How effective is dog culling in controlling zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis? a critical evaluation of the science, politics and ethics behind this public health policy

• Autor(a) principal: Costa,Carlos Henrique Nery
• Data de Publicação: 2011
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822011000200021
• topic: Kala-azar; Visceral leishmaniasis; Control; Dogs; China; Brazil

INTRODUCTION: Zoonotic kala-azar, a lethal disease caused by protozoa of the genus Leishmania is considered out of control in parts of the world, particularly in Brazil, where transmission has spread to cities throughout most of the territory and mortality presents an increasing trend. Although a highly debatable measure, the Brazilian government regularly culls seropositive dogs to control the disease. Since control is failing, critical analysis concerning the actions focused on the canine reservoir was conducted. METHODS: In a review of the literature, a historical perspective focusing mainly on comparisons between the successful Chinese and Soviet strategies and the Brazilian approach is presented. In addition, analyses of the principal studies regarding the role of dogs as risk factors to humans and of the main intervention studies regarding the efficacy of the dog killing strategy were undertaken. Brazilian political reaction to a recently published systematic review that concluded that the dog culling program lacked efficiency and its effect on public policy were also reviewed. RESULTS: No firm evidence of the risk conferred by the presence of dogs to humans was verified; on the contrary, a lack of scientific support for the policy of killing dogs was confirmed. A bias for distorting scientific data towards maintaining the policy of culling animals was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is no evidence that dog culling diminishes visceral leishmaniasis transmission, it should be abandoned as a control measure. Ethical considerations have been raised regarding distorting scientific results and the killing of animals despite minimal or absent scientific evidence