Analyze Diet

Evaluation of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis.

Abstract: To determine whether preferentially vaccinated horses were at risk for exposure to Ehrlichia risticii, whether horses with equine monocytic ehrlichiosis (EME) were likely to have been nonvaccinated, and whether clinical severity and financial costs associated with care and treatment of EME were less for vaccinated horses with EME than for nonvaccinated horses with EME. Methods: Cross-sectional and case-control studies. Methods: Information on usage of E risticii bacterins to control EME was collected for 2,587 horses located on 511 farms throughout New York. Each horse was tested for serum antibodies directed against E risticii. Data on efficacy of vaccination to reduce the prevalence and clinical severity of EME and monetary losses associated with EME were collected from 68 horses with EME and 132 clinically normal horses. Results: A correlation was not detected between the county seropositive proportion and the proportion of horses vaccinated against EME. Among horses diagnosed for EME, median date of diagnosis was not delayed for vaccinated horses, compared with that for nonvaccinated horses. Mean cost per case was not significantly different for nonvaccinated horses, compared with that for vaccinated horses ($ 1,082 and $ 1,001, respectively). Vaccination was not associated with a reduction in prevalence or in severity of EME-related clinical signs. Conclusions: Administering killed E risticii bacterin once a year to control EME in New York appears to have limited success. Among horses in which EME was diagnosed, severity of illness and financial costs attributable to EME were indistinguishable for vaccinated and nonvaccinated horses.
Publication Date: 1996-04-15 PubMed ID: 8635974
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Research Support
  • U.S. Gov't
  • Non-P.H.S.

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article explores the effectiveness of vaccinating horses to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis (EME). The study found that vaccination does not significantly alter the prevalence, severity of symptoms, or the costs associated with EME.

Methods and Research Sample

  • The research comprised cross-sectional and case-control studies. It was conducted using data from 2,587 horses located across 511 farms in New York.
  • Each horse was tested for serum antibodies against Ehrlichia risticii, the bacterium that causes EME.
  • The study collected information on the use of E. risticii bacterins, a type of vaccine, for managing EME.
  • It also collected data on the effectiveness of vaccines in reducing the prevalence and severity of EME, and the associated financial costs. This data was obtained from a sample of 68 horses diagnosed with EME, and 132 clinically healthy horses.

Key Findings

  • The study found no correlation between the rate of E. risticii antibody positivity in a county and the proportion of horses vaccinated against EME in that county.
  • The median date of EME diagnosis was not delayed for vaccinated horses compared to non-vaccinated horses, suggesting that vaccination did not prevent or delay the onset of EME.
  • The average cost per EME case did not significantly differ between non-vaccinated and vaccinated horses ($1,082 and $1,001 respectively). Thus, vaccination did not significantly reduce EME-related costs.
  • The study found that vaccination was not associated with a reduction in the prevalence of EME or the severity of EME-related symptoms.

Conclusions

  • The strategy of controlling EME in New York by administering killed E. risticii bacterin annually seems to have had limited success.
  • The severity of illness and financial costs attributable to EME were found to be similar for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated horses. Therefore, vaccination did not appear to provide significant benefits in terms of disease management or cost-efficiency.

Cite This Article

APA
Atwill ER, Mohammed HO. (1996). Evaluation of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc, 208(8), 1290-1294.

Publication

ISSN: 0003-1488
NlmUniqueID: 7503067
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 208
Issue: 8
Pages: 1290-1294

Researcher Affiliations

Atwill, E R
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401, USA.
Mohammed, H O

    MeSH Terms

    • Animals
    • Antibodies, Bacterial / blood
    • Bacterial Vaccines
    • Case-Control Studies
    • Cross-Sectional Studies
    • Ehrlichia / immunology
    • Ehrlichiosis / epidemiology
    • Ehrlichiosis / prevention & control
    • Ehrlichiosis / veterinary
    • Evaluation Studies as Topic
    • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
    • Horse Diseases / prevention & control
    • Horses
    • New York / epidemiology
    • Prevalence
    • Risk Factors
    • Seasons
    • Severity of Illness Index
    • Vaccination / economics
    • Vaccination / veterinary
    • Vaccines, Inactivated

    Citations

    This article has been cited 2 times.
    1. McKenzie HC, Funk RA, Trager L, Werre SR, Crisman M. Immunogenicity of Potomac horse fever vaccine when simultaneously co-administered with rabies vaccine in a multivalent vaccine or as two monovalent vaccines at separate sites. Equine Vet J 2019 Nov;51(6):774-778.
      doi: 10.1111/evj.13096pubmed: 30859618google scholar: lookup
    2. Shaw SD, Stämpfli H. Diagnosis and Treatment of Undifferentiated and Infectious Acute Diarrhea in the Adult Horse. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2018 Apr;34(1):39-53.
      doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2017.11.002pubmed: 29426709google scholar: lookup