The threat of reduced efficacy of anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep from an area considered anthelmintic resistance-free.
Animals
Anthelmintics
/ therapeutic use
Benzimidazoles
/ therapeutic use
Drug Resistance
Farms
Feces
/ parasitology
Fenbendazole
/ therapeutic use
Gastrointestinal Diseases
/ drug therapy
Haemonchus
/ drug effects
Italy
Ivermectin
/ analogs & derivatives
Nematoda
/ drug effects
Nematode Infections
/ drug therapy
Parasite Egg Count
/ methods
Sheep
/ parasitology
Sheep Diseases
/ drug therapy
Trichostrongylus
/ drug effects
Anthelmintic resistance
Egg hatch test
Faecal egg count reduction test
Gastrointestinal nematodes
Pooling faecal samples
Sheep
Journal
Parasites & vectors
ISSN: 1756-3305
Titre abrégé: Parasit Vectors
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2020
09 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
04
04
2020
accepted:
30
08
2020
entrez:
10
9
2020
pubmed:
11
9
2020
medline:
7
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The worldwide increased difficulty to combat gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infection in sheep, due to progressing anthelmintic resistance (AR), calls for an enhanced and standardized implementation of early detection of AR. This study provides a snapshot of the current AR status against benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones in southern Italy, generated with standardized techniques. On 10 sheep farms, the efficacy of albendazole (ALB) and either eprinomectin (EPR) or ivermectin (IVM) was evaluated based on the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) performed with the Mini-FLOTAC. For each tested drug, 40 sheep were rectally sampled at D0 and sampled again 14 days after the treatment (D14). The FECRT was calculated from individual samples and pooled samples which consist of 5 individual samples. Efficacy was classified as 'reduced, 'suspected' and 'normal'. Coprocultures were set for D0 and D14 faecal samples of each group. From farms with FECR < 95%, an in vitro egg hatch test (EHT) and a follow-up FECRT using fenbendazole (FBZ) were conducted. Based on the FECR, high efficacy (from 95.7% to 100%) was observed for ALB and IVM in eight farms (Farms 3-10). On Farm 1 and Farm 2, the efficacy for the macrocyclic lactones was classified as 'normal', but 'reduced' efficacy was observed for ALB on Farm 1 (FECR = 75%) and 'suspected' efficacy on Farm 2 (FECR = 93.3%) with the predominant GIN genus Trichostrongylus followed by Haemonchus at D14. The FEC results of pooled samples strongly correlated with those of individual samples, for FEC at D0 (r In regions like southern Italy, where the negative impacts from AR have played a minor role, efficient monitoring of AR is important in order to evaluate potential risks and being able to promptly respond with countermeasures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The worldwide increased difficulty to combat gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infection in sheep, due to progressing anthelmintic resistance (AR), calls for an enhanced and standardized implementation of early detection of AR. This study provides a snapshot of the current AR status against benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones in southern Italy, generated with standardized techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
On 10 sheep farms, the efficacy of albendazole (ALB) and either eprinomectin (EPR) or ivermectin (IVM) was evaluated based on the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) performed with the Mini-FLOTAC. For each tested drug, 40 sheep were rectally sampled at D0 and sampled again 14 days after the treatment (D14). The FECRT was calculated from individual samples and pooled samples which consist of 5 individual samples. Efficacy was classified as 'reduced, 'suspected' and 'normal'. Coprocultures were set for D0 and D14 faecal samples of each group. From farms with FECR < 95%, an in vitro egg hatch test (EHT) and a follow-up FECRT using fenbendazole (FBZ) were conducted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on the FECR, high efficacy (from 95.7% to 100%) was observed for ALB and IVM in eight farms (Farms 3-10). On Farm 1 and Farm 2, the efficacy for the macrocyclic lactones was classified as 'normal', but 'reduced' efficacy was observed for ALB on Farm 1 (FECR = 75%) and 'suspected' efficacy on Farm 2 (FECR = 93.3%) with the predominant GIN genus Trichostrongylus followed by Haemonchus at D14. The FEC results of pooled samples strongly correlated with those of individual samples, for FEC at D0 (r
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In regions like southern Italy, where the negative impacts from AR have played a minor role, efficient monitoring of AR is important in order to evaluate potential risks and being able to promptly respond with countermeasures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32907633
doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04329-2
pii: 10.1186/s13071-020-04329-2
pmc: PMC7487796
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anthelmintics
0
Benzimidazoles
0
Fenbendazole
621BVT9M36
Ivermectin
70288-86-7
eprinomectin
75KP30FD8O
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
457Références
Int J Parasitol. 1999 Jan;29(1):115-24; discussion 137-8
pubmed: 10048824
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2018 May;65 Suppl 1:217-234
pubmed: 29124904
Parasitol Res. 2007 Nov;101(6):1713-6
pubmed: 17712570
Can J Vet Res. 2015 Oct;79(4):296-302
pubmed: 26424910
Aust Vet J. 1980 May;56(5):239-51
pubmed: 7002142
Nat Protoc. 2017 Sep;12(9):1723-1732
pubmed: 28771238
Vet Parasitol. 1992 Sep;44(1-2):35-44
pubmed: 1441190
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015 Aug 18;5(3):163-71
pubmed: 26448902
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Jun 15;257:21-27
pubmed: 29907188
Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2016 Feb 08;6(1):93-101
pubmed: 27054068
Parasit Vectors. 2015 Oct 24;8:557
pubmed: 26496893
Int J Parasitol. 2014 Apr;44(5):299-303
pubmed: 24556564
Vet Parasitol. 2008 Oct 1;156(3-4):340-5
pubmed: 18644674
Vet Rec. 2014 Sep 13;175(10):250-5
pubmed: 25217603
Vet Parasitol. 2012 May 4;186(1-2):79-92
pubmed: 22154971
Vet Parasitol. 2012 Aug 13;188(1-2):194-9
pubmed: 22503038
Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2013 Mar 13;80(1):539
pubmed: 23718204
Vet Parasitol. 2014 Jun 16;203(1-2):139-43
pubmed: 24630707
Vet Rec. 2017 Apr 15;180(15):378
pubmed: 28167646
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Feb 06;9(2):e0003494
pubmed: 25658086
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Jul 16;12(1):353
pubmed: 31311591
Vet Rec Open. 2019 Sep 20;6(1):e000332
pubmed: 31673375
Prev Vet Med. 2020 Sep;182:105103
pubmed: 32750638
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Apr 15;253:71-78
pubmed: 29605007
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Jul 1;155:27-37
pubmed: 29786522
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Nov 15;117(2):388-402
pubmed: 25059197
Parasitology. 1995;111 Suppl:S135-51
pubmed: 8632919
Vet Parasitol. 2012 Sep 10;188(3-4):397-401
pubmed: 22521975
BMC Vet Res. 2018 Jan 5;14(1):7
pubmed: 29304858
Vet Parasitol. 2012 May 4;186(1-2):70-8
pubmed: 22154968
Parasitol Res. 2009 Sep;105(3):825-34
pubmed: 19452165
Vet Parasitol. 2006 Mar 31;136(3-4):167-85
pubmed: 16427201
Vet Parasitol. 2005 Jul 15;131(1-2):79-87
pubmed: 15921855
Vet Rec. 2015 May 23;176(21):546
pubmed: 25762583
Trends Parasitol. 2018 Jul;34(7):553-563
pubmed: 29803755
Geospat Health. 2015 Mar 19;9(2):319-24
pubmed: 25826313
BMC Vet Res. 2017 May 30;13(1):148
pubmed: 28558828
Vet Parasitol. 2016 Jul 30;225:53-60
pubmed: 27369575
Vet Parasitol. 2014 Sep 15;205(1-2):216-23
pubmed: 25002307
Animals (Basel). 2019 Nov 27;9(12):
pubmed: 31783538