Thailand study tracks 10 years of animal poisoning cases: full analysis

CURRENT FULL VERSION: A newly published study in Veterinary Sciences uses 10 years of poison center records to map animal poisoning trends in Thailand, adding rare surveillance data from a setting where formal national animal toxicology reporting is limited. The review covered 118 cases reported to the Ramathibodi Poison Center from 2015 through 2024 and found that companion animals, especially dogs, accounted for most exposures. Pesticides were the most common toxic agents, and mortality was more likely in animals arriving with respiratory or neurologic involvement. (mdpi.com)

That matters because the Ramathibodi Poison Center occupies an unusual position in Thailand’s health system. The center, based at Ramathibodi Hospital in Bangkok, has provided 24/7 consultation since 1996, serves callers nationwide through hotline 1367, and has been recognized by WHO as a collaborating center for poisoning prevention and control. WHO has also highlighted the center as a frontline resource for poisoning response in Thailand, noting its role in advising clinicians, tracking cases, and helping improve access to antidotes across the region. (rama.mahidol.ac.th)

The study’s core finding is that animal poisoning in Thailand appears to be shaped less by exotic toxicants than by everyday environmental risk. According to the paper, 93.2% of cases involved companion animals, with dogs the predominant species. Neurologic signs were the most common presentation, management was largely supportive, and the authors identified respiratory and neurologic involvement at presentation as strong mortality signals. They also noted unusual but locally relevant events, including cyanide poisoning in elephants after cassava ingestion, reinforcing that poison surveillance can capture hazards that standard companion-animal datasets may overlook. The authors are careful to frame the database as consultation-based surveillance, not a population-level estimate of incidence. (mdpi.com)

The broader operating data around Ramathibodi help explain why the dataset is useful despite its modest case count. The center’s own 2023 statistics show consultation volume has climbed substantially over time, reaching 39,840 calls in 2023, although 97.5% of those calls involved human poisoning and more than 96% came from health personnel, mainly physicians. In other words, animal cases remain a small slice of a much larger toxicology service, but one embedded in a mature, national consultation network. That gives veterinary findings from the database added value as early-warning signals, even if they don’t capture every poisoning event in the country. (rama.mahidol.ac.th)

The importance of that infrastructure becomes clearer when set against places with less diagnostic support. A separate retrospective paper from Trinidad and Tobago, published in Animals, reviewed 113 suspected animal abuse cases submitted for necropsy between 2008 and 2025 at the country’s two veterinary diagnostic laboratories. Dogs made up 77% of submissions, case numbers peaked in 2015, and only 24 cases—about 20%—had a confirmed cause of death or manner of injury. Trauma was the most common confirmed finding. Confirmed poisonings were rare, with just six cases involving carbamates, warfarin, malathion, and ethylene glycol. The authors identified a key bottleneck familiar to anyone working in veterinary toxicology: the lack of a toxicological laboratory able to handle animal samples, which they said limits both case confirmation and prosecution in suspected abuse cases. That contrast helps frame the Thailand study not just as a case series, but as an example of what becomes visible when a national poison consultation system is in place. (Source provided by user)

Direct outside commentary on this specific paper was limited in initial web reporting, but the study’s framing aligns with broader toxicology guidance from WHO and poison center literature: centralized consultation systems can improve recognition of poisoning patterns, support frontline treatment decisions, and strengthen prevention efforts. Ramathibodi investigators and collaborators have presented related poison center work in regional toxicology forums, suggesting this publication is part of a wider effort to expand the evidence base around animal and human toxic exposures in Thailand. (who.int)

Why it matters: For veterinary teams, the practical message is straightforward. First, pesticide exposure should remain high on the differential in acute neurologic or respiratory presentations, particularly in dogs. Second, this paper is a reminder that poison data can do more than guide individual case management; it can also identify recurring community risks tied to agriculture, household chemicals, plant toxins, and human-animal-environment interactions. In markets where formal veterinary surveillance is fragmented, poison center datasets may be one of the few scalable ways to spot patterns early and target prevention. The Trinidad and Tobago review reinforces the other side of that equation: without toxicology capacity, even cases serious enough to prompt necropsy may never reach a definitive poisoning diagnosis. (mdpi.com)

There’s also a One Health angle. The authors explicitly position animal poisoning at the intersection of environmental safety, human behavior, and veterinary medicine. That framing fits Thailand’s broader toxicology infrastructure, where a single center supports consultation, data collection, and antidote coordination. For clinicians and public health veterinarians, that suggests animal poisonings may serve as sentinel events for wider chemical safety concerns affecting households, farms, wildlife, and people. The abuse-case findings from Trinidad and Tobago add a forensic dimension to that same One Health picture, showing how poisoning surveillance, pathology, and legal accountability can all depend on the same underlying laboratory capacity. (mdpi.com)

What to watch: The next question is whether these findings lead to stronger veterinary toxicovigilance, better linkage between poison center and clinic data, or more targeted pesticide risk-reduction efforts. If follow-on studies expand the case base or break exposures down by agent, geography, and outcome, they could give practitioners more actionable benchmarks for triage, prevention counseling, and regional surveillance. More broadly, the comparison with Trinidad and Tobago points to a parallel policy issue: whether countries invest not only in consultation networks, but also in animal toxicology and forensic diagnostic capacity needed to confirm suspected poisonings and support enforcement when abuse is involved. (mdpi.com)