4.2 Article

Inflammatory airway disease, nasal discharge and respiratory infections in young British racehorses

期刊

EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 236-242

出版社

EQUINE VETERINARY JOURNAL LTD
DOI: 10.2746/0425164054530579

关键词

horse; respiratory; inflammatory airway disease; racehorses; epidemiology; infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reasons for performing study: Respiratory disease is important in young Thoroughbred racehorses, but the variation in the rates of occurrence between different ages and training groups has not been characterised. Objectives: To determine the rates of respiratory disease, particularly inflammatory airway disease (IAD), as well as evidence of infection, and their variation between age and group. Methods: Horses were examined monthly in 7 British flat training yards over a 3 year period. IAD was defined as increased mucus in the trachea with increased proportions of neutrophils in tracheal wash samples. Frequencies of disease outcomes were estimated from the data. Results: The prevalence of IAD was 13.8% and the incidence was 8.9 cases/100 horses/month. Rates varied with training and age groups, decreasing in older animals. The prevalence of nasal discharge (ND) was 4.1 %. Rates of bacteria] isolation were more common than viral infections. The incidence and prevalence of several bacterial species decreased with age. Conclusions: IAD and ND were common in young racehorses, varying significantly between training groups and decreasing with age, consistent with infection playing a role in aetiology. Potential relevance: The high prevalence of IAD in 2-year-old horses in Britain suggests that routine endoscopic examination may be helpful in providing early diagnosis and appropriate therapy. The transmission of bacteria and viruses within and between groups of young animals and the role of infection, stable environment and factors inherent to each horse, including their genetic make-up, in the multifactorial aetiology of the disease all merit further study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据