Equid Blog : Horse Health & Diseases : University of Guelph : Ontario Veterinary College : Equine Infectious Diseases

Few things get the horse rumour mill going like strangles. This infectious disease carries such a stigma that the simple act of having a sick horse (or even the suggestion that someone has a sick horse) can lead to rumours that spread like wildfire, along with complaints, accusations and other generally antisocial behaviour. Currently, depending on what rumours you listen to, there are either major strangles outbreaks going on in multiple large facilities across Ontario, or everyone is fine and there are no sick horses of any type in the province. (Like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.)

Strangles, caused by the bacterium Streptococcus equi, is an important equine infectious disease. It's present in horses internationally and there are always cases and small outbreaks underway in Canada (as in other countries). It's also potentially controllable using good infection control practices, but the stigma, rumours, denials and other associated problems hamper such efforts.

Because of the stigma associated with strangles, some peoples' approach is to deny the possibility that their horse may have the disease, or to avoid getting proper testing done. I've heard people deny that they have strangles on their premises, but in the same sentence say that they aren't letting any people on the farm for a couple of weeks with no explanation as to why. I've also seen situations where strangles is clearly present but people refuse to have culture samples taken - because if no cultures are taken and found to be positive, they can still say that they haven't had any horses diagnosed with strangles (even with stall after stall of horses with fever, nasal discharge and draining abscesses). Fortunately, most horse owners and farm managers don't take this approach, but the fact that some do gives strength to the rumours that often circulate.

Denying that an infectious disease problem exists is never a good idea, because it usually hampers implementation of the required control measures. It's also unethical if these denials and improper practices lead to more infections. If strangles is on a farm, people need to own up to the fact and act accordingly. Yes, the proper control measures are a hassle and can interfere with showing, racing or other uses. But closing your eyes and hoping it goes away does not work. At the same time, people need to take a balanced approach when they hear about strangles. Having a horse with strangles does not necessarily mean that there is bad management on the farm. Yes, many infections could be prevented with good infection control precautions, but we can't prevent all infections at this point. The more people point fingers about strangles cases, the greater the pressure for people to hide the problem.

• If you have strangles on your farm, admit it. There's no use hiding it because the truth will  come out eventually, and the rumours may be worse than the truth, anyway. Let people know what's going on and what you are doing to control it. It's often the absence of information that causes most of the fear and complaints.
• If your horse is on a particular farm when a case of strangles is diagnosed, be part of the solution, not a hindrance. Help out by supporting the barn owner and other horse owners. Do what is being asked of you. Don't immediately take your horse off the property (and possibly spread the outbreak to another facility). And cut them some slack - it may not be their fault, and it could just as easily have been your horse that was infected.
• If you've had strangles in your horse or on your farm, take the time to figure out what happened and why. This shouldn't be done to assign blame. It should be done to figure out how to prevent it the next time.

Strangles isn't Ebola. It's a problem, but one that can and should be handled with a reasonable and logical approach. More information about strangles can be found on the equIDblog Resources page.

Image: Draining abscesses of the submandibular lymph nodes of a horse with a classic case of strangles (credit: Dr. Nancy Loving, thehorse.com)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The latest edition of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases contains an article about a South African vet student that acquired West Nile virus from a pony while performing a necropsy. Occupational exposure to infectious diseases is an inherent risk in veterinary medicine. Veterinarians know that they are at higher risk of encountering various infectious diseases and take (or should take) precautions to reduce those risks. Sometimes infections occur despite the best precautions. Sometimes infections occur because of bad practices. This report highlights the latter.

In this case, a 4-month-old pony began showing vague signs of illness, then developed neurological abnormalities and was euthanized. A necropsy (post-mortem exam) was then performed by a veterinary pathologist with the assistance of two veterinary students. As part of the necropsy, the student removed the brain and spinal cord for testing, but gloves were the only protective gear that were used. No face or eye protection was used, which is quite astounding.

The pony was eventually diagnosed with West Nile virus. Six days after performing the necropsy, the veterinary student developed a fever, malaise, sore muscles, stiff neck and severe headache. West Nile virus infection in the student was confirmed, and the viruses from the pony and person were the same type based on testing. Fortunately, the signs of infection in the student subsided after approximately ten days.

Horses are considered "dead-end" hosts for West Nile virus, meaning they cannot naturally transmit the virus. This is because horses (even severely affected ones) only have very low levels of virus in their blood, so a biting mosquito can't pick up the virus and transmit it to other individuals. However, the brain and spinal cord, particularly in a clinically affected horse, may contain very large amounts of the virus. It's astounding that a veterinary school would have a student removing the brain and spinal cord of an animal that died from a neurological condition, especially without proper protective gear, since the procedure carries a risk of splashing or aerosol exposure to the virus. Anyone performing necropsies needs to be aware of the potential risks and take appropriate precautions. The paper states that after the incident, biosafety practices were improved to include the wearing of masks and eye protection during necropsies. Well, I guess it's better late than never...

Click image for source.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A rabid horse has been identified in Bandera County, Texas - this is the first case of rabies in a Texas horse in almost 40 years. The horse started acting strangely, erratically and at times violently. Rabies was eventually diagnosed (diagnosis involves testing the brain after the horse dies or is euthanized) and the owners are undergoing post-exposure treatment.

Rabies is a rare disease in horses, but there is always a risk of exposure in regions where rabies is present in wildlife. The fact that equine rabies is rare is a good thing, but it can also breed complacency and lead to decreased vaccination rates.

Decreasing vaccination is a bad thing. Vaccination is cheap insurance for a very serious disease. Rabies is invariably fatal in horses. It's also a risk to anyone around the horse. Transmission of rabies from horses to people is theoretically possible through bites or other contacts that result in introduction of saliva into wounds, cuts or possibly the mouth, nose or eyes. I'm not aware of any documented cases of equine-to-human transmission of rabies, but given the severity of rabies, we need to be careful. Additionally, rabid horses have killed people because they can be unpredictable and aggressive. Based on all these factors, it's important that we not become complacent about rabies in horses, and a key component of rabies control is vaccination. However, vaccination is not the only aspect of rabies control. Using various management practices to reduce the risk of wildlife exposure and controlling rabies in wildlife in the area are other important measures, but individual horse owners can have the greatest impact on their horses' health by ensuring they are properly vaccinated against rabies.

If you own a horse, make sure it's vaccinated against rabies unless you live in a rabies-free region.  More information about rabies in horses is available on the equIDblog Resources page.

Image source: www.bbc.co.uk

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TheHorse.com has a good article about deworming, which includes six good parasite-fighting tips from Dr. Craig Reinemeyer. Check out the full article for all the details. Here are the key points and some comments:

1. Stop focusing on the wrong things

It's easy for people to get hung up on a few concepts or topics and not see the big picture or the real problems. We need to think in terms of the horse(s), not the parasites. We're trying to optimize horse health. That doesn't necessarily mean killing all parasites, nor does it mean relying soley on drugs to control them. Conceptually, we need to think about parasite control, not just deworming.

2. Plan parasite control around parasite biology, not a calendar

There is no "standard" deworming program. Every program needs to be tailored to the geographic region, farm and horse. What happens here is Ontario is very different from what happens in Florida in terms of parasites.  For example, the risk of transmission in horses turned out on pasture in Florida in February is certainly different from those turned out in snowy fields in Ontario at the same time of year. Even in the same region, what happens on one farm may be very different than what happens on another. When designing a parasite control program, you need to consider what is going on with worms in the horses and in the environment to determine the optimal approach.

3. Don't encourage resistant parasites

Most people know antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a bad thing, but often concerns about anti-parasitic resistance are ignored. We only have a limited number of antiparasitic drugs, and there aren't many more coming in the near future. Heavy use or misuse creates an environment where resistance may emerge. It's being seen with certain bugs and certain drugs, and needs to be taken seriously - now.

4. Don't treat all horses the same

As I mentioned above, you need to tailor parasite control to something that is relevant for the region, farm and horse. Different horses are at different risks of exposure. Some horses are naturally more resistant to parasites, so these animals don't need to be (and indeed shouldn't be) treated the same as more susceptible horses. Deworming should be tailored to the needs of the individual horse. Yes, it takes more effort and some thought, but it's worth it.

5. Practice evidence-based parasite control

That means use all available information to make decisions. It includes knowing what parasites are a concern on the farm (which requires testing), what antiparasitic drugs have been effective on the farm (which requires testing to determine treatment success), an understanding of farm management practices, and information from research about deworming strategies and drugs. Performing fecal egg counts is a critical component of this, and something that is not done nearly enough.

6. Be prepared to change

Something that works today may not work in the future. You can't get stuck in your ways and assume that since something worked in the past, it will always work.

Image source: www.ponytalesblog.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's common for people to wipe injection sites in horses with alcohol before inserting the needle. It's so ingrained into some peoples' minds that they may complain if their veterinarian doesn't use an alcohol wipe before injecting. But what does that little swab really do, and is it needed?

Alcohol is a disinfectant and can kill many (but not all) bacteria and viruses. Therefore, wiping an injection site with alcohol could theoretically reduce bacterial counts and maybe reduce the risk of an injection site infection. However, alcohol does not work well in the presence of organic debris (i.e. dirt), and may not (and likely won't in most cases) penetrate through a horse's haircoat down to the skin. The best aspect of alcohol is some situations is wetting down the hair to help see the area you're injecting (for example, when visualizing the vein for an intravenous injection).

The risk of injection site infection is very low in the average horse, and the true benefit of wiping the site with alcohol is unknown. There is no clear evidence that this practice reduces infections. The most serious injection-associated infection, clostridial myonecrosis, is caused by either inoculation of clostridial spores (which are resistant to alcohol) or by spores that are dormant in the muscle tissue. In either case, wiping the skin with alcohol won't help prevent it.

Bottom line: There's no evidence that alcohol wiping is needed, or useful. There's also no reason not to do it, so it's really a matter of personal preference. Not using alcohol wipes is not an indication of poor practice, but a lot of people will use them on the chance that they are effective, knowing that at worst they will do no harm.

More information about clostridial myonecrosis can be found on the equIDblog Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've had a run of questions about testing for Helicobacter in horses with gastric (i.e. stomach) ulcers. Helicobacter pylori is unquestionably an important problem and clear cause of gastric ulcers in people. However, people aren't horses. The human stomach differs greatly from the equine stomach, and gastric ulcers in people are much different than gastric ulcers in horses. There is no (I repeat, NO) evidence that Helicobacter is a cause of ulcers in horses. Despite this some unscrupulous molecular diagnostic companies offer unvalidated tests for Helicobacter in horses, for reasons that make absolutely no sense.

Don't waste your money on Helicobacter testing if your horse has ulcers. Spend it on treatment and management changes to reduce the risks of ulcers recurring.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hard to believe that the whole conundrum about contagious equine metritis (CEM) that is still affecting the Canadian equine industry started a little bit more than a year ago, when a Quarter Horse stud in Kentucky tested positive for the causative agent, Taylorella equigenitalis. Tracing the contacts of that stud lead to the quarantine and testing of 990 horses in 40 states, as well as 19 mares in Canada, including 9 in Ontario. Out of 274 exposed stallions, 22 were ultimately found to be positive, none of which had any detectable clinical signs that they were infected, meaning if they hadn’t been tested, they may have kept on going about their business breeding – and possibly infecting – mares for years to come. The rest of the exposed horses were mares, five of which turned out to be infected. One particularly interesting fact was that four of these mares had been bred by artificial insemination - previous to this it was thought that CEM was only readily transmissible by live cover from an infected stud, not via semen shipped in a straw.

Thankfully all of the Canadian mares were negative, but unfortunately the Canadian equine industry is still suffering the consequences of what has happened to our close southern neighbour. Fourteen countries have increased import requirements for Canadian (and obviously US) horses in terms of CEM testing, and another major blow was the loss of Canada’s low-risk status with the UK's Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB).

Canada must maintain strict import requirements for horses to prevent CEM from getting into the country. Most of the horses imported into Canada come from CEM-positive countries, and it’s getting more difficult to argue not including the US on that list as well. The risk is constantly present, and remaining diligent about quarantine and testing – and rules like ensuring horses are not on antibiotics for some other reason when they’re cultured – is key. Semen import restrictions for semen coming from the US to Canada will stand for 2010. While this certainly causes a headache for breeders, requiring an import permit and a health certificate for the stud stating that it has not stood on a CEM-quarantined farm, is it enough to protect Canadian horses? The next step would be to require all studs to be tested for CEM before their semen can be imported to Canada. That is no small request. Testing a stud involves culturing the stud himself, and then having him test-breed two mares which then also need to be culture-negative. Anecdotally the entire process can cost in the neighbourhood of $5-7K per horse, which at the moment all needs to be borne by the horse owner. That gives you some idea of what an enormous undertaking it was to quarantine and test 274 exposed stallions during last year’s outbreak.

In the US, 87% of exposed horses have now been cleared, and there have been no new positives in the last 8 months. However, there are still 17 states where there are quarantined farms. There is talk of voluntary testing of over 2000 studs in the US in 2010, as well as targeted surveillance of stallions imported in the last 10 years and those standing at large AI centers. Only time will tell if these extra efforts will serve to calm the fears of countries that are now hesitant to import horses and semen from the US, or whether they will reveal more cases of CEM and confirm the fears that CEM may have unknowingly become endemic in the US in the past decade.

More information on CEM is available in our archives.

This blog is based on a presentation by Dr. Tracey Chenier, a theriogenologist and faculty member at the Ontario Veterinary Collge, given at the recent 2010 Ontario Veterinary Medical Association Conference.

Photo credit: David Campbell (click for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Often, when someone calls and asks about management of strangles, one of the first questions is "What disinfectant should I use?"

There are basically two answers that I give:

1) Streptococcus equi, the cause of strangles, is susceptible to most disinfectants, provided they are used properly. That means using them at the proper concentration, providing the recommended contact time (5-30 minutes, depending on the disinfectant) and ensuring that there is minimal organic debris (e.g. dirt, manure, pus) present on the surface to be disinfected. The latter is a key point, as disinfectants do not work well in the presence of debris, so it's therefore understandably very difficult to really disinfect a stable. Some stable surfaces (e.g. sealed solid walls and floors, buckets) are able to be disinfected if it is done properly, while other surfaces (e.g. dirt floors, unsealed wood walls, leather) are essentially impossible to disinfect.

2) Disinfection is a very minor component of strangles control. It is something to pay attention to and it should be done properly, but too often people to focus on disinfection as the key infection control measure. Just disinfecting surfaces, but ignoring aspects like cohorting exposed and unexposed horses, restricting horse movement, testing for carriers, regular temperature checks of all horses to detect early cases, using good personal hygiene and using protective outerwear, is bound to fail in terms of controlling an outbreak.

So, don't ignore cleaning and disinfection, but don't' rely on it as the main component of strangles control.

More information about strangles can be found on the equIDblog Resources page.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The latest edition of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases contains a paper describing the 2008  Australian Hendra virus outbreak in horses and people.

In this outbreak, there were five horses infected and two humans infected. The horses predominantly had signs of neurological disease, not respiratory disease like some other reports describing this disease. Four horses died. One recovered but was euthanized for public health reasons.

Two people became infected after working with the sick horses, which represents 10% of the total veterinary staff that were exposed to the infected horses.  Both people started off with influenza-like illness, which seemed to improve initially, but then signs of severe neurological disease developed. They were treated with ribavirin, an antiviral drug, as part of an experimental treatment. One of them died after 40 days of illness, the other person survived.

The authors stressed that the effectiveness of ribavirin could not be determined, but they recommend it nonetheless because of the severity of Hendra virus infection and lack of other options. Ribavirin was also used in the 2009 outbreak, but it is clearly not 100% effective since one person died there also.

A number of concerning activities occurred that put people at risk of infection, including a "percutaneous blood exposure while euthanizing an infected horses" (they didn't explain exactly what this was, but it could have been a needlestick), low use of personal protective equipment, and contact with potentially infectious body fluids. This is unfortunately not surprising since the approach to infection control (particularly in terms of zoonotic infections) is often lax in equine medicine. That certainly has to change, particularly in areas where Hendra virus may be present.

Much more information about how to control this potentially devastating virus is needed. Fortunately, infections are uncommon and it is restricted to a fairly small geographic range in Queensland, Australia.

Image source: http://animalphotos.info/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks