Miranda HE, Ríos MAM, Cruz ST, Salas MA, Romero RA

Language: English/Spanish
References: 13
Page: 361-366
PDF size: 218.23 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A case is presented where the immune response of a horse, chronically affected with a fungus infection (Trichophyton spp) possibly induced by an immunodepressed state, increased when treated with the vegetal-origin immunomodulator known as RS-100 (Patent pending). Hemograms, flow cytometry and proliferation assays, were applied before and after both treatments to demonstrate that the cell count of the animal treated with RS-100 (80 mg/kg every 2 days for 6 weeks and 80 mg/kg daily for six months), apparently came close to having the values of normal animals with the capacity of increasing the sensitivity of lymphocytes to respond to mitogens (immunological values). Improvement was observed clinically, with a reduction of the lesions and there was also an improvement in the mood and disposition to work of the animal. However, the signs of immunological depression (including mycotic lesions) came back when the treatment was suspended. The reinstallation of such treatment eliminated the disease.

REFERENCES

1. Marti E, David WH, Doug FA, Sandor L, Paul L. Advances in equine immunology: Havemeyer workshop reports from Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Hortobagy, Hungary. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2003;91:233- 243.

2. Pell SM, McGreevy PD. A study of cortisol and beta-endorphin levels in stereotypic and normal Thoroughbreds. Appli Anim Behav Scienc 1999;64:81- 90.

3. García ME, Blanco JL. Principales enfermedades fúngicas que afectan a los animales domésticos. Rev Iberoam Micol 2000;17:S2-S7.

4. Rush BR, Flaminio MJ. Immunomodulation in horses. Vet Clin North Amer Equine Pract.; 2000, 16(Pt1):183- 97

5. Flaminio MJ, Rush BR, Suman W. Immunologic function in horses after non-specific immunostimulant administration. Vet Immunol and Immunopathol 1998;63: 303-315.

6. De la Fuente JC, Fields S M, Flynn JT, Koeller J, Kwok KK, Lake KD, et al. Concepts in Immunology and Immunotherapeutics; 2nd ed. Bethesda, M. A. American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, 1992.

7. García TF, Terrazas VI. Inmunomodulación del estrés. Memorias del II Simposium “Inmunoestimulantes e Inmomodulación”; 1998 Noviembre 5-6, Cuautitlán, Edo. de México; Coordinación de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, FES- Cuautitlán, UNAM. Edo. de México, México.

8. Vargas SA. Efecto de un inmunoestimulante en cerdos vacunados contra el síndrome respiratorio y reproduc-tivo porcino e inoculados con un virus de referencia (tesis de maestría). Edo. de México, México: Facultad Estudios Superiores-Cuautitlán Campo 1, Univ Nacional Autonoma de México, 2003.

9. Guerci AA. Laboratorio, Métodos de análisis clínicos y su interpretación. 4ta ed. Argentina:Librería “El Ateneo”, 1998.

10. Rangel RI, editor. Manual de Prácticas de Laboratorio Clínico. 2da ed. Cuautitlán, UNAM, 1999.

11. Barbara BM, Stanley MS. Selected Methods in Cellular Immunology. San Francisco, USA:Will Freeman and Company, 1980.

12. Harbeck RJ, Giclas PC. Diagnostic Immunology Laboratory Manual. New York, USA: Raven Press, 1991.

13. Fernandez BR, Větvička, Václav. Methods in Cellular Immunology. Boca Ratón, Florida, USA: CRC Press Inc, 1995:29-34.