4.1 Article

Clinical and laboratory findings in equine piroplasmosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 301-308

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jevs.2008.03.005

Keywords

Theileria equi; Babesia caballi; PCR; hematology; biochemistry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to evaluate equine piroplasmosis (EP) as a cause of I morbidity in horses in Sardinia (Italy), describe the clinical signs and altered hematologic and biochemical parameters, and illustrate response to different treatments Among 44 horses suspected of tick-borne disease, 38 were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive,for Theileria equi (n = 27) or Babesia caballi (n = 6)5 whereas as five were positive for both protozoans. Typical clinical features of piroplasmosis were seen in some of-the-horses, whereas others had nonspecific mild symptoms. Hematologic findings revealed involvement of the three blood cell lineages (anemia, leukopenia or leukocytosis, thrombocytopenia), and biochemical. variations were related. to increased bilirubin, alteration of serum phosphorus, and hypoalbuminemia. We that the two protozoans are the most important-causative agents of equine tick-borne disease in this geographic area, and we observe that different clinical-features are associated with the disease; in addition to the typical aspects of piroplasmosis, characterized by fever, pale mucous membranes, and icterus, we can signal,other nonspecific,. mild signs such as weight loss, weight loss associated with an insignificant leukopenia, or Weight loss associated with depression, anorexia, and mild hyperbilirubin. The study is intended as a practical contribution for veterinary practitioners because it describes different clinical presentations and laboratory findings of EP, suggests diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to the disease, and show diffusion of the disease in a Mediterranean region.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available