Analyze Diet
The Veterinary record2006; 158(17); 596-598; doi: 10.1136/vr.158.17.596

Anthelmintic use and resistance on thoroughbred training yards in the UK.

Abstract: No abstract available
Publication Date: 2006-05-02 PubMed ID: 16648441DOI: 10.1136/vr.158.17.596Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research study investigates the use and resistance to deworming drugs (anthelmintics) on thoroughbred horse training yards in the UK, focusing on issues relating to the growing resistance of these drugs among parasitic worms (nematodes).

Study Methodology

  • The research reached out to 157 horse training yards, and 106 voluntarily participated in the study. Out of these, 64 were visited in person, while the rest were contacted via telephone and post.
  • During these interactions, questionnaires were answered, and containers for faecal samples handed out. The samples were collected from the horses on the day of the treatment, as well as a week or more afterwards, depending on which drug (pyrantel, fenbendazole, ivermectin or moxidectin) was used.
  • The researchers assessed the collected faecal samples using the modified McMaster technique to find out how many eggs were present in the faeces.
  • They also used a technique called the microagar larval development test (MALDT) to see whether the worms were resistant to the medications used to deworm the horses.

Key Findings

  • Only 16% of the horses had positive egg counts at the time of treatment. This indicates that many of the treated horses might not have needed treatment at all.
  • Of the yards studied, only 39% were removing faeces at least weekly, and only one-third were doing so two or more times a week. This could be contributing to the spread of resistant worms.
  • Majority of the yards (82%) treated new arrivals with their standard worm prevention routine, with the use of moxidectin being the most popular.
  • Most of the yards selected the medications used based on veterinary advice (34%), their own decision (31%), or the need to rotate between products (33%).
  • Faecal egg counts, a key indicator of worm infestation, were rarely used, with 51% of the yards never using them, and 32% only using them if a horse was visibly unwell.

Implications and Conclusions

  • This study suggests that there may be overuse of deworming drugs on some yards. This overuse can lead to increased resistance among parasitic worms to these medications, rendering them less effective over time.
  • The study also reveals the need for more regular and systematic monitoring of worm infestations (like faecal egg counts) and the removal of faeces, for more effective management of worm infestations in horse yards.

Cite This Article

APA
Comer KC, Hillyer MH, Coles GC. (2006). Anthelmintic use and resistance on thoroughbred training yards in the UK. Vet Rec, 158(17), 596-598. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.158.17.596

Publication

ISSN: 0042-4900
NlmUniqueID: 0031164
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 158
Issue: 17
Pages: 596-598

Researcher Affiliations

Comer, K C
  • Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Bristol BS40 5DU.
Hillyer, M H
    Coles, G C

      MeSH Terms

      • Animals
      • Anthelmintics / therapeutic use
      • Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
      • Drug Resistance
      • Feces / parasitology
      • Fenbendazole / therapeutic use
      • Helminthiasis, Animal / drug therapy
      • Horse Diseases / drug therapy
      • Horses
      • Parasite Egg Count / veterinary
      • Parasitic Sensitivity Tests / veterinary
      • Pyrantel / therapeutic use
      • Treatment Outcome
      • United Kingdom

      Citations

      This article has been cited 6 times.
      1. Osterman-Lind E, Hedberg Alm Y, Hassler H, Wilderoth H, Thorolfson H, Tydén E. Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Equine Strongyle Infective Larvae on Pasture and Study of Larval Migration and Overwintering in a Nordic Climate. Animals (Basel) 2022 Nov 10;12(22).
        doi: 10.3390/ani12223093pubmed: 36428321google scholar: lookup
      2. Schneider S, Pfister K, Becher AM, Scheuerle MC. Strongyle infections and parasitic control strategies in German horses - a risk assessment. BMC Vet Res 2014 Nov 12;10:262.
        doi: 10.1186/s12917-014-0262-zpubmed: 25387542google scholar: lookup
      3. Traversa D, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Demeler J, Milillo P, Schürmann S, Barnes H, Otranto D, Perrucci S, di Regalbono AF, Beraldo P, Boeckh A, Cobb R. Anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomin populations from horse yards in Italy, United Kingdom and Germany. Parasit Vectors 2009 Sep 25;2 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S2.
        doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S2pubmed: 19778463google scholar: lookup
      4. Hedberg Alm Y, Tydén E, Martin F, Lernå J, Halvarsson P. Farm size and biosecurity measures associated with Strongylus vulgaris infection in horses. Equine Vet J 2025 May;57(3):703-711.
        doi: 10.1111/evj.14212pubmed: 39171858google scholar: lookup
      5. Elghryani N, Lawlor A, McOwan T, de Waal T. Unravelling the Effectiveness of Anthelmintic Treatments on Equine Strongyles on Irish Farms. Animals (Basel) 2024 Jul 2;14(13).
        doi: 10.3390/ani14131958pubmed: 38998069google scholar: lookup
      6. Nielsen MK. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes: Current status and emerging trends. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2022 Dec;20:76-88.
        doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2022.10.005pubmed: 36342004google scholar: lookup