Can you believe it .............

[SaddlePsych'D]

Of course, but it’s very wide discipline, so perhaps you’d like to think about some of the questions that you’d like answered and then I can sign point you in the right direction.

You have made quite a few claims in your first post so really any citations connected to those would be a helpful starting point.

The overall message I got was that BC is not as dangerous as thought, so I am particularly interested in the evidence around this.

 

[skinnydipper]

@louiseandsadie It seems to have escaped your notice that the dog was pts because it was ill with an incurable disease. The family could have been spared heartbreak if they had had knowledge of the disease prior to adoption and could have ensured appropriate tests had been carried out.

 

[louiseandsadie]

More generally, I would just pick up on a couple of other issues:

1. I do work with rescues to support them, improving their testing protocols prior to importation to produce any risk of a dog testing positive once in the UK. Indeed, we’re trying to put together a work party at the moment to make accessing APHA tests more viable across the world in order to standardise the process.

2. My campaign to support owners and raise awareness came about from recognising that vets were retrofitting this testing requirement on dogs already in the country. Some of these dogs have been in the country, many years, and some cases over 10 years, as part of a family unit. Usually these dogs have had no clinical signs over the whole of the period. When they test positive, they only test positive on a part of the test which shows that at some point in their life, they may have been exposed or have been exposed at some point in their life (the certainty of which depends on the quantitative value of the test) but this is not the same as saying that these dogs are currently infected. Unfortunately we don’t have any way of distinguishing, which is which. This is partly because it’s a tricky bacteria because of the way it behaves and it’s partly because we lack the diagnostic expertise to deal with conclusively diagnosing current infectious status with this tricky bacteria. But we don’t actually have research to demonstrate that once infected always infected. What we have suggests that some would fit that status, but potentially others wouldn’t. so the situation that these owners find themselves in is that they’ve had a dog in the country as a member of their family for many years and then they test positive on a test that simply shows that at some point in that dogs life they may/probably have become infected with BC and therefore might possibly still be. They then have to face the situation that the vet has no way of distinguishing which is which. The vet, then sometimes withdrawals pretty much all meaningful vet care offering euthanasia in some of the more extreme circumstances. that’s a pretty tough to swallow as an owner, particularly when we’re dealing with a disease that vets and vet nurses do have the professional skills to protect themselves against whilst still providing the full range of veterinary services to these dogs. Some of the situations I’ve dealt with having included a dog being kicked out of a hospital because it tested positive on an in-house test kit and left with pneumonia untreated/insufficiently treated as an outpatient while they waited for the government test to come back. Before the test came back, the dog had to be euthanised in the car park of a retail park and even then the owner had to wait until a male vet was available because the female vets were so scared that they might be reproductively compromised (which is not currently evidence based when focused on BC as a pathogen). To add insult to injury when the government test results did come back. This dog was actually negative for BC, and the original in-house test was a false positive. That’s just one example of the types of reasons why owners are reaching out to me and asking me to try to help them. Imagine if that was your horse or indeed, any other loved animal in your family.

So yes, I do think there is a need to continue to push for the situation to be kept under review by the veterinary profession in order to look at how best to continue to provide quality veterinary care for these dogs in line with our professional expectations to care for the nation’s animal‘s health and welfare, consistent with keeping staff safe.

From the start, I made a point of continuously reviewing the literature that was out there rather than relying on popular press speculation, both within the veterinary profession and outside it, I continue to do so and will continue revising what I say and do in response to that evidence base. And I asked that fellow veterinary professionals do the same and our supported to do so by their veterinary leaders in recognition of the fact that vets on the shop floor, do you have very limited time and a stretched in multiple directions so cannot be expected to individually read all the primary evidence in order to draw their own conclusions.

Again, I thank everybody for their interest and while I’m aware from some of the posts that I’m drawing further criticism, I recognise that horse and hound has a much wider leadership than just the few that I’ll be in critical in what some might perceived to be quite a bitchy approach. I don’t intend to take up individually with those comments but instead will continue to answer genuine questions so that many people that read these threads But do not join in, can draw their own conclusions as to the validity, or otherwise of what I claim, but also my approach to addressing the situation, in the same way that they can do the same in response to how other people respond to me.

Always, I thank everybody for their interest in BC and I hope that some of you will consider supporting owners and their dogs that are in this situation.

 

[Clodagh]

I’ve read your latest post.
I’m glad it seems you are against positive dogs being imported?
But once here if they test positive I would much rather if we dont know how long a disease is infectious for or if dogs can recover completely from infection that my children, my dogs and I did not get exposed to it.

 

[louiseandsadie]

If the dogs are testing positive on the ELISA, are owners not also having the SAT done as well? What was it about the test results that caused you concern? Serological tests need a correctly submitted blood sample, could this have been factor? The tests are considered 92% accurate.

Hi, that’s a very valuable question to ask.

The answer is that the government has adopted what we would traditionally consider to be a cull approach to diagnostic testing. Broadly speaking, there are two different approaches that you can take depending on the severity of the disease and the value placed on the individual animal.
These are:
1. Serial testing - the dog is tested sequentially with two different types of test and only if it test positive on both is it declared positive. This has the benefit of minimising the risk of false positives, but it does mean that we miss some dogs that are genuinely infected.

2. Parallel testing. Here, we carry out both tests at the same time and if the dog tests positive and anyone at the two tests we say that this dog is positive. This has the benefit of reducing the risk of missing some dogs that are genuinely positive, but it also comes with the known risk of additional collateral damage and that it will wrongly classify other dogs as positive when they actually are not/have not been infected at any point with BC.

The UK government takes the latter approach with diagnosing BC in dogs. Interestingly, they take the former approach (or more technically a hybrid approach) when diagnosing brucella livestock, despite this being considered a more pathogenic bacteria! However, they have to compensate farmers if they cull livestock, whereas in dogs, the owner bears all the costs.

So, in terms of the values that you’ve suggested. Currently, depending on the source you read, the sensitivity of the test is about 90 to 92%. That means that for every 100 dogs that have been infected with BC at some point the test will identify 90 to 92 of those. The specificity of the test is currently reported to be around 99% (though, I also sit on data from the APHA in a private communication which could put it at 98% and I am exploring that further). This means that 100 dogs that do not have BC. The test will correctly identify 99 of these as not having the disease. One will be a false positive.

This looks really impressive and makes you feel that that you have a very safe test. But it’s not the end of the story because those are your pretest probabilities. However, if you get a positive result you then need to ask the question: given this positive result, how likely is it that this is a true positive as opposed to a false positive? This is more problematic to answer and depends on the underlying prevalence of the disease within the population that your testing. However, if it was one percent roughly 52% of dogs that tested positive would be false positives. if the prevalence was 5% the risk of false positives would be about 20%. Currently (and this is obviously subject to revision as more information comes to light) the government HAIRS report suggest to range from 1 to 5%. if this is correct then between 20 and 52% of dogs that test positive for BC are false positive and have been recommended for euthanasia erroneously.

So the actual testing. I’m in the privileged position that I’ve probably seen around 70% of the test results of dogs that have tested positive.

1. Very few dogs (maybe around 5% ) test positive only on the SAT. Of the four that I have been involved with none of them, subsequently tested positive on the ELISA, which is the other part of the testing protocol. That’s a big red flag for a false positive a typical BC in infection, will result in two types of antibodies being produced and these two tests in combination measure both of those. of the four dogs I’ve been involved with two were left suffering with vet care withdrawn on the basis of their first test result. I managed to find another vet to take on that cases and work them up, and that vet is confident that these dogs were false positives because of the way they responded.

2. Possibly around 15% of dogs will test positive on both parts of the test. Based on the experimental data that we have, and based on a knowledge of immunology and BC infections it’s very likely that these dogs have a genuine active infection. my experience, these are all dogs that have been relatively recently imported though, as we can get a chronic version with a resurgence of an infection. It’s possible to get that profile on a dog that’s been present in the country for longer. I just haven’t seen it yet.

3. The final group and probably the largest group (and in my experience around 80% of the dogs) only test positive on the indirect ELISA. This measures an antibody called IgG and this antibody is produced during an active infection, but then it will traditionally stick around in the body for a very long time afterwards. The purpose being that if the animal ever gets reinfected with that pathogen again, it can mount an immune response super quickly because it’s got effectively infantry ready and waiting. We don’t have a data on how long these antibodies will be measurable for with the government test, but in another test that measures these antibodies called the AGID test these antibodies were detectable for about 36 months post the last active infection.

Now, as I’ve said before, because BC is a tricky bacteria that likes to hang out inside cells, we cannot say for certain that a dog that tests negative and any test looking for direct evidence of the bacteria but the dog is definitely not infected. The best we can say is that we don’t have any evidence to show that it is currently infected. But we actually don’t have any scientific evidence to show that these dogs once infected are always infected. Instead, what we have is information to show that some dogs with clinical signs will not clear the infection fully despite antibiotic treatment. And we also know that this particular pathogen can in some cases, go chronic both dogs and in humans. However, if this was a human that only tested positive on the ELISA test measuring IgG and who had no clinical signs we would probably say something like: the clinical significance of his finding is uncertain, and may simply reflect historic exposure.

As I said all along, this is very problematic. But most of these dogs that are testing positive, and being denied vet care are much loved family members, and there is no quality evidence really to show that these dogs are currently infected (only previous exposure). Plus often their test result is so close to the threshold that it makes being a false positive also a possibility (that is false positive in that another substance is cross reacted, making the test think that the dog has antibodies. It’s important to note that a dog can be a true positive and yet still not be infected).

Imagine that you had a horse with no clinical signs of anything and which appeared completely healthy, but your vet insisted that you had a strangles test. Imagine that your horse tested positive unexpectedly and that there was a 50% chance that this was a false positive. on top of that that even if it was a genuine positive it was still possible that the test have been positive because your horse has been previously infected had subsequently cleared infection. Despite this, your vet tells you on the basis of one test result that your horse is currently infected with strangles.

Imagine then that your vet says that on the basis of that they will not offer any more vet care of any description to your horse, only euthanasia. And imagine that if you say “well can we not do a different test?” they say to you “no, we can repeat the same test and although if that test positive it may simply mean that whatever the substance was in your horses body that caused a false positive the first time round is still present, we’re going to take it as a genuine positive and only offer the euthanasia anyway. And by the way, if you don’t euthanise your horse, we will sack you as a client from the practice or refuse to give vet care to any of your animals, even your child’s hamster.”

That’s the parallel with the experience that some of these owners are facing. As I’ve said before, it’s a tricky situation and there’s a lot more to it than people might think by looking in from outside.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[louiseandsadie]

@louiseandsadie It seems to have escaped your notice that the dog was pts because it was ill with an incurable disease. The family could have been spared heartbreak if they had had knowledge of the disease prior to adoption and could have ensured appropriate tests had been carried out.

We don’t actually have evidence that this is an incurable disease. All we know is that some dogs despite treatment will not clear the infection. Some dogs do appear to respond to treatment.

I’m in agreement that we should be doing testing before importation and it does nobody any favours to not be aware of public health risks associated with owning a dog. That includes anything from roundworm to E. coli to of other things, including BC. It’s not a case of denying that this is an infectious disease. It’s a case of recognising the relative risk and actual risk that it poses and taking proportionate responses.

 

[louiseandsadie]

You have made quite a few claims in your first post so really any citations connected to those would be a helpful starting point.

The overall message I got was that BC is not as dangerous as thought, so I am particularly interested in the evidence around this.

Hi there,
I think your key starting point really for the concern that you have there in relation to it not being as dangerous as thought, would be to read the HAIRS report 2023 link that I’ve shared in one of my other posts. That is the government risk assessment based on the current evidence base that we have for BC. That report was finalised in roughly July 20 23 and so is relatively up to date. That’s partly based on worldwide information and also partly based on epidemiological data collected within the UK since we started to become aware of BC.

 

[louiseandsadie]

If the dogs are testing positive on the ELISA, are owners not also having the SAT done as well? What was it about the test results that caused you concern? Serological tests need a correctly submitted blood sample, could this have been factor? The tests are considered 92% accurate.

In respect of your question about owners, at the beginning they were testing a lot of the owners that had a dog that tested positive. They’re no longer doing this so frequently.

The tests that the human healthcare team (Brucella Reference Unit / Liverpool laboratories) have been using to identify BC in humans include: PCR, RSA, SAT. All of these tests are focused on looking for acute active infection rather than evidence that the human has been infected at some point in the past. This does mean that they may miss some humans that have a chronic infection and I understand that they know sometimes also use the indirect ELISA test. This is useful for looking for chronic infection, but if it test positive and there are no other clinical indications of infections you would not treat the human. Instead, you would say that it’s uncertain status, and could simply reflect previous exposure. This is pretty typical. I was to blood test all members of horse and hound and look for evidence of COVID-19 IgG antibodies. I would probably find lots of horse and hound members have them. However, very few of you would be currently infected with COVID-19. When using IgG antibodies, you really do have to look at the wider clinical picture to make good quality clinical judgements, and unfortunately that’s not happening always in veterinary at the moment, probably because this disease is pretty new to the UK veterinary profession and that comes with its own set of challenges.

 

[louiseandsadie]

I’ve read your latest post.
I’m glad it seems you are against positive dogs being imported?
But once here if they test positive I would much rather if we dont know how long a disease is infectious for or if dogs can recover completely from infection that my children, my dogs and I did not get exposed to it.

I’m not in favour of unowned, positive dogs being imported. I think an exception should be made for own dogs that are already part of a family unit where the family is relocating or coming back to the UK. I don’t think the disease is severe enough to warrant fracturing the family unit on the basis for positive test result given the government current testing regime which has been deliberately said to be as sensitive as possible, knowing that that will increase the risk of collateral damage in terms of falsely labelled positive. However, in the case of unowned dogs, then they certainly a wider discussion to be had about bringing in dogs with a positive status, and I support screening those out.

Your concerns in relation to your children dogs are reasonable, but realistically the threat to you and your children if you come into contact with a positive dog would be negligible. Unless you plan to start coming into contact with reproductive tissues and your children are very very unlikely to get infected and you have more to be worried about in terms of getting bitten by a dog or potentially a number of other pathogens. However, if you were going to get into breeding dogs it would be sensible to ensure that you don’t inadvertently bring an infected dog into your household.

In respect of dog dog transmission again, the risk to your dog from coming into contact with a dog, that’s infected would be minimal. That is not to say that cross infection cannot occur even under experimental conditions in which it was set up to maximise realistically the chance cross infection by housing multiple infected dogs (only just experimentally infected, and at the most infectious period) with multiple uninfected dogs in a kennel, the size of a small double bedroom, it still took between four and six months for cross infection to occur. When we look at the literature in relation to pet dogs and pet dog situations, there is very little to suggest that it is spreading by those mains and the APHA head of Brucella gave a talk to official vets (that’s feds that work for the government) back in autumn, 2023, telling them that the evidence suggested exactly that. It appears to be a disease that spreading between dogs primarily by reproductive related act activity. even in the case of the woman that hit the media who euthanised all her dogs, all the ones that were positive had been been in the house at the point of which that infected bitch was aborting puppies, and so realistically could’ve come into contact with highly infectious material. The remaining dog tested negative, and that dog entered the household after all of that have been cleared up. Because of the testing schedule, it’s possible that the dog hadn’t yet mounted an immune response and was a false negative, but we also also need to taken into consideration that may have just not got infected because the high-risk material was no longer present. None of the owners that have been in contact with me and have tested their in contact, sometimes after several months or years of adopting the dog with a positive status, have reported that their other dogs tested positive. Epidemiologically that’s very significant and I understand that the APHA is doing further work in this area at the moment so I look forward to seeing that. Again, it does not want any favours to disseminate false information or pretend that this is not an infectious disease, but we also should seek to understand it better in order to ensure that our responses are proportionate.

Always reasonable to be cautious about any infectious disease and I understand that and it is sensible to do so but this is a plea to keep it proportionate to what we currently believe the risk BC poses is.

 

[skinnydipper]

Brucella canis is considered to be a lifelong condition in dogs.

Dogs could be asymptomatic but infectious.

At the moment there are vanloads of dogs and puppies being imported who haven't been tested for brucella canis because testing is encouraged, not mandatory.

@Dobiegirl, who I assume alerted you to this thread, said that if her dog tested positive she wouldn't pts, she would keep the dog on her property. That might work if someone has acres. What about the people who live in an apartment or small terrace with a backyard. Are they going to keep their dog on house arrest for the remainder of its life or are they going to risk infecting someone else's dog?

Infected dogs could be in the community, mixing and playing with other dogs.

People I have met with dogs from Eastern Europe, who are allowing their dogs to play with other dogs, have not heard of Brucella canis, had the dog tested or shown any interest in doing so.

Whether to risk having a dog infected with Brucella canis is the choice of those who adopt them.


ETA. I don't like that potentially my dog could be infected with Brucella canis due to someone else's choices.

 

[skinnydipper]

I'm in a support group for people who sponsored Ukrainian refugees. One lady sponsored a family and their dog. Whilst the requirement for rabies injections / quarantine was very stringent the dog arrived with Brucella canis. Her own 2 dogs got infected and her vet advised her not to take any of them off her own premises as they can infect other dogs in the population and humans can also get sick. In the end all 3 had to be euthanised as they were confined to a small garden and there was no cure.

 

[Dobiegirl]

@Dobiegirl, who I assume alerted you to this thread, said that if her dog tested positive she wouldn't pts, she would keep the dog on her property. That might work if someone has acres. What about the people who live in an apartment or small terrace with a backyard. Are they going to keep their dog on house arrest for the remainder of its life or are they going to risk infecting someone else's dog?

You assumed wrong, why you thought that I can only speculate.

 

[skinnydipper]

You assumed wrong, why you thought that I can only speculate.

Please accept my apologies.

 

[Dobiegirl]

Please accept my apologies.

Accepted, thank you.

 

[skinnydipper]

I don't like that potentially my dog could be infected with Brucella canis due to someone else's choices.

​

Brucella canis: what vets need to know
14 Feb 2024

"Although B canis is primarily shed in the fluids associated with reproduction and parturition, it can also be shed in other bodily fluids such as urine, blood and saliva. Isolation between tests, or if a dog is positive, involves limited to no direct or indirect contact with other dogs and ensuring excreta (urine and faeces) is not accessed. Similarly, limited contact with people, especially the old, young, pregnant or immunocompromised.

Management of positive cases need to be discussed with the owner. Treatment is not recommended due to the poor success rate, with euthanasia the only definitive means of eliminating the pathogen. If owners elect to treat, this should involve neutering, with peri-operative antibiotics to reduce the risk of infection to veterinary staff, extended courses of multiple antibiotics, monitoring and management of lifestyle (isolation and restriction).

The challenges of managing and the impact on dog welfare should be considered, and equally the impact of multiple antimicrobial use with no guarantee of success."

Brucella canis: what vets need to know

In this updated blog, Paula Boyden, Veterinary Director at Dogs Trust, discusses current reported cases of Brucella canis, and what vets in practice need to know.

www.bva.co.uk

 

[YorksG]

We appear to be importing animals with a disease proven to cross species to humans and we then have a veterinary professional, trying to tell us that this is fine. It is my opinion that any animal with the risk of such a disease should not be imported, at all. Any that are found to be so infected, should either be returned to their country of origin, or pts. The importation of foreign "rescues " should become illegal and I despair at the people who support these businesses.

 

[Dobiegirl]

​

Brucella canis: what vets need to know
14 Feb 2024

"Although B canis is primarily shed in the fluids associated with reproduction and parturition, it can also be shed in other bodily fluids such as urine, blood and saliva. Isolation between tests, or if a dog is positive, involves limited to no direct or indirect contact with other dogs and ensuring excreta (urine and faeces) is not accessed. Similarly, limited contact with people, especially the old, young, pregnant or immunocompromised.

Management of positive cases need to be discussed with the owner. Treatment is not recommended due to the poor success rate, with euthanasia the only definitive means of eliminating the pathogen. If owners elect to treat, this should involve neutering, with peri-operative antibiotics to reduce the risk of infection to veterinary staff, extended courses of multiple antibiotics, monitoring and management of lifestyle (isolation and restriction).

The challenges of managing and the impact on dog welfare should be considered, and equally the impact of multiple antimicrobial use with no guarantee of success."

Brucella canis: what vets need to know

In this updated blog, Paula Boyden, Veterinary Director at Dogs Trust, discusses current reported cases of Brucella canis, and what vets in practice need to know.

www.bva.co.uk

• "Dog breeders, charities and organisations importing dogs should be encouraged to screen for B canis prior to import."

That quote is from the BVA, unless they make testing compulsory this is never going to be stamped out, so many rescues still evading testing either through ignoring it or falsifying documents, there is big money to be made here so its never going to stop.

 

[skinnydipper]

Loading…

bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

[louiseandsadie]

Brucella canis is considered to be a lifelong condition in dogs.

Dogs could be asymptomatic but infectious.

At the moment there are vanloads of dogs and puppies being imported who haven't been tested for brucella canis because testing is encouraged, not mandatory.

@Dobiegirl, who I assume alerted you to this thread, said that if her dog tested positive she wouldn't pts, she would keep the dog on her property. That might work if someone has acres. What about the people who live in an apartment or small terrace with a backyard. Are they going to keep their dog on house arrest for the remainder of its life or are they going to risk infecting someone else's dog?

Infected dogs could be in the community, mixing and playing with other dogs.

People I have met with dogs from Eastern Europe, who are allowing their dogs to play with other dogs, have not heard of Brucella canis, had the dog tested or shown any interest in doing so.

Whether to risk having a dog infected with Brucella canis is the choice of those who adopt them.


ETA. I don't like that potentially my dog could be infected with Brucella canis due to someone else's choices.

Hi,

It’s considered a lifelong condition only because we don’t have the scientific evidence to determine conclusively whether it a dog is or is not infected if it doesn’t show clinical signs. That’s a value judgement, as opposed to a scientific fact. And there is some published literature to suggest that can clear the infection if their own immune system is left to get on with it. However, that situation is complicated by the nature of of the pathogen and the limitations of our diagnostic tools.

I have no idea who Dobie girl is? As far as I’m aware, the first time I’ve met Dobie girl is when I joined this thread and joined in the discussion. However she sounds like we might share similar viewpoints, but I suspect she might not appreciate being singled out unreasonably, and to the best of my knowledge, the person that alerted me is not Dobie girl!

A dog can be asymptomatic and infectious, and so when doing a risk assessment, it’s important for us to look at that, but we should also look at how easy it is for the infection to spread and under what circumstances. that’s no different to the type of risk assessments we would do for any infectious disease. For example, should you have sex with somebody with an active sexually transmitted infection? I presume you would take precautions. However, I assume that you wouldn’t don full PPE before shaking their hands. Like everything, it’s a case of taking an approach, that’s proportionate to the threat before you.

Infected dogs could be potentially playing with other dogs in the park. However, many of these dogs will not necessarily be infectious per se because the bacteria will be hidden away in a cell somewhere. But also I wouldn’t be overly concerned about meeting an infected dog out on a walk. The available evidence that we currently have suggests that it’s not spreading easily except by reproductive means. Indeed when they validated the government ELISA test, they also ran all the dogs in contact with the infected dogs through the test out of curiosity. All 37 of those dogs had a negative response with a result so low that it would be difficult to say that they had even begun to start mounting an immune response to the pathogen. Off the back of that the APHA themselves said at the official vet conference that this was epidemiologically significant and there was a question mark over wether this infection would even persist in a population, if no reproduction occurred. that’s pretty significant in terms of a conclusion drawn by the APHA in respect of that data and I know they certainly looking at dog dog infection mechanisms further as a consequence. I have to say that I have drawn the same conclusion, looking at all the literature that we currently have in this respect. So while it’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the risk of potential cross infection I wouldn’t let it worry you too much unless you’re planning to let your dogs breed with potentially infected dogs or otherwise have particularly extensive higher risk exposure. Having looked at the evidence, I have to say that I would not be particularly concerned about my dogs playing with a positive dog in the park. I think most dogs would be more likely to sustain a dog bite wound to be honest then it would ever be to catch BC from a dog that it met in the park.

In terms of the comment about lifestyle choices again, I think it’s all down to how much of a risk is it? I could argue that I don’t want to take the risk of catching COVID-19, but I’m forced into that position because other people choose to mix freely with someone that they suspect may have it. Again that’s a lifestyle decision. I think it’s a case of weighing up the level of risk and making a decision. Every lifestyle decision will have some kind of repercussion. Every time somebody rides their horse out on the road, they potentially make a lifestyle decision that could end someone’s life or result in life, changing injuries, and I suspect that driver didn’t want to lose its life or have life changing injuries because of somebody else’s life style choice. But I wouldn’t be looking to ban horses from being ridden on the roads.

So yes, it is an infectious disease and we should always be cognizant of that but we should also take a proportionate approach to it and not be led by fear.

 

[louiseandsadie]

​

Brucella canis: what vets need to know
14 Feb 2024

"Although B canis is primarily shed in the fluids associated with reproduction and parturition, it can also be shed in other bodily fluids such as urine, blood and saliva. Isolation between tests, or if a dog is positive, involves limited to no direct or indirect contact with other dogs and ensuring excreta (urine and faeces) is not accessed. Similarly, limited contact with people, especially the old, young, pregnant or immunocompromised.

Management of positive cases need to be discussed with the owner. Treatment is not recommended due to the poor success rate, with euthanasia the only definitive means of eliminating the pathogen. If owners elect to treat, this should involve neutering, with peri-operative antibiotics to reduce the risk of infection to veterinary staff, extended courses of multiple antibiotics, monitoring and management of lifestyle (isolation and restriction).

The challenges of managing and the impact on dog welfare should be considered, and equally the impact of multiple antimicrobial use with no guarantee of success."

Brucella canis: what vets need to know

In this updated blog, Paula Boyden, Veterinary Director at Dogs Trust, discusses current reported cases of Brucella canis, and what vets in practice need to know.

www.bva.co.uk

You’re providing a popular press blog based on somebody’s opinion. I’m not sure what your endpoint was in sharing that?

 

[louiseandsadie]

Loading…

bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Again, I’m not entirely sure what your reason was for sharing this, but I’m sure that you can expand.

This is a case study. You don’t extrapolate the wider population on the basis of a case study, or make decisions over whether something is or is not curable. But also it’s worth noting. I guess that the dog was responding favourably to treatment, and yet it was put to sleep, partly on the grounds that it might not do well judging from the abstract.

I can’t really comment further because I’m not quite sure what point is that you want to make?

 

[louiseandsadie]

We appear to be importing animals with a disease proven to cross species to humans and we then have a veterinary professional, trying to tell us that this is fine. It is my opinion that any animal with the risk of such a disease should not be imported, at all. Any that are found to be so infected, should either be returned to their country of origin, or pts. The importation of foreign "rescues " should become illegal and I despair at the people who support these businesses.

And that’s an opinion and one that you’re entitled to hold. However, generally for those opinions to get converted into policy at government level, it has to be on the basis of good quality, scientific evidence and a cost benefit analysis of relative advantages and disadvantages of such an approach. I’m sure that those opinions would be factored into decision-making, but ultimately they would also look at a much wide range of factors. Indeed only last year the government funded a research program, looking at the welfare of dogs, imported into the UK across multiple dimensions of which BC was only one.

I personally am in favour of looking at some kind of testing protocol, prior to import for future dogs brought into the UK. However, I’m not in favour of retrofitting onto pets already in the country that have been much loved family members, but often many years and then forcing euthanasia effectively onto the owners when the evidence base doesn’t support the necessity of such a draconian approach. Again, it’s easy to sit there and say they should all be sent back to Romania or euthanised, but you’re not the person that pays the price. You’re not the child with autism that lost its companion of four years. You’re not the 80 something widow, who relied on her dog for companionship and exercise. you’re not the owner who broke down crying on the phone because he couldn’t afford the treatment to keep his dog alive and I was sitting there, knowing that in all likelihood the practice had made treating this dog financially unobtainable to increase the likelihood that he elected for euthanasia. It’s very easy to sit in judgement of these owners and their dogs as a keyboard warrior. However, just never forget that behind it are real human beings that suffer and real dogs that suffer and while sometimes tough decisions have to be made knowing that people will suffer and animals will suffer the evidence really isn’t supporting the need for it to happen in the case of dogs that test positive for BC, something which we are gradually seeing the veterinary profession drift in the direction of. Certainly CVS veterinary group had a mandatory euthanasia policy introduced in November 2022, by summer 2023, that had been made non-mandatory and by autumn of that year, the chief factory officer was describing the new hair report as game changing in terms of the vet care that could be offered to these dogs.

Like everything, not everything, as as black-and-white, as it might first appear.

But as always thank you for your interest, because it gives me an opportunity to share information for other readers of the thread as the majority of horse and hound members will not actively contribute, but many more of them will read the thread and hopefully it will make them think a bit more about the complexities of the situation.

 

[skinnydipper]

Yes, this thread has certainly given you a platform to share your views.

 

[skinnydipper]

Again, I’m not entirely sure what your reason was for sharing this, but I’m sure that you can expand.

This is a case study. You don’t extrapolate the wider population on the basis of a case study, or make decisions over whether something is or is not curable. But also it’s worth noting. I guess that the dog was responding favourably to treatment, and yet it was put to sleep, partly on the grounds that it might not do well judging from the abstract.

I can’t really comment further because I’m not quite sure what point is that you want to make?

I shared the link re the case study on discospondylitis caused by brucella canis for 2 reasons.

1. The person that contacted me, her dog who was pts had back pain.

2. Brucella canis is one of the known causes of discospondylitis.

"Brucella PCR, and Brucella canis serology should be considered in young dogs presenting with chronic spinal pain even without radiographic evidence of DS. Advanced imaging, in particular STIR MRI imaging, should be pursued in dogs with suspicion of BDS even when spinal radiographs are normal."

Brucella canis discospondylitis in 33 dogs

ObjectiveTo describe the clinical and imaging findings of 33 dogs with Brucella canis discospondylitis (BDS).Animals33 client owned dogs from four veterinary specialty hospitals within Colorado and Arizona with at least one positive B. canis test and spinal diagnostic...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[skinnydipper]

You’re providing a popular press blog based on somebody’s opinion. I’m not sure what your endpoint was in sharing that?

I don't see a problem with sharing that article, written by a vet, advising other vets.

 

[skinnydipper]

A dog can be asymptomatic and infectious, and so when doing a risk assessment, it’s important for us to look at that,

It isn't known how many asymptomatic and infectious dogs are out in the community because imported dogs are not routinely tested.

 

[Cortez]

I have a strong feeling that we are conversing with ChatGPT on this subject. It has a tendancy to wang on endlessly and rather pointlessly.

 

[louiseandsadie]

I shared the link re the case study on discospondylitis caused by brucella canis for 2 reasons.

1. The person that contacted me, her dog who was pts had back pain.

2. Brucella canis is one of the known causes of discospondylitis.

"Brucella PCR, and Brucella canis serology should be considered in young dogs presenting with chronic spinal pain even without radiographic evidence of DS. Advanced imaging, in particular STIR MRI imaging, should be pursued in dogs with suspicion of BDS even when spinal radiographs are normal."

Brucella canis discospondylitis in 33 dogs

ObjectiveTo describe the clinical and imaging findings of 33 dogs with Brucella canis discospondylitis (BDS).Animals33 client owned dogs from four veterinary specialty hospitals within Colorado and Arizona with at least one positive B. canis test and spinal diagnostic...

www.frontiersin.org

But that’s not in dispute? I don’t think I’ve ever said the dogs can’t have clinical signs associated with BC. I think you’re building up a strawman here for the purpose of debating with me. The dog may have had clinical signs associated with BC, and if so it still may have been treatable. or they could elect for euthanasia, or they could elect to treat, and only if not successfully treated euthanise or variety of other variants on that. That’s no different to any other animal that is sick with clinical signs from something. But it’s interesting study and thank you for sharing it.

 

[louiseandsadie]

I don't see a problem with sharing that article, written by a vet, advising other vets.

And that’s your value judgement but just remember that vets are not always working from a strong evidence base and they’re not infallible. If this was an expert, giving an expert opinion, they would still be at the bottom of the evidence pyramid in terms of quality of evidence and I try to encourage people to look for primary studies where possible or evidence syntheses or similar. Even there, though, we’re starting to see a bit of a come down from that vets, original more militant approach in which she hopes she would be as brave as the woman who euthanised all her dogs when she got infected with BC. We no longer see that degree of narrative from this individual. Instead, we start to see a chink towards the end of that article towards starting to think about the mechanisms by which it is spreading between dogs, and I think that’s a valuable precursor to what will follow based on what we already know from the primary evidence and also from the APHA ‘s presentation of their own data at the official vet conference last year. So an interesting article it’s useful to sift through it and think about what relates back to the evidence base, and what doesn’t.

 

[louiseandsadie]

It isn't known how many asymptomatic and infectious dogs are out in the community because imported dogs are not routinely tested.

It isn't known how many asymptomatic and infectious dogs are out in the community because imported dogs are not routinely tested.

Absolutely. But we don’t need to test every dog in order to get an idea of how many dogs are out there. One of the fundamental principles of research design is that we use a representative sample of sufficient size to extrapolate to make inferences about the wider population. I don’t need to measure every every single person in the whole wide world to get a idea of what an average person might be roughly height wise, and we wouldn’t test every single person in the country on the Monday of the first week in order to establish what the prevalence of COVID-19 is. Instead, we try to take a representative sample and by that we can calculate not only an estimate of the prevalence, but also the confidence interval within which we are pretty confident that the actual genuine prevalence value will set. It’s basic statistics.