| Literature DB >> 32912340 |
Laura Jürgenschellert1, Jürgen Krücken1, Corrine J Austin2, Kirsty L Lightbody2, Eric Bousquet3, Georg von Samson-Himmelstjerna4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective and sustainable worm control in horses would benefit from detailed information about the current regional occurrence of tapeworms. Different diagnostic methods are currently available to detect Anoplocephala spp. infections in horses. However, the format as well as the sensitivity and specificity of the methods vary considerably.Entities:
Keywords: Anoplocephala; Cestodes; ELISA; Equine parasites; Faecal egg count
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32912340 PMCID: PMC7488081 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-04318-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Previous studies on equine tapeworm infections in Germany
| Region | Yeara | Study design | Species and prevalence (%) | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | HL/FL | ||||
| Brandenburg | 2006 | Combined sedimentation-flotation, McMaster | HL | Hinney et al. [ | |
| FL | |||||
| Lower Saxony | 2000, 2001 | McMaster (modified) | HL | Wirtherle [ | |
| Bavaria | 2002, 2003 | Post mortem sectio | HL | Rehbein et al. [ | |
| Bavaria | na | Post mortem sectio | HL | Beelitz and Gothe [ | |
| Combined sedimentation-flotation | HL | ||||
| Northern Germany | 1998, 1999 | Combined sedimentation-flotation | HL | Behrens [ | |
| FL | |||||
| Lower Saxony | 1995 | Post mortem sectio | HL | Cirak et al. [ | |
| Nation-wide | 1958 | Post mortem sectio | HL | Kiedrowski [ | |
Anoplocephala spp. may include Anoplocephala perfoliata, Anoplocephala magna and Paranoplocephala mamillana
HL horse level, FL farm level
aSampling year
General data of 484 horses from 48 farms included in the study
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (years; median range) | 12.0 (0.8–34.0) |
| Mares (%) | 50.2 |
| Geldings (%) | 46.7 |
| Stallions (%) | 3.1 |
| Faecal samples (%) | 100 |
| Saliva samples (%) | 75.4 |
| Serum samples (%) | 99.4 |
| Last treatment | |
| Ivermectin + Praziquantel (%) | 7.2 |
| Ivermectin (%) | 42.4 |
| Moxidectin (%) | 4.1 |
| Doramectin (%) | 1.4 |
| Fenbendazole (%) | 4.3 |
| Pyrantel (%) | 38.2 |
| Unknown | 2.3 |
| Period between last anthelmintic treatment and sampling (weeks; median range) | 14.4 (1.4–100.0) |
| Horses sampled per farm (number; median, range) | 10 (4–17) |
| Pasture access (%) | 96.7 |
| Unlimited (%) | 28.9 |
| Limited (%) | 67.8 |
| Pasture area/horse (ha) (mean, range) | 0.6 (0.1–2.0) |
| Size/number of horses per farm (mean, range) | 40.2 (6–110) |
| Foals present (%) | 39.6 |
| Treatment schedule (annual) | |
| Selective (%) | 8.7 |
| Low number (1–2) of treatments (%) | 32.8 |
| Moderate number (3) of treatments (%) | 39.6 |
| High number (≥4) treatments (%) | 18.9 |
Prevalence of Anoplocephala spp. using different methods
| Method | Prevalence (%) | 95% confidence interval (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sedimentation-flotation | 0.6 | 0.2–1.8 | 3/484 |
| Mini-FLOTAC | 0.6 | 0.2–1.8 | 3/484 |
| Serum-ELISA | 16.2 | 13.2–19.8 | 78/481 |
| Saliva-ELISA | 29.5 | 25.1–34.5 | 108/365 |
n number in the category N total number
Prevalence in serum- and saliva-based ELISA for all 48 farms
| Farm number | Total no. of horses on farm | Prevalence in serum (95% CI) (%) | Prevalence in saliva (95% CI) (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 32 | 10 | 40.0 (20.9–68.7) | na | na |
| 2 | 21 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | na | na |
| 3 | 80 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | na | na |
| 4 | 38 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | na | na |
| 5 | 85 | 10 | 10.0 (2.9–39.4) | na | na |
| 6a | 30 | 10 | 50.0 (28.1–71.9) | na | na |
| 7 | 44 | 10 | 10.0 (3.9–38.3) | na | na |
| 8 | 29 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | na | na |
| 9 | 50 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | na | na |
| 10 | 25 | 10 | 50.0 (29.2–70.8) | na | na |
| 11 | 14 | 12 | 0 (0.0–24.3) | na | na |
| 12 | 60 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 20.0 (7.5–49.2) |
| 13 | 30 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) |
| 14 | 95 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) |
| 15 | 75 | 12 | 0 (0.0–24.3) | 11 | 27.3 (11.4–54.9) |
| 16 | 18 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 10.0 (7.9–34.4) |
| 17 | 44 | 10 | 40.0 (19.7–65.9) | 10 | 60.0 (34.1–80.3) |
| 18 | 22 | 8 | 0 (0.0–32.4) | 8 | 25.0 (11.9–54.3) |
| 19 | 110 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 9 | 33.3 (13.0–63.6) |
| 20 | 90 | 10 | 30.0 (12.1–59.0) | 10 | 50.0 (25.0–75.0) |
| 21 | 18 | 12 | 25.0 (23.4–51.4) | 12 | 75.0 (55.8–82.1) |
| 22 | 23 | 10 | 10.0 (6.3–36.0) | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) |
| 23 | 90 | 9 | 22.2 (7.4–53.6) | 9 | 33.3 (13.4–63.4) |
| 24 | 35 | 10 | 60.0 (35.0–79.5) | 10 | 80.0 (52.3–91.1) |
| 25 | 11 | 10 | 40.0 (34.6–51.0) | 10 | 40.0 (34.6–51.0) |
| 26 | 22 | 10 | 40.0 (34.6–51.0) | 10 | 80.0 (54.5–88.8) |
| 27 | 85 | 5 | 0 (0.0-43.5) | 5 | 20.0 (4.3–61.7) |
| 28a | 12 | 10 | 60.0 (46.2–68.3) | 10 | 100 (80.2–100.0) |
| 29 | 35 | 10 | 20.0 (8.9–47.8) | 8 | 0 (0.0–32.4) |
| 30 | 33 | 11 | 0 (0.0–25.9) | 11 | 0 (0.0–25.9) |
| 31 | 12 | 8 | 0 (0.0–32.4) | 8 | 25.0 (17.5–48.8) |
| 32 | 25 | 5 | 0 (0.0–43.5) | 7 | 57.1 (29.1–80.2) |
| 33 | 35 | 10 | 10.0 (4.5–37.7) | 10 | 10.0 (4.5–37.7) |
| 34 | 20 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) |
| 35 | 25 | 16 | 18.8 (13.7–40.0) | 16 | 31.3 (22.9–47.6) |
| 36 | 100 | 15 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 13 | 15.4 (5.5–41.1) |
| 37 | 20 | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) | 10 | 0 (0.0–27.8) |
| 38 | 28 | 12 | 33.3 (19.2–55.5) | 12 | 50.0 (31.1–69.0) |
| 39 | 26 | 10 | 20.0 (10.2–46.5) | 10 | 20.0 (10.2–46.5) |
| 40 a | 37 | 8 | 100 (67.6–100.0) | 8 | 87.5 (55.2–95.5) |
| 41 | 15 | 11 | 9.1 (1.0–29.3) | 11 | 36.4 (26.7–53.1) |
| 42 | 15 | 8 | 12.5 (8.8–40.5) | 8 | 37.5 (21.9–61.3) |
| 43 | 35 | 16 | 0 (0.0–19.4) | 16 | 6.3 (4.5–24.9) |
| 44 | 20 | 9 | 0 (0.0–29.9) | 9 | 0 (0.0–29.9) |
| 45 | 40 | 8 | 37.5 (16.3–66.8) | 8 | 37.5 (16.3–66.8) |
| 46 | 29 | 17 | 17.6 (12.2–35.0) | 17 | 23.5 (16.1–40.8) |
| 47 | 6 | 4 | 25.0 (16.6–57.9) | 4 | 25.0 (16.6–57.9) |
| 48 | 85 | 5 | 0 (0.0–43.5) | 5 | 0 (0.0–43.5) |
aFarm with a horse tested Anoplocephala spp. positive in the faecal analysis
CI confidence interval, na not available
Fig. 1Comparison of the serum and saliva scores for the detection of antibodies against Anoplocephala spp. Serum scores were plotted over saliva scores for 363 horse samples for which both datasets were available. a Complete dataset. b Enlarged view of the lower left area of (a) with 16 data points out of axis limitations. Cut-off values are indicated by spotted horizontal and vertical lines. Serum tapeworm ELISA: cut-off: < 2.7 low; > 6.3 moderate/high. Saliva-based ELISA: Cut-off: < −0.09 low; > 0.62 moderate/high. Positive but borderline score areas are indicated by grey shading
Fig. 2Forest plot showing odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) for the final logistic regression model for explanatory variable potentially influencing the odds to be positive in the Anoplocephala serum ELISA. For the bivariate variables pasture cleaning (daily removal of faeces), pasture change (regular change between different pastures) and foals present (at least one foal on farm) the reference level is “no”. For multilevel variables, the reference level is given in the figure. Metric variables included are the pasture area (in ha/horse), number of horses on the farm, faecal egg counts (FEC) of strongyle nematodes, and age of the horse (in years). The variable pasture access was divided in the levels: always pasture, i.e. permanent access to pasture during the grazing season (reference category); sometimes pasture access (hourly access to the pasture during grazing season); and no pasture access (no pasture access at all). For the variable last anthelmintic treatment, the only level including the highly cestocidal drug praziquantel, which was always given in combination with ivermectin (IVM), was chosen as reference. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Final logistic regression model to identify risk factors explaining positive samples in Anoplocephala serum ELISA
| Reference level | Term | Estimate | SE | Odds ratio | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pasture cleaning | − 0.219 | 0.590 | 0.711 | 0.804 | 0.236 | 2.459 | |
| Pasture change | 4.288 | 1.188 | < 0.0001 | 72.836 | 10.669 | 1586.703 | |
| Pasture area (+ 1 ha) | 1.317 | 0.438 | 0.003 | 3.732 | 1.613 | 9.096 | |
| Always pasture access | Sometimes pasture access | − 2.443 | 0.627 | < 0.0001 | 0.087 | 0.023 | 0.274 |
| No pasture access | − 12.971 | 1475.0 | 0.993 | 2.327×10−6 | 8.047×10−230 | 2.976×1019 | |
| Foals present | − 3.305 | 0.692 | < 0.0001 | 0.037 | 0.008 | 0.127 | |
| No. of horses (+ 1 horse) | − 0.053 | 0.014 | < 0.0001 | 0.948 | 0.921 | 0.971 | |
| Ivermectin + Praziquantel | Pyrantel | 2.989 | 1.108 | 0.007 | 19.870 | 3.363 | 390.831 |
| Moxidectin | 2.562 | 1.344 | 0.057 | 12.960 | 1.167 | 330.938 | |
| Ivermectin | 4.048 | 1.143 | < 0.0001 | 57.261 | 9.013 | 1176.149 | |
| Fenbendazole | 6.812 | 1.420 | < 0.0001 | 908.693 | 79.217 | 27177.460 | |
| Doramectin | − 11.975 | 1726.7 | 0.994 | 6.300×106 | na | 3.445×10149 | |
| FEC strongyle (+1 egg/g) | 0.862 | 0.428 | 0.044 | 2.369 | 1.061 | 5.751 | |
| Age (+ 1 year) | − 0.043 | 0.024 | 0.075 | 0.958 | 0.913 | 1.003 | |
| (Intercept) | − 5.600 | 1.697 | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.072 |
Pseudo- : 0.41; Pseudo-: 0.54