| Literature DB >> 31886196 |
Margot Camoin1,2,3, Arthur Kocher1,2,3, Piangjai Chalermwong3, Sarawut Yangtarra3, Ketsarin Kamyingkird3, Sathaporn Jittapalapong4, Marc Desquesnes1,2,3.
Abstract
Surra, caused by Trypanosoma evansi, is a widely distributed animal trypanosomosis; it affects both domestic and wild mammals with high economic impact. Clinical picture is moderate in bovines but severe in equids. Surra is also an important constraint for international animal trade and movements. Despite its impact, surra remains poorly diagnosed because of low sensitivity tests. To improve epidemiological knowledge of the disease and to secure international movement, efficient diagnosis tools are required. Here, we optimized and applied to equids the OIE-recommended indirect ELISA T. evansi that was validated in other species. Based on 96 positive and 1,382 negative horse reference samples from Thailand, a TG-ROC analysis was conducted to define the cutoff value. ELISA's sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 97.5% and 100%, respectively, qualifying the test to provide a reliable immune status of equids. The test was then applied on 1,961 horse samples from 18 Thai Provinces; the only scarce positives suggested that horses do not constitute a reservoir of T. evansi in Thailand. All samples from racing horses were negative. Conversely, two outbreaks of surra reported to our laboratory, originating from a bovine reservoir, exhibited high morbidity and lethality rates in horses. Finally, posttreatment follow-ups of infected animals allowed us to provide outbreak management guidelines.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31886196 PMCID: PMC6915159 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2964639
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Geographical distribution of horse population and sampled proportion per province in Thailand.
Figure 2(a) Distribution of ELISA's relative percentage of positivity (RPP) values for horse reference samples and (b) TG-ROC curves: estimates of sensitivity and specificity based on the RPP cutoff. The optimal cutoff according to the misclassification cost term (MCT) criteria is indicated.
Summary of data from 2 outbreaks of surra in horses in Thailand.
| Location | Surat Thani | Ratchaburi | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting date | April 2011 | August 2011 | |
|
| |||
| Total number of horses in the farm | 12 | 17 | |
|
| |||
| Positive rates ( | Stained blood smear | 27% (3/11) | ND |
| HCT | 36% (4/11) | 40% (6/15) | |
| CATT | 45% (5/11) | 53% (8/15) | |
| ELISA | 55% (6/11) | 80% (12/15) | |
| PCR | 55% (6/11) | 73% (11/15) | |
|
| |||
| Positive rates at | CATT |
|
|
| ELISA | 92% (11/12) | 81% (9/11) | |
| HCT | 92% (11/12) | 36% (4/11) | |
|
| |||
| Percentage of horses exhibiting clinical signs ( | 92% (11/12) | 87% (13/15) | |
|
| |||
| Percentage of horses exhibiting nervous signs ( | 0% (0/12) | 13% (2/15) | |
|
| |||
| Treatments applied | DA | 3.5 mg/kg and 7 mg/kg | 3.5 mg/kg and 7 mg/kg |
| MH | 0.25 mg/kg to 4 horses | 0.5 mg/kg + fly-proof stables for 4 horses | |
|
| |||
| Morbidity rate ( | 92% (11/12) | 88% (15/17) | |
|
| |||
| Mortality rate ( | 92% (11/12) | 53% (9/17) | |
|
| |||
| Lethality rate ( | 100% (11/11) | 60% (9/15) | |
|
| |||
| Recovery rate ( | 0% (0/11) | 40% (6/15) | |
|
| |||
| Remarks | Relapse of parasites in blood and clinical signs observed in most of the horses, 2-3 weeks after each treatment | 1 out of 4 horses exhibited nervous signs before MH treatment; QSC 5 mg/kg used as curative and preventive treatment | |
n = number of animals positive; N = number of animals tested or observed; ND = not done.
Results of ELISA T. evansi in 12 groups of mules, donkeys, and horses occasionally exposed to surra infection (# positive/# tested (seroprevalence %)) in Chang Mai.
| Group number | Mules | Donkeys | Horses | Equines |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 4/130 (3.1%) | — | — | 4/130 (3.1%) |
| Group 2 | 1/123 (0.08%) | — | — | 1/123 (0.08%) |
| Group 3 | 0/25 (0%) | — | — | 0/25 (0%) |
| Group 4 | — | — | 0/13 (0%) | 0/13 (0%) |
| Group 5 | — | — | 0/66 (0%) | 0/66 (0%) |
| Group 6 | 0/49 (0%) | — | 0/1 (0%) | 0/50 (0%) |
| Group 7 | — | — | 0/79 (0%) | 0/79 (0%) |
| Group 8 | 0/27 (0%) | — | 0/21 (0%) | 0/48 (0%) |
| Group 9 | 0/40 (0%) | — | — | 0/40 (0%) |
| Group 10 | 0/7 (0%) | 0/2 (0%) | 0/31 (0%) | 0/40 (0%) |
| Group 11 | — | 13/13 (100%) | 19/19 (100%) | 32/32 (100%) |
| Group 12 | 0/58 (0%) | 0/26 (0%) | 0/12 (0%) | 0/96 (0%) |
| Global | 5/459 (1%) | 13/41 (31.7%) | 19/242 (7.8%) | 37/7412 (5%) |