Warmblood Import Nightmare

[findeight]

Ehhh…never imported myself, like domestic horses better for my needs. But being in a big barn that did 10 or so twice a year for most of the 17 years I was there, some shipping to that barn others that trainer picked that shipped to other barns, I learned if I ever did import, despite owning, buying, selling, showing for self and others at times since 1970? I’d go to a well known trainer importing frequently with my shopping list but not buy the specific horse from that trainer until it’s landed and released over here. Preferably have 2 or 3 to look at, Yes, pay them up front for their time and pay a slightly higher price but not take ownership until it’s here.

The most frequent importers have the best contacts who provide the best service. And those frequent importers look at a couple hundred horses EACH buying trip. They also have the best network over here to sell them. That’s who you want to deal with even if you can find cheaper providers.

Not to sound hard hearted here, it’s a kid and losing a new horse but it’s not the $1200 dead cat or free puppy that ran up hundreds before dying of distemper . It’s what probably started as a 20k horse that has run up another 20k in expenses, will keep running that up each day it’s still with us and going to cost at least another couple of grand in Euth and cremation.

Yes its terrible for the kid but at some point, hard choices need to be made and any Pro giving advice needs to be brave enough to tell them the truth about the eventual fate of the animal, not drag it and the ever enlarging bill out for months and sharing their lack of competence with all of cyberspace,

Honestly, losing so much over the budget is liable to hurt that 15 year old more then the loss of a beloved pet. Horse hasn’t enjoyed much quality of life either, even if shipped back to be put down there ir put down here weeks ago, it would have been a better decision. And the decision those who import many horses yearly would advise and make themselves much earlier then at 8 weeks and repeated positives.

[FieldFluff]

It’s a sad case for all involved. But who among us hasn’t lost a boatload of money on a horse?? I’ve bought one that then tested positive for piro and lost a small amount of money in the transportation & board of it while it was still in Europe. Imported another that was far greener than advertised and spent purchase price again trying to train it up, only to sell at a loss. And that’s just on my imports gone wrong, saying nothing of the horses I’ve purchased here who have not worked out or colicked or …

This is not a business for the faint of heart of for those trying to make or save money, and I don’t believe that it’s right for the trainer to go running to GFM to cover losses, however unfair or sad they may be. Most of us are, I think, struggling to afford this thing that we love, and we aren’t expecting others to clean up after us when things go wrong.

[Peggy]

A horse was imported by a barn mate years ago and tested positive for piro on arrival. Trainer said to send it back ASAP. No question. Client wasn’t thrilled, but followed the advice. Reading all this, that trainer was wise indeed.

Import agent hadn’t had horse tested for piro before it left Europe as it had competed in the US recently. Not so wise.

[trubandloki]

@FatDinah

If some one has expertise, please answer. Do these tests work by detecting antibodies or the virus? If it is antibodies, is it possible the horse was exposed and developed antibodies well before import? That it is not infected or contagious, but has antibodies?
I agree this isn’t “just” a false positive if he has consistently popped a positive.

This horse was tested before it shipped and it was negative.

[kmwines]

@BK6756

I don’t think you understand how medical tests work… there’s no such thing as a test that is always 100% correct all the time.
Tests are characterized by sensitivity and specificity, and it is always a tradeoff. If you want a test to always catch every truly positive case, there will be some false positives too. If you want a test to never have any false positives, that means you are going to miss some of the truly positive animals (going to have false negative).
For a serious foreign animal disease like glanders, the correct thing to do is require a test that is highly sensitive so that you never miss a positive horse, even if that comes at the expense of a rare false positive.
That is why the USDA requires a certain test and you can’t just choose to use another test.

Interestingly, according to one research paper, the USDA cft had the lowest sensitivity of the 3 tested and the highest specificity. So actually more likely to get false negative.

[IPEsq]

@FatDinah

If some one has expertise, please answer. Do these tests work by detecting antibodies or the virus? If it is antibodies, is it possible the horse was exposed and developed antibodies well before import? That it is not infected or contagious, but has antibodies?
I agree this isn’t “just” a false positive if he has consistently popped a positive.
I had an active Rocky Mountain fever case from a tick but the tests also showed an old Lyme infection, all through antibodies.

It’s a bacterial infection, not a virus.

“The CFT is an accurate serological test that has been used for many years for diagnosing glanders. It will deliver positive results within 1 week post-infection and will also recognise sera from exacerbated chronic cases.”

https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.05.11_GLANDERS.pdf

This is the 2018 version of the OIE manual. It says that more specific ELISA tests are being worked on to help resolve questionable results of quarantined horses. It also says the immunoblot test is not fully validated, for whatever reason.

Part of the problem is that the horse has not been confirmed positive or negative under the current standards. If we had positive CFT plus a positive secondary test, it would be confirmed positive. But a negative secondary test does not appear to negate the positive CFT under these standards.

This 2011 paper compared the sensitivity and specificity of different CFTs. It concluded that the USDA test was the most specific (but the others were still highly specific), but the least sensitive.

https://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/169/19/495

[findeight]

Just wanted to add…if trainer had any money invested in this horse, might there be a conflict of interest coloring her advice and willingness to go very public?

[JustTheTicket]

Is there any update on the horse?

[trubandloki]

@JustTheTicket

Is there any update on the horse?

Nothing that is posted on the trainer’s Facebook page.

[Coanteen]

@IPEsq

This 2011 paper compared the sensitivity and specificity of different CFTs. It concluded that the USDA test was the most specific (but the others were still highly specific), but the least sensitive.

Right, of the CFTs. But the WB and ELISAs are nevertheless more specific.
(I would actually want to know wtf was going on with that USDA antigen they tested. A sensitivity in the low-60s for a low-prevalence screening test is NOT acceptable. Both sensitivity and specificity should be above 90 to be highly credible).

The WB and all ELISAs, except BimA, were significantly more specific than the CFT. ELISAs based on TssA, TssB, and BimA antigens had significantly lower sensitivity compared to CFT while the sensitivities of the Hcp1-ELISA, the IDVet-ELISA and the WB did not differ significantly from that of the CFT.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar…l.pone.0214963

In this paper, CFT vs WB specificity was 96.4% vs 99.4%, sensitivity 98% vs 96.8%. ELISAs were less specific than WB but more than CFT.

A highly specific test for a disease/organism will pick up the disease, at the cost of popping some false positives. A highly sensitive one will correctly classify true negatives as negative, at the cost of popping some false negatives.

[WildLittleWren]

All I can think about is this poor horse on lockdown after how many weeks still?!? Someone needs to make a decision, now.

[MHM]

@WildLittleWren

All I can think about is this poor horse on lockdown after how many weeks still?!? Someone needs to make a decision, now.

It’s certainly not ideal. But lots of horses end up on stall rest for months due to injuries or what have you. At least he gets out for hand walks every day, according to Facebook posts.

As long as he’s still breathing, there’s a chance he could get out of there.

[findeight]

@Ghazzu

I suspect that the returned to Europe Plan B /“bottom level marketing” might not be an option here, as glanders is a potentially zoonotic disease, and it just isn’t worth the risk.

Realize that but brought that bottom level into the conversation to define the difference in attitudes between here and there. If returned, he would not have left the receiving facility. Don’t think some on here advocating for returning him quite understand they not only don’t want him back, even if they find somebody to accept his shipment, they will put him down on arrival as a risk without a second thought.

[Denali6298]

@Coanteen

Right, of the CFTs. But the WB and ELISAs are nevertheless more specific.
(I would actually want to know wtf was going on with that USDA antigen they tested. A sensitivity in the low-60s for a low-prevalence screening test is NOT acceptable. Both sensitivity and specificity should be above 90 to be highly credible).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar…l.pone.0214963

In this paper, CFT vs WB specificity was 96.4% vs 99.4%, sensitivity 98% vs 96.8%. ELISAs were less specific than WB but more than CFT.

A highly specific test for a disease/organism will pick up the disease, at the cost of popping some false positives. A highly sensitive one will correctly classify true negatives as negative, at the cost of popping some false negatives.

Could you break this down for me a little more with regards to specific and sensitivity. I’m gathering from
your link and what others have posted that the WB test has less risk of a false positive but is less sensitive and the CFT is more sensitive with a higher risk of sensitivity? Or did I get it backwards?

[Coanteen]

@Denali6298

Could you break this down for me a little more with regards to specific and sensitivity. I’m gathering from
your link and what others have posted that the WB test has less risk of a false positive but is less sensitive and the CFT is more sensitive with a higher risk of sensitivity? Or did I get it backwards?

What’s confusing you? The fact that I put them backwards?

LOL yeah, I switched the explanations. It should read:

”‹”‹A highly sensitive test for a disease/organism will pick up the disease, at the cost of popping some false positives. A highly specific one will correctly classify true negatives as negative, at the cost of popping some false negatives.

Sorry!

When you’re screening and absolutely can’t afford to let a true positive slip past you, you want the most sensitive test you can find. You’re gonna get some false positives with that, but at least you won’t release any glanders horses onto the population (as false negatives).

But your confirmatory should be highly specific - if the person/animal is true positive, a highly specific test should categorize them correctly.

Not all testing has a confirmatory. Sometimes you just wait and repeat the first test.

[Denali6298]

@Coanteen

What’s confusing you? The fact that I put them backwards?

LOL yeah, I switched the explanations. It should read:

”‹”‹A highly sensitive test for a disease/organism will pick up the disease, at the cost of popping some false positives. A highly specific one will correctly classify true negatives as negative, at the cost of popping some false negatives.

Sorry!

When you’re screening and absolutely can’t afford to let a true positive slip past you, you want the most sensitive test you can find. You’re gonna get some false positives with that, but at least you won’t release any glanders horses onto the population (as false negatives).

But your confirmatory should be highly specific - if the person/animal is true positive, a highly specific test should categorize them correctly.

Not all testing has a confirmatory. Sometimes you just wait and repeat the first test.

Ahhh thanks!!! I didn’t think you explained it backwards I thought I had gotten it backwards.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@findeight

Realize that but brought that bottom level into the conversation to define the difference in attitudes between here and there. If returned, he would not have left the receiving facility. Don’t think some on here advocating for returning him quite understand they not only don’t want him back, even if they find somebody to accept his shipment, they will put him down on arrival as a risk without a second thought.

Your last few posts have been informative and excellent - thanks.

I understand the point you are making about the likelihood he is put down upon upon arrival back in Europe… it makes complete sense to me.

Honestly… with this many positive CFT results plus his minor symptoms and being held in quarantine for over 60 days… it seems inevitable that he is EITHER going to be put down here or there… unless they somehow find a way to continue to hold him in quarantine in hopes of a zero CFT (negative for glanders) given more time and additional tests.

Perhaps if the trainer was more experienced with imports, and had stronger relationships with a specific dealer in Europe with whom they had done a high volume of business, shipping the horse back immediately might have been easier to figure out and pitch to the client.

On the topic of putting the horse down and treating horses as livestock… Honestly… animals don’t have the same concept of time, hopes and dreams, etc as humans. In my opinion, if a horse is stall bound for 60 days and counting with no end in sight, in an odd limbo like this with a potentially VERY serious disease… and the stall bound situation involves no personalized, detailed daily care with respect to diet, grooming etc, like a committed owner or good boarding situation would typically provide (not intending a criticism of Jet Pets with that comment, but just saying quarantine is different than micromanaging a horse on stall rest when an attentive owner has immediate access)… in some ways I think putting him down is more humane and responsible and fair to the horse than dragging this situation out longer. Or shipping him back to Europe only to put him down when they land. But that’s me… I understand others may not share the same perspective.

[AppaloosaDressage]

Maybe I missed a post somewhere, but who says the horse will definitely be euthanized upon arrival in Europe? europe will not euthanize because of a positive cft if wb is negative

[IPEsq]

@AppaloosaDressage

Maybe I missed a post somewhere, but who says the horse will definitely be euthanized upon arrival in Europe? europe will not euthanize because of a positive cft if wb is negative

And at least one agent said they would take him!

Other agents chimed in to say they had been through this and lost money on other sales but shipped horse back to Europe ASAP on their dime and then they later made it back to the US to the buyer with clean tests. The loss one of them quoted was about 10k because horse had to fly back to Europe solo. Even if these buyers had paid that, they’d be way better off than they are now, and probably a lot better for the horse if he’d been able to be shipped before showing signs of illness.

[FatDinah]

Sorry, another dumb question. If glanders is a bacterial infection, why can’t it be treated successfully with antibiotics?