Veterinarians and zoonotic pathogens, infections and diseases – questionnaire study and case series, Finland

Figures & data

Table 1. Self-reported zoonotic infections, zoonoses and skin lesions suggestive of zoonotic origin based on the responses of all the veterinarians (N = 306) in the questionnaire study 2009.

Type of infection / zoonosis	Number (and percentage) of veterinarians reporting (N = 306)	Specific pathogens / diseases mentioned and their frequency (% of all participating veterinarians)	Reference / further information
Carriage of multi-drug resistant bacteria	0 (0%)
Any zoonosis	46 (15%)		[4]
Slowly-healing vesicular skin lesions	15 (4.9%)		[4]
Other types of skin lesions suggestive of infectious origin	74 (24%)
Bacterial skin infection	36 (12%)	Listeria spp., confirmed 4 (1.3%) and suspected 1 (0.3%) Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, confirmed 3 (1.0%) and suspected 3 (1.0%) Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 1 (0.3%)	A papular-pustular-vesicular dermatitis described by 23 (7.5%) associated with cattle contact, and by 22 (7.2%) in particular with calving assistance
Zoonotic bacterial gastroenteritis	10 (3.3%)	Salmonella enterica 7 (2.3%) Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) 1 (0.3%) Campylobacter spp. 1 (0.3%) Yersinia enterocolitica 1 (0.3%)
Other bacterial zoonoses	7 (2.3%)	Borreliosis, Q fever, tularaemia, listeriosis	Q fever had been contracted abroad.
Symptomatic viral zoonoses	12 (3.9%)	Nephropatia epidemica (Puumala hantavirus) 6 (2.0%) Influenza from swine origin 2 (0.7%) Vesicular skin lesions presumably caused by a zoonotic virus 4 (1.3%)
Parasitic infection/infestation	7 (2.3%)	Toxoplasma gondii infection / toxoplasmosis 3 (1.0%) Scabies; confirmed 1 (0.3%), suspected 1 (0.3%) Cryptosporidiosis 1 (0.3%) Flea bites from dog contact 1(0.3%)
Dermatophytosis	13 (4.2%)	Microsporum canis 3 (1.0%) Tricophyton verrucosum 3 (1.0%)	M. canis reportedly originated from cats, and 2 T. verrucosum cases from cattle.

Figure 1. Self-reported level of agreement (ranging from black – strongly disagree, to white – strongly agree) with statements concerning knowledge of zoonoses among the seven veterinarians included in the case series study.

Table 2. Occurrence and disease status in Finland of the seven zoonotic pathogens selected to the case series study.

Pathogen	Confirmed occurrence in animals, year	Disease status in animals in the country	Confirmed occurrence in humans, year	Notification requirements	Further information	References
Capnocytophaga canimorsus	Dog, 2020	No data	29 reported cases, 2020	Not notifiable, but all isolates from blood or cerebrospinal fluid from humans must be reported	Also other Capnocytophaga spp. of animal origin may be zoonotic	[23], T Grönthal, personal communication
Cryptosporidium spp. (C. parvum)	Bovine, 2021	Endemic	538 reported cases, 2022	Notifiable in humans	Incidence of C. parvum has increased in both cattle and humans	[24,12,25,26]
Listeria spp. (L. monocytogenes)	Bovine 2020, sheep, wildlife 2021	Endemic	70 reported cases, 2022	Clinical animal cases and invasive listeriosis in humans notifiable, no data on cutaneous manifestations available	Most human cases foodborne	[13,27,12,25]
Salmonella enterica	Bovine, pig, poultry, sheep, fur animals, pets, wildlife, 2021	Endemic, low prevalence	666 reported nontyphoidal cases, 2022	Notifiable in both animals and humans	Most human cases travel-related	[12,25]
Zoonotic dermatophytes (ringworm)	No data	Endemic	No data	Notifiable in cattle	Common based on clinician observations	[28,29]
Bacillus anthracis	Bovine, 2008	Sporadic	No reported cases (data since 1995)	Notifiable in both animals and humans	Animal cases related to flooding	[21,30]
Rabies virus	Raccoon dog, red fox, badger, cat, dog, and bovine, 1989. Imported: horse, 2003, dog, 2007	Official freedom of rabies disease since 1991, European bat lyssavirus endemic in bats	2007 (contracted abroad)	Notifiable both in animals and humans	Several post-exposure prophylaxis treatments initiated after suspected exposure each year (40 in 2021)	[31,22,21,32,33]

Kinnunen PM, Matomäki A, Verkola M, et al. Veterinarians as a risk group for zoonoses: exposure, knowledge and protective practices in Finland. Saf Health Work. 2022;13(1):78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2021.10.008.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

THL. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Veriviljelyt, kaikki ikäryhmät 2011–2020. [Blood cultures, all age groups, 2011–2020; In Finnish]. National Infectious Disease Register. Last updated 7 June 2021. Available at https://thl.fi/fi/web/infektiotaudit-ja-rokotukset/seurantajarjestelmat-ja-rekisterit/tartuntatautirekisteri/tartuntatautien-esiintyvyystilastot/veri-ja-selkaydinnesteloydokset.

 Google Scholar

Suokorpi A, Autio T, Ruotsalainen E, et al. Why do cryptosporidiosis cases increase in Finland? Duodecim. 2019;135(17):1635–1643.

 Google Scholar

Finnish Food Authority. Animal diseases in Finland 2021. Report. Finnish Food Authority Publications. 2022;4. Available at https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tietoa-meista/julkaisut/julkaisusarjat/julkaisuja/elaimet/ruokaviraston_julkaisuja_4_2022_elaintaudit_suomessa_2021.pdf.

 Google Scholar

THL. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Statistical Database of the National Infectious Disease Register. Last updated 22 April 2023. Available at https://sampo.thl.fi/pivot/prod/fi/ttr/shp/fact_shp.

 Google Scholar

Enbom T, Suominen K, Laitinen S, et al. Cryptosporidium parvum: an emerging occupational zoonosis in Finland. Acta Vet Scand. 2023;65(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13028-023-00684-z.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EFSA/ECDC. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2021 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2022;20(12):e7666. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7666.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Finnish Food Authority. Animal diseases in Finland 2020. Report. Finnish Food Authority Publications. 2021;4. Available at https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/tietoa-meista/julkaisut/julkaisusarjat/julkaisuja/elaimet/ruokaviraston_julkaisuja_4_2021_elaintaudit_suomessa_2020.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Airola K. Vartalon ja päänahan silsa (sieni-infektio). [Ringworm of body and scalp (fungal infection.); in Finnish]. In Lääkärikirja Duodecim. Helsinki: Kustannus Oy Duodecim; 2020. Available at https://www.terveyskirjasto.fi/dlk00837.

 Google Scholar

Animal Health ETT. Pälvisilsa. [Ringworm; in Finnish]. 2021. Available at https://www.ett.fi/nauta/taudit/palvisilsa/.

 Google Scholar

Zoonoses Centre. Zoonoses in Finland in 2000-2010. Report. 2012, Helsinki. Available at https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/teemat/zoonoosikeskus/zoonoosit/zoonosesinfinland_final_nettiversio.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Friman M, Kakko L, Constantin C, et al. An atypical Bacillus anthracis infection in a bull – A potential occupational health hazard. Reprod Domest Anim. 2019;54(9):1279–1283. doi: 10.1111/rda.13532.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nyberg M, Kulonen K, Neuvonen E, et al. An epidemic of sylvatic rabies in Finland – descriptive epidemiology and results of oral vaccination. Acta Vet Scand. 1992;33(1):43–57. doi: 10.1186/BF03546935.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Metlin AE, Holopainen R, Tuura S, et al. Imported case of equine rabies in Finland: clinical course of the disease and the antigenic and genetic characterization of the virus. J Equine Vet Sci. 2006;26(12):584–587. doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2006.11.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

THL. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Tartuntataudit Suomessa. 2020. Infectious diseases in Finland 2020; in Finnish]. Report. 2021b. Available at https://thl.fi/documents/533963/7590511/Tartuntataudit+Suomessa + 2020_28.9.2021.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Rimhanen-Finne R, Ollgren J, Gadd T, et al. Notifications of suspected rabies exposure increased in Finland: 26 years of one health surveillance, 1995-2020. Infect Dis (Lond). 2023;55(7):458–466. doi: 10.1080/23744235.2023.2203761.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar