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

Edward R Atwill, Hussni O. Mohammed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: 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. Design: Cross-sectional and case-control studies. Procedure: 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. 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. Clinical implications: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1290-1294
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Volume208
Issue number8
StatePublished - Apr 15 1996

Fingerprint

Potomac horse fever
Ehrlichiosis
Horses
Vaccination
vaccination
horses
Neorickettsia risticii
Bacterial Vaccines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis. / Atwill, Edward R; Mohammed, Hussni O.

In: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 208, No. 8, 15.04.1996, p. 1290-1294.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{51414e3ad994422485521f19f97c9398,
title = "Evaluation of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis",
abstract = "Objective: 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. Design: Cross-sectional and case-control studies. Procedure: 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. 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. Clinical implications: 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.",
author = "Atwill, {Edward R} and Mohammed, {Hussni O.}",
year = "1996",
month = "4",
day = "15",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "208",
pages = "1290--1294",
journal = "Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association",
issn = "0003-1488",
publisher = "American Veterinary Medical Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis

AU - Atwill, Edward R

AU - Mohammed, Hussni O.

PY - 1996/4/15

Y1 - 1996/4/15

N2 - Objective: 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. Design: Cross-sectional and case-control studies. Procedure: 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. 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. Clinical implications: 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.

AB - Objective: 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. Design: Cross-sectional and case-control studies. Procedure: 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. 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. Clinical implications: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029945962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029945962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8635974

AN - SCOPUS:0029945962

VL - 208

SP - 1290

EP - 1294

JO - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

JF - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

SN - 0003-1488

IS - 8

ER -