BackgroundTicks derived from cats have rarely been evaluated for the presence of pathogens. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Bartonella spp., haemoplasma species and Hepatozoon spp. in ticks collected from cats in the UK.MethodsFive hundred and forty DNA samples extracted from 540 ticks collected from cats presenting to veterinarians in UK practices were used. Samples underwent a conventional generic PCR assay for detection of Hepatozoon spp. and real-time quantitative PCR assays for detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and three feline haemoplasma species and a generic qPCR for detection of Bartonella spp. Feline 28S rDNA served as an endogenous internal PCR control and was assessed within the haemoplasma qPCR assays. Samples positive on the conventional and quantitative generic PCRs were submitted for DNA sequencing for species identification.ResultsFeline 28S rDNA was amplified from 475 of the 540 (88.0%) ticks. No evidence of PCR inhibition was found using an internal amplification control. Of 540 ticks, 19 (3.5%) contained DNA from one of the tick-borne pathogens evaluated. Pathogens detected were: A. phagocytophilum (n = 5; 0.9%), Bartonella spp. (n = 7; 1.3%) [including Bartonella henselae (n = 3; 0.6%) and Bartonella clarridgeiae (n = 1; 0.2%)], haemoplasma species (n = 5; 0.9%), “Candidatus Mycoplasma haemominutum” (n = 3; 0.6%), Mycoplasma haemofelis (n = 1; 0.2%), “Candidatus Mycoplasma turicensis” (n = 1; 0.2%), Hepatozoon spp. (n = 2; 0.4%), Hepatozoon felis (n = 1; 0.2%) and Hepatozoon silvestris (n = 1; 0.2%).ConclusionThese data provide important information on the prevalence of tick-borne pathogens in ticks infesting cats, with the identification of haemoplasma species, A. phagocytophilum, H. felis and Bartonella spp. (including B. henselae and B. clarridgeiae). This study also documents the first report of H. silvestris in ticks collected from domestic cats.

Background: Anaplasma phagocytophilum is the etiological agent of canine granulocytic anaplasmosis in dogs and causes human granulocytic anaplasmosis (HGA). Tick‐borne anaplasmosis has been recognised as an emerging zoonotic health concern worldwide. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of A. phagocytophilum in ticks collected from dogs in the UK and map its distribution. Routine surveillance of tick‐borne disease is essential as part of a “One Health” approach to infectious disease management. Methods: Tick DNA samples collected in 2015 as part of a large‐scale tick surveillance programme were analysed using a previously validated diagnostic quantitative PCR for A. phagocytophilum. Results: PCR analysis indicated that 138 out of 2994 tick DNA samples analysed were positive for A. phagocytophilum, a prevalence of 4.6% (95% CI: 3.89–5.42). Among these 138 tick DNA samples, 131 were from Ixodes ricinus, six were from Ixodes hexagonus and one was from Ixodes canisuga. Three of the I. ricinus tick DNA samples positive for A. phagocytophilum DNA were also positive for Borrelia spp. DNA and one was positive for Babesia spp. DNA, indicating co‐infection. The ticks positive for the pathogen DNA were found widely distributed throughout the UK. Conclusions: These data provide important information on the prevalence and wide distribution of A. phagocytophilum in ticks infesting dogs within the UK.

Fleas, mainly Ctenocephalides felis on both cats and dogs, are a very basic but continuing and common issue in veterinary practice. Fleas are important for their direct effects on infested pets, particularly when animals develop flea allergic dermatitis, and for their transmission of pathogens that can cause serious disease in cats and/or in humanssuch as Bartonella spp. Fleas also bite humans, and negatively affect the pet-human bond. This roundtable discussed flea biology, flea-borne diseases, efficacy of control measures available, and improving compliance and client engagement. Effective control of fleas requires an understanding of their biology, as this affects what strategies will and will not be effective: for example leaving a house empty will not control a flea infestation as the pupae can stay dormant for months. There is now a wide range of products that can be used to control fleas both on the pet and in the environment, including not only sprays but spot-on formulations, collars, oral tablets and injections. Used correctly, these are generally both safe and highly effective, with no signs of resistance developing, thankfully. However, owners often do not use products correctly, whether through inability to do so; lack of understanding of why correct use is important; or simple forgetfulness. A range of measures must be used to engage with clients, educate them and help them to remember to treat their pets against these pernicious parasites.

No abstract