| Literature DB >> 33807857 |
Stefania Zanet1, Elena Battisti1, Federico Labate1, Francesca Oberto1, Ezio Ferroglio1.
Abstract
Nematodes are an important cause of disease and loss of performance in horses. Changes in the parasitic fauna of horses have occurred in the past few decades, making cyathostomins the major parasites in adult horses, while large strongyles have become less prevalent. Parascaris spp. remains the most important parasite infecting foals and weanlings. Anthelmintic resistance is highly prevalent in cyathostomins and Parascaris spp. worldwide and it must be factored into treatment decisions. To assess anthelmintic efficacy in Northern Italy, we sampled 215 horses from 17 sport and horse-breeding farms. Fecal egg count reduction tests (FECRT) were used to assess anthelmintic efficacy. Copromicroscopic analysis was performed using MiniFLOTAC before treatment with fenbendazole, pyrantel pamoate or ivermectin, and repeated 14 days post-treatment. Strongyle-type eggs were detected in 66.91% of horses (CI95% 61.40-73.79%), while Parascaris spp. was detected in 2.79% (CI95% 1.94-5.95%). Reduced efficacy against cyathostomins was observed for fenbendazole in 55.56% of the treated animals (CI95% 41.18-69.06%), and for pyrantel pamoate in 75% of animals (CI95% 30.06-95.44%). Ground-based actions must be set in place to promote the uptake of state-of-the-art worm control plans that will prevent clinical disease while minimizing the selection pressure of resistant parasites.Entities:
Keywords: drug resistance; drug use; equine nematodes; strongyles
Year: 2021 PMID: 33807857 PMCID: PMC8001109 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci8030042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Anthelmintic drug usage (treatment criteria, frequency and active principle) is reported for each facility (N = number of facilities) enrolled in the study.
| Treatment Method | Facilities (N) |
|---|---|
| Strategic | 13 |
| Strategic + symptomatology | 4 |
| Selective | 0 |
| Frequency | |
| Every 3 months | 2 |
| Every 4 months | 4 |
| Every 6 months | 11 |
| Active Principle | |
| Ivermectin | 13 |
| Fenbendazole | 3 |
| Pyrantel Pamoate | 1 |
For each of the 17 facilities enrolled in the study, we report the total number of sampled subjects, the number of subjects positive for strongyle eggs at T0, prevalence of infection, strongyle fecal egg count at T0 (mean egg per gram value, EPG), Parascaris spp. egg count (mean egg per gram value, EPG) and type of treatment (fenbendazole (FBZ), pyrantel pamoate (PYR) or ivermectin (IVM)).
| Facility | Total Sampled | Positive | Prevalence (IC95%) | Strongyles FEC | Anthelmintic Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stud farm 1 | 8 | 8 | 100.00% (67.56–100) | 1538 | IVM | |
| Stud farm 2 | 28 | 26 | 92.86% (77.35–98.02) | 620 | FBZ | |
| Racecourse | 11 | 8 | 72.73% (43.44–90.25) | 745 | 36 | IVM |
| Livery yard 1 | 21 | 11 | 52.38% (32.37–71.66) | 265 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 2 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% (34.24–100) | 250 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 3 | 37 | 30 | 81.08% (65.80–90.52) | 525 | 980 | IVM |
| Livery yard 4 | 10 | 2 | 20.00% (5.67–50.98) | 90 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 5 | 4 | 4 | 100.00% (51.01–100) | 225 | PYR | |
| Livery yard 6 | 10 | 5 | 50.00% (23.66–76.34) | 140 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 7 | 11 | 6 | 54.55% (28.01–78.73) | 255 | 9 | FBZ |
| Livery yard 8 | 7 | 3 | 42.86% (15.82–74.95) | 100 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 9 | 39 | 29 | 74.36% (58.92–85.43) | 340 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 10 | 6 | 6 | 100.00% (60.9–100) | 1615 | FBZ | |
| Livery yard 11 | 12 | 2 | 16.67% (4.70–44.80) | 50 | 50 | IVM |
| Livery yard 12 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% (34.24–100) | 750 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 13 | 2 | 2 | 100.00% (34.24–100) | 1250 | IVM | |
| Livery yard 14 | 5 | 0 | 0.00% (0.00–43.45) | 0 | IVM |
Numbers of individuals within each larval type and strongyles in each of the enrolled facilities at T0. In each facility, for every positive horse, we morphologically identified 10 L3 specimens.
| Facility | Type D | Type C | Type A |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stud farm 1 | 0 | 7 | 73 | 0 |
| Stud farm 2 | 21 | 34 | 205 | 0 |
| Racecourse | 7 | 2 | 68 | 4 |
| Livery yard 1 | 5 | 0 | 105 | 0 |
| Livery yard 2 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 0 |
| Livery yard 3 | 0 | 60 | 240 | 0 |
| Livery yard 4 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 |
| Livery yard 5 | 3 | 0 | 26 | 0 |
| Livery yard 6 | 10 | 5 | 35 | 0 |
| Livery yard 7 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 0 |
| Livery yard 8 | 2 | 6 | 24 | 0 |
| Livery yard 9 | 0 | 0 | 290 | 0 |
| Livery yard 10 | 3 | 5 | 54 | 0 |
| Livery yard 11 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 |
| Livery yard 12 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 |
| Livery yard 13 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 |
| Livery yard 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 1Total number (%) of facilities in which each of the identified larval types or S. edentatus were reported.