Epidemiology and reproductive outcomes of EHV‐1 abortion epizootics in unvaccinated Thoroughbred mares in South Africa. (9th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schulman, M. L.; Becker, A.; van der Merwe, B. D.; Guthrie, A. J.; Stout, T. A. E.
• Is Part Of: Equine veterinary journal. Volume 47:Number 2(2015:Mar.)
• Page Start: 155
• Page End: 159
• Publication Date: 2014-05-09
• Subjects: Horses -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 636.108905
• DOI: 10.1111/evj.12264
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0425-1644

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Summary</title> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Reasons for performing study</title> <p>Equine herpesvirus 1 (EHV‐1) is one of the most common causes of infectious abortion in mares. Analysing the demography of outbreaks and detailing subsequent reproductive performance of affected mares will assist in the management of future (threatened) epizootics.</p> </sec> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Objectives</title> <p>To examine the epidemiology and reproductive outcomes of 2 EHV‐1 abortion epizootics with very different patterns of morbidity.</p> </sec> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Study design</title> <p>Epidemiological and reproductive data were analysed retrospectively following abortion epizootics associated with EHV‐1, but initiated via different routes, among unvaccinated mares on 2 Thoroughbred farms in South Africa.</p> </sec> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Aborting mares were assigned to either the EHV‐1 abortion cohort via positive immunostaining (Farms 1 and 2) or quantitative PCR (Farm 2) on tissue samples, or to the non‐EHV abortion cohort.</p> </sec> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>During their respective epizootics, EHV‐1 abortions affected 9/30 (30.0%) and 18/316 (5.7%) of the pregnant mares on Farms 1 and 2, respectively; there were also 25 (7.9%) non‐EHV abortions on Farm 2. Epizootic differences included: durations (Farm 1 = 135 days; Farm 2 = 34 days), intervals between first and subsequent abortions (Farm 1 = 39 days; Farm 2 = 2 days) and intervals to confirmation of EHV‐1 (Farm 1 = 40 days; Farm 2 = 2 days). The median (range) age of EHV‐1 abortion mares (8.0; 5–18 years) in both epizootics was similar but significantly younger (P = 0.004) than the 25 non‐EHV‐1 abortion mares (11.0; 4–24 years) on Farm 2. Gestation stage (median; range) of EHV‐1 (291.5; 277–313) and non‐EHV‐1 (211.9; 61–339 days) abortions were significantly different (P = 0.001). The post abortion complications and subsequent reproductive outcomes had no significant association with EHV‐1 abortion.</p> </sec> <sec id="evj12264-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>The marked difference in morbidity between the 2 epizootics may be associated with routes of introduction or intervention strategy dictated by availability of molecular diagnostic techniques. Unexpectedly, EHV‐1 was not more commonly associated with post abortion complications.</p> </sec> </abstract>