Advertisement

Veterinary Research Communications

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 53–65 | Cite as

A Field Study on the Effect of Some Anthelmintics on Cyathostomins of Horses in Sweden

  • E. Osterman LindEmail author
  • T. Kuzmina
  • A. Uggla
  • P. J. Waller
  • J. Höglund
Article

Abstract

The objective of the study was to investigate different aspects on the efficacy of three anthelmintics on cyathostomin nematodes of Swedish horses. A faecal egg count reduction (FECR) test was performed on 26 farms. Horses were treated orally with recommended doses of ivermectin, pyrantel pamoate or fenbendazole. Faecal samples were collected on the day of deworming and 7, 14 and 21 days later. No resistance was shown against ivermectin; the FECR was constantly >99%. The effect of pyrantel was assessed as equivocal in 6 farms 14 days after treatment; the mean FECR was 99%. As many as 72% of the fenbendazole-treated groups met the criteria for resistance; the mean FECR was 86%, ranging from 56% to 100%. A re-investigation of two farms where pyrantel resistance had been suspected clearly revealed unsatisfactory efficacy of pyrantel on one of these farms; the FECR varied from 72% to 89%. Twenty-six of the horses previously dosed with pyrantel or fenbendazole, and which still excreted ≥150 eggs per gram of faeces 14 days after treatment, were dewormed with ivermectin and fenbendazole or pyrantel in order to eliminate the remaining cyathostomins. A total of 13 cyathostomin species were identified from horses that initially received fenbendazole and seven species were identified from pyrantel-treated individuals. The egg reappearance period (ERP) following treatment with ivermectin and pyrantel was investigated on two farms. The shortest ERP after ivermectin treatment was 8 weeks and after pyrantel was 5 weeks. We conclude that no substantial reversion to benzimidazole susceptibility had taken place, although these drugs have scarcely been used (<5%) in horses for the last 10 years. Pyrantel-resistant populations of cyathostomins are present on Swedish horse farms, but the overall efficacy of pyrantel is still acceptable.

Keywords

anthelmintic resistance cyathostomins egg reappearance period (ERP) faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) horse 

Abbreviations

ECR

egg count ratio

FECRT

faecal egg count reduction test

FEC

faecal egg count

epg

eggs per gram of faeces

ERP

egg reappearance period

LC

the lower 95% confidence limit

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, N., Martin, P.J. and Jarrett, R.G., 1988. Mixtures of anthelmintics: a strategy against resistance. Australian Veterinary Journal, 65, 62–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous, 1989. Anthelmintic resistance. In: P.J. Waller (ed.), Report of the Working Party for the Animal Health Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, (SCA Technical Report Series No. 28, CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia)Google Scholar
  3. Bjørn, H., Sommer, C., Schougård, H., Henriksen, S.A. and Nansen, P., 1991. Resistance to benzimidazole anthelmintics in small strongyles (Cyathostominae) of horses in Denmark. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 32, 253–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabaret, J. and Berrag, B., 2004. Faecal egg count reduction test for assessing anthelmintic efficacy: average versus individually based estimations. Veterinary Parasitology, 121, 105–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, M.R., French, D.D., Monahan, C.M. and Klei, T.R., 1996. Identification and characterization of a pyrantel pamoate resistant cyathostome population. Veterinary Parasitology, 66, 205–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coles, G.C., Bauer, C., Borgsteede, F.H.M., Geerts, S., Klei, T.R., Taylor, M.A. and Waller, P.J., 1992. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Veterinary Parasitology, 44, 35–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coles, G.C., Brown, S.N. and Trembath, C.M., 1999. Pyrantel-resistant large strongyles in racehorses. Veterinary Record, 145, 408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornwell, R.L. and Jones, R.M., 1968. Critical tests in the horse with the anthelmintic pyrantel tartrate. Veterinary Record, 82, 483–484Google Scholar
  9. Craven, J., Bjørn, H., Henriksen, S.A., Nansen, P., Larsen, M. and Lendal, S., 1998. A survey of anthelmintic resistance on Danish horse farms, using 5 different methods of calculating faecal egg count reduction. Equine Veterinary Journal, 30, 289–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drudge, J.H. and Lyons, E.T., 1965. Newer developments in helminth control and Strongylus vulgaris research. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, Miami Beach, FL, 381–389Google Scholar
  11. Dvojnos, G.M. and Kharchenko, V.A., 1994. Strongilidy domashnik i dikikh loshadej [Strongylidae in domestic and wild horses], (Naukova Dumka, Kiev) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Horizon Technology, 1996. DrenchRiteTM, Larval Development Assay, Standard Operating Procedures. (Horizon Technology Pty Limited, Roseville, Australia)Google Scholar
  13. Ihler, C.F., 1995. A field survey on anthelmintic resistance in equine small strongyles in Norway. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 36, 135–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, S., Lawrence, S., Yue, C. and Coles, G.C., 2003. Helminth parasites of horses in the UK: a changing scene. In: 19th International Conference of the World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP), New Orleans LAGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaplan, R.M., 2002. Anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of horses. Veterinary Research, 33, 491–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan, R.M., Klei, T.R., Lyons, E.T., Lester, G., Courtney, C.H., French, D.D., Tolliver, S.C., Vidyashankar, A.N. and Zhao, Y., 2004. Prevalence of anthelmintic resistant cyathostomes on horse farms. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225, 903–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klei, T.R. and Torbert, B.J., 1980. Efficacy of ivermectin (22, 23-dihydroavermectin B1) against gastrointestinal parasites in pony. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 41, 1747–1750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Little, D., Flowers, J.R., Hammerberg, B.H. and Gardner, S.Y., 2003. Management of drug-resistant cyathostominosis on a breeding farm in central North Carolina. Equine Veterinary Journal, 35, 246–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Love, S., Murphy, D. and Mellor, D., 1999. Pathogenicity of cyathostome infection. Veterinary Parasitology, 85, 113–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyons, E.T., Drudge, J.H. and Tolliver, S.C., 1974. Critical tests of three salts of pyrantel against internal parasites of the horse. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 35, 1515–1522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Malan, F.S., Reinecke, R.K. and Scialdo, R.C., 1981. Anthelmintic efficacy of fenbendazole paste in equines. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 52, 127–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, P.J., Anderson, N. and Jarrett, R.G., 1985. Resistance to benzimidazole anthelmintics in field strains of Ostertagia and Nematodirus in sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal, 62, 38–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Nilsson, O., Lindholm, A. and Christensson, D., 1989. A field evaluation of anthelmintics in horses in Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology, 32, 163–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osterman, E., Nilsson, O., Höglund, J. and Uggla, A., 1996. Avmaskningsintervall för ivermektin och pyrantel. Svensk Veterinärtidning, 48, 281–284 (in Swedish, with English summary)Google Scholar
  25. Osterman Lind, E., Eysker, M., Nilsson, O., Uggla, A. and Höglund, J., 2003. Expulsion of small strongyle nematodes (cyathostomin spp.) following deworming of horses on a stud farm in Sweden. Veterinary Parasitology, 115, 289–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osterman Lind, E., Uggla, A., Waller, P.J. and Höglund, J., 2005. Larval development assay for detection of anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomins of Swedish horses. Veterinary Parasitology, 128, 261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pook, J.F., Power, M.L., Sangster, N.C., Hodgson, J.L. and Hodgson, D.R., 2002. Evaluation of tests for anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomes. Veterinary Parasitology, 106, 331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roff, D.A. and Bentzen, P., 1989. The statistical analysis of mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms: chi-square and the problem of small samples. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 6, 539–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tandon, R. and Kaplan, R.M., 2004. Evaluation of a larval development assay (DrenchRite®) for the detection of anhelmintic resistance in cyathostomin nematodes of horses. Veterinary Parasitology, 121, 125–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tarigo-Martinie, J.L., Wyatt, A.R. and Kaplan, R.M., 2001. Prevalence and clinical implications of anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomes of horses. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218, 1957–1960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uhlinger, C. and Johnstone, C., 1984. Failure to reestablish benzimidazole susceptible populations of small strongyles after prolonged treatment with non-benzimidazole drugs. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 4, 7–9Google Scholar
  32. Várady, M., Königová, A. and Corba, J., 2000. Benzimidazole resistance in equine cyathostomes in Slovakia. Veterinary Parasitology, 94, 67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woods, T.F., Lane, T.J., Zeng, Q.-Y. and Courtney, C.H., 1998. Anthelmintic resistance on horse farms in North Central Florida. Equine Practice, 20, 14–17Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Osterman Lind
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. Kuzmina
    • 2
  • A. Uggla
    • 1
  • P. J. Waller
    • 1
  • J. Höglund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Parasitology (SWEPAR)Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and National Veterinary InstituteUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Parasitology I.I.Schmalhausen Institute of ZoologyKievUkraine

Personalised recommendations