37 cas [Canine leptospirosis in France: A retrospective study of 37 cases] Prat Med Chir Anim Cie 2010 45 59 64 French 102 Houwers DJ Goris MG Abdoel T Agglutinating antibodies against pathogenic Leptospira in healthy dogs and horses indicate common exposure and regular occurrence of subclinical infections Vet Microbiol 2011 148 2–4 449 451 20863632 103 Barmettler R Schweighauser A Bigler S Grooters AM Francey T Assessment of exposure to Leptospira serovars in veterinary staff and dog owners in contact with infected dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011 238 2 183 188 21235371 104 Mayer-Scholl A Luge E Draeger A Nöckler K Kohn B Distribution of Leptospira serogroups in dogs from Berlin, Germany Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2013 13 3 200 202 23428087 105 Ayral FC Bicout DJ Pereira H Artois M Kodjo A Distribution of Leptospira serogroups in cattle herds and dogs in France Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014 91 4 756 759 25092816 106 Kingscote B Tittiger F Serological survey of dogs from Toronto for leptospiral antibodies Can Vet J 1976 17 7 192 193 949675 107 Thiermann AB Canine leptospirosis in Detroit Am J Vet Res 1980 41 10 1659 1661 7224293 108 Prescott JF Ferrier RL Nicholson VM Johnston KM Hoff B Is canine leptospirosis underdiagnosed in southern Ontario? A case report and serological survey Can Vet J 1991 32 481 486 17423841 109 Boutilier P Carr A Schulman RL Leptospirosis in dogs: a serologic survey and case series 1996 to 2001 Vet Ther 2003 4 4 387 396 15136980 110 Harkin KR Roshto YM Sullivan JT Purvis TJ Chengappa MM Comparison of polymerase chain reaction assay, bacteriologic culture, and serologic testing in assessment of prevalence of urinary shedding of leptospires in dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003 222 9 1230 1233 12725310 111 Ward MP Guptill LF Prahl A Wu CC Serovar-specific prevalence and risk factors for leptospirosis among dogs: 90 cases (1997–2002) J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004 224 12 1958 1963 15230451 112 Stokes JE Kaneene JB Schall WD Prevalence of serum antibodies against six Leptospira serovars in healthy dogs J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007 230 11 1657 1664 17542733 113 Ghneim GS Viers JH Chomel BB Kass PH Descollonges DA Johnson ML Use of a case-control study and geographic information systems to determine environmental and demographic risk factors for canine leptospirosis Vet Res 2007 38 1 37 50 17074294 114 Gautam R Guptill LF Wu CC Potter A Moore GE Spatial and spatiotemporal clustering of overall and serovar-specific Leptospira microscopic agglutination test (MAT) seropositivity among dogs in the United States from 2000 through 2007 Prev Vet Med 2010 96 1–2 122 131 20580454 115 Myers DM Leptospiral antibodies in stray dogs of Moreno, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina Rev Argent Microbiol 1980 12 1 18 22 7348314 116 Pineda M López J García M Serological survey of canine leptospirosis in Chillán, Chile Arch Med Vet 1996 28 1 59 66 117 Weekes CC Everard CO Levett PN Seroepidemiology of canine leptospirosis on the island of Barbados Vet Microbiol 1997 57 2–3 215 222 9355256 118 Petrakovsky J Bianchi A Fisun H Nájera-Aguilar P Pereira MM Animal leptospirosis in Latin America and the Caribbean countries: reported outbreaks and literature review (2002–2014) Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014 11 10 10770 10789 25325360 119 Watson AD Wannan JS Porges WL Testoni FJ Leptospiral agglutinins in dogs in Sydney Aust Vet J 1976 52 9 425 426 1016169 120 Collings DF Leptospira interrogans infection in domestic and wild animals in Fiji N Z Vet J 1984 32 2 21 24 16031033 121 Simms JR Animal leptospirosis in the Federated States of Micronesia Pacific Health Dialog 1998 5 1 30 37 122 O’Keefe JS Jenner JA Sandifer NC Antony A Williamson NB A serosurvey for antibodies to Leptospira in dogs in the lower North Island of New Zealand N Z Vet J 2002 50 1 23 25 16032205 123 Lai CJ Liu CC Ho D Pan MJ Seroprevalence of Leptospira infection among stray dogs at Northern Taiwan Taiwan Vet J 2005 31 1 1 8 124 Meeyam T Tablerk P Petchanok B Pichpol D Padungtod P Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with leptospirosis in dogs Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2006 37 1 148 153 16771227 125 Zwijnenberg RJ Smythe LD Symonds MI Dohnt MF Toribio JA Cross-sectional study of canine leptospirosis in animal shelter populations in mainland Australia Aust Vet J 2008 86 8 317 323 18673473 126 Iwamoto E Wada Y Fujisaki Y Nationwide survey of Leptospira antibodies in dogs in Japan: Results from microscopic agglutination test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay J Vet Med Sci 2009 71 9 1191 1199 19801899 127 Koizumi N Muto MM Akachi S Molecular and serological investigation of Leptospira and leptospirosis in dogs in Japan J Med Microbiol 2013 62 Pt 4 630 636 23264455 128 Patil D Dahake R Roy S Mukherjee S Chowdhary A Deshmukh R Prevalence of leptospirosis among dogs and rodents and their possible role in human leptospirosis from Mumbai, India Indian J Med Microbiol 2014 32 1 64 67 24399392 129 Siam MA Karim AM Hamed OM Zakaria A The possible role of stray dogs and cats in the epidemiology of some bacterial human pathogens in Egypt Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 1973 20 6 409 414 4759341 130 Aslantaş O Ozdemir V Kiliç S Babür C Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis, toxoplasmosis and leishmaniasis among dogs in Ankara, Turkey Vet Parasitol 2005 129 187 191 15845273 131 Okewole EA Ayoola MO Seroprevalence of leptospiral serovars other than Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae in dogs in the Southwestern Nigeria Veterinarski Arhiv 2009 79 1 87 96 132 Roach JM Van Vuuren M Picard JA A serological survey of antibodies to Leptospira species in dogs in South Africa J S Afr Vet Assoc 2010 81 3 156 159 21247041 133 Dhliwayo S Matope G Marabini L Dutlow K Pfukenyi DM Seroprevalence of leptospirosis in dogs in urban Harare and selected rural communities in Zimbabwe Onderstepoort J Vet Res 2012 79 1 E1 E6 134 Millán J Chirife AD Kalema-Zikusoka G Serosurvey of dogs for human, livestock, and wildlife pathogens, Uganda. 2013;19(4) Emerg Infect Dis 2013 19 4 680 682 23750507 135 Faine S Clinical leptospirosis in humans, and clinical leptospirosis in animals Leptospira and Leptospirosis Boca Raton CRC Press 1994 136 Langston CE Heuter KJ Leptospirosis; a re-emerging zoonotic disease Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2003 33 791 807 12910744 137 Prescott J Canine leptospirosis in Canada: a veterinarian’s perspective CMAJ 2008 178 4 397 398 18268264 138 Geisen V Stengel C Brem S Müller W Greene C Hartmann K Canine leptospirosis infections – clinical signs and outcome with different suspected Leptospira serogroups (42 cases) J Small Anim Pract 2007 48 6 324 328 17490440 139 Miller R Ross S Sullivan N Perkins NR Clinical and epidemiological features of canine leptospirosis in North Queensland Aust Vet J 2007 85 1–2 13 19 17300446 140 van de Maele I Claus A Haesebrouck F Daminet S Leptospirosis in dogs: a review with emphasis on clinical aspects Vet Rec 2008 163 14 409 413 18836154 141 Levitan DM Did you consider leptospirosis? Acute renal failure with or without jaundice can have this zoonotic etiology Vet Forum 1998 42 50 142 Ross L Acute kidney injury in dogs and cats Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2011 41 1 14 21251508 143 Syme H Hypertension in small animal kidney disease Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2011 41 63 89 21251511