FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Journal of parasitology research2025; 2025; 8948099; doi: 10.1155/japr/8948099

Comparative Efficacy of Topical Pyrethroids and Benzoyl Peroxide for Treating Chorioptic Mange in Spanish-Breton Horses.

Abstract: Chorioptic mange is a challenging condition to treat due to the superficial locations of the nonhematophagous mite Chorioptes bovis, and while topical acaricides are recommended, the clinical feature relapses are frequent. In a double-blinded clinical trial, three randomized groups of Spanish-Breton horses (n = 32) naturally infected with C. bovis on their legs were evaluated over a period of 70 days. All treatments were applied once every 14 days for three treatments. Before treatment and on Day (D)10, D25, D37, D56, and D70, each leg per animal was scored according to equine pastern dermatitis clinical presentations and severity (1 = mild, 2 = exudative, and 3 = chronic proliferative), and mite reduction was calculated using a 2 cm × 6 cm adhesive tape counting total mites on D36, D56, and D70. The trial aimed to assess the clinical improvement and efficacy of a topical pyrethroid emulsion alone (Group 1), and in combination with benzoyl peroxide (Group 2), compared to a control group (Group 3). The trial also included environmental disinfection. The acaricide efficacy was determined using Abbott's formula. Our analysis reveals no adverse reactions attributable to the treatment, yet lesions showed limited clinical improvement. Both treatment groups exhibited mite reduction compared to the control. The mite reduction on the evaluated days was 14.58%, 47.62%, and 55.77% for Group 1 and 85.42%, 88.10%, and 78.85% for Group 2, respectively. The mite reduction was significant in Group 2 on D56 and D70 (p p C. bovis mites, and it can be considered an alternative therapeutic option in horses.
Copyright © 2025 Juan D. Carbonell et al. Journal of Parasitology Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-04-22 PubMed ID: 40308533PubMed Central: PMC12041626DOI: 10.1155/japr/8948099Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

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 double-blind randomized trial in 32 Spanish-Breton horses found that adding benzoyl peroxide to a topical pyrethroid markedly reduced Chorioptes bovis mite counts compared with pyrethroid alone, although visible pastern dermatitis lesions improved only modestly. No adverse reactions were observed, and environmental disinfection was included for all groups.

What the study asked and why it matters

  • Question: Does combining benzoyl peroxide (a keratolytic/degreasing agent) with a topical pyrethroid improve outcomes for chorioptic mange in horses compared with a pyrethroid alone?
  • Importance: Chorioptes bovis lives superficially in crusts and hair, making it hard for acaricides to reach; relapses are common, and clinical resolution often lags behind mite kill.
  • Clinical gap: While topical acaricides are recommended, robust comparative data in heavily feathered draft-type horses are limited.

Study design at a glance

  • Population: 32 Spanish-Breton horses naturally infested on the legs with Chorioptes bovis.
  • Design: Double-blinded, randomized, three-arm clinical trial with follow-up to Day (D)70.
  • Groups:
    • Group 1: Topical pyrethroid emulsion alone.
    • Group 2: Topical pyrethroid combined with benzoyl peroxide.
    • Group 3: Control (no active treatment).
  • Treatment schedule: Applications once every 14 days for three treatments.
  • Environmental component: Disinfection implemented to reduce reinfestation pressure.
  • Clinical assessments: Each leg scored for equine pastern dermatitis severity (1 = mild, 2 = exudative, 3 = chronic proliferative) at baseline and D10, D25, D37, D56, D70.
  • Parasitological assessments: Adhesive tape (2 × 6 cm) mite counts on D36, D56, D70.
  • Efficacy metric: Abbott’s formula, calculated as efficacy (%) = 100 × (C − T) / C, with C = mean mite count in controls and T = mean mite count in a treated group.
  • Safety: Monitoring for adverse reactions throughout.

Key results

  • Safety: No adverse reactions were attributable to the treatments.
  • Clinical signs: Lesions showed limited improvement across groups despite treatment and mite reduction.
  • Mite reduction (Abbott’s efficacy):
    • Group 1 (pyrethroid alone): 14.58% (early), 47.62% (mid), 55.77% (D70).
    • Group 2 (pyrethroid + benzoyl peroxide): 85.42% (early), 88.10% (mid), 78.85% (D70).
  • Statistical significance: The reduction in Group 2 was statistically significant versus control on D56 and D70; both treated groups outperformed control overall.
  • Overall interpretation: Adding benzoyl peroxide substantially enhanced mite suppression compared with pyrethroid alone, but this did not translate into marked short-term clinical resolution within 70 days.

Mechanistic rationale for the combination

  • Pyrethroids: Neurotoxic to mites (sodium channel modulators) but may have limited penetration through crusts, scales, and heavy feathering.
  • Benzoyl peroxide: Keratolytic, degreasing, and follicular-flushing; can reduce surface debris and enhance cutaneous penetration of co-applied acaricides.
  • Proposed synergy: By clearing keratin and exudate, benzoyl peroxide likely improves pyrethroid contact with superficial mites, explaining higher efficacy.

Why mite kill did not fully match clinical improvement

  • Lag effect: Inflammatory changes, hyperkeratosis, and crusting may persist after mites are reduced.
  • Secondary factors: Bacterial/yeast overgrowth and self-trauma can sustain dermatitis independent of current mite burden.
  • Anatomic challenges: Dense feathering and pastern conformation can trap moisture and irritants, slowing visible recovery.
  • Re-exposure risk: Even with disinfection, environmental or in-contact sources can maintain low-level mite presence.

Strengths

  • Prospective, double-blind randomization increases internal validity.
  • Natural infestations in a relevant draft-type breed enhance real-world applicability.
  • Objective mite counts plus clinical scoring provide complementary endpoints.
  • Inclusion of environmental disinfection reflects good practice and controls a major confounder.

Limitations

  • Sample size (n = 32 across three arms) may limit power to detect differences in clinical scores.
  • Short-to-moderate follow-up (70 days) may not capture relapse dynamics beyond the study window.
  • Adhesive tape sampling captures a small area and may under- or over-represent whole-limb mite loads.
  • Clinical scoring scale (1–3) is coarse; subtle changes may be missed.
  • Only topical regimens were compared; no head-to-head with other contemporary options.

Clinical implications

  • Therapeutic choice: A pyrethroid plus benzoyl peroxide regimen can meaningfully reduce C. bovis counts and is a reasonable option when pyrethroid alone underperforms.
  • Treatment cadence: Repeated applications at two-week intervals (three total) were well tolerated and effective for mite reduction in this cohort.
  • Expectations: Counsel owners that visible lesion resolution may lag behind mite kill; adjunctive care for secondary infection/inflammation may be needed.
  • Application technique: Thorough cleansing and, when appropriate, careful trimming of feathers/crusts can improve penetration and outcomes.
  • Biosecurity: Disinfect environments and tackle in-contact animals and fomites (bedding, brushes, wraps) to limit reinfestation.
  • Monitoring: Reassess at 4–10 weeks; consider extending or repeating cycles if clinical signs persist despite parasitological improvement.

Future directions

  • Optimize protocols: Define ideal contact times, concentrations, and number of cycles for combination therapy.
  • Broader comparisons: Head-to-head trials against other topical or systemic ectoparasiticides and integrated regimens.
  • Outcome measures: Finer-grained clinical scales, owner-reported outcomes, and quality-of-life metrics.
  • Long-term control: Studies focusing on relapse prevention, environmental management intensity, and seasonality.
  • Resistance and safety: Surveillance for acaricide tolerance and extended safety profiling across breeds and ages.

Bottom line

  • Adding benzoyl peroxide to a topical pyrethroid substantially improved mite reduction (roughly 80–88% mid-study, ~79% by D70) compared with pyrethroid alone (~56% by D70), without added adverse effects. Visible dermatitis improved only modestly over 70 days, so pairing effective mite control with diligent environmental hygiene and lesion-focused supportive care remains essential.

Cite This Article

APA
Carbonell JD, Fernández N, Escobar MJ, Álvarez MT, Sánchez L, Hernández A, Meana A. (2025). Comparative Efficacy of Topical Pyrethroids and Benzoyl Peroxide for Treating Chorioptic Mange in Spanish-Breton Horses. J Parasitol Res, 2025, 8948099. https://doi.org/10.1155/japr/8948099

Publication

Journal of parasitology research
ISSN: 2090-0023
NlmUniqueID: 101526294
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 2025
Pages: 8948099
PII: 8948099

Researcher Affiliations

Carbonell, Juan D
  • Department of Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Fernández, Nélida
  • Faculty of Veterinary, University Alfonso X El Sabio, Madrid, Spain.
Escobar, Manuel J
  • Clinical Horse Veterinarians, Madrid, Spain.
Álvarez, Maria T
  • Clinical Horse Veterinarians, Madrid, Spain.
Sánchez, Lucia
  • Clinical Horse Veterinarians, Madrid, Spain.
Hernández, Aday
  • Clinical Horse Veterinarians, Madrid, Spain.
Meana, Aránzazu
  • Department of Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 48 references
  1. WOAH. WOAH; 2022. Terrestial Manual. Chapter 3.10.6. MANGE.
  2. Wall R, Shearer D. Veterinary Ectoparasites: Biology, Pathology and Control. Veterinary Ectoparasites: Biology, Pathology and Control: Second Edition Wiley; 2001.
    doi: 10.1002/9780470690505google scholar: lookup
  3. Heath A C G, Bishop D M, Tenquist J D. The Prevalence and Pathogenicity of Chorioptes bovis (Hering, 1845) and Psoroptes cuniculi (Delafond, 1859) (Acari: Psoroptidae) Infestations in Feral Goats in New Zealand. Veterinary Parasitology 1983;13(2):159–169.
    doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(83)90076-6pubmed: 6605609google scholar: lookup
  4. Lusat J, Morgan E R, Wall R. Mange in Alpacas, Llamas and Goats in the UK: Incidence and Risk. Veterinary Parasitology 2009;163(1–2):179–184.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.04.007pubmed: 19446959google scholar: lookup
  5. Osman S A, Hanafy A, Amer S E. Clinical and Therapeutic Studies on Mange in Horses. Veterinary Parasitology 2006;141(1–2):191–195.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.04.039pubmed: 16782277google scholar: lookup
  6. Vieira M I B, Bordin T, Agnol B D', Zanchin F, Motta A C D, Noro M. Re-Emergence of Chorioptes bovis (Acari: Psoroptidae) in Cattle in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária 2014;23(4):530–533.
    doi: 10.1590/s1984-29612014090pubmed: 25517535google scholar: lookup
  7. Rüfenacht S, Roosje P J, Sager H. Combined Moxidectin and Environmental Therapy Do Not Eliminate Chorioptes Bovis infestation in Heavily Feathered Horses. Veterinary Dermatology 2011;22(1):17–23.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2010.00892.xpubmed: 20609205google scholar: lookup
  8. White S D. Approach to the Pruritic Horse. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2023;261(S1):S66–S74.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.22.10.0444pubmed: 36638000google scholar: lookup
  9. Colles C M, Colles K M, Galpin J R. Equine Pastern Dermatitis. Equine Veterinary Education 2010;22(11):566–570.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2010.00111.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  10. De Cock H E V, Affolter V K, Wisner E R, Ferraro G L, MacLachlan N J. Progressive Swelling, Hyperkeratosis, and Fibrosis of Distal Limbs in Clydesdales, Shires, and Belgian Draft Horses, Suggestive of Primary Lymphedema. Lymphatic Research and Biology 2003;1(3):191–199.
    doi: 10.1089/153968503768330238pubmed: 15624437google scholar: lookup
  11. Affolter V K. Chronic Progressive Lymphedema in Draft Horses. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 2013;29(3):589–605.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2013.08.007pubmed: 24267677google scholar: lookup
  12. Brys M, Claerebout E, Chiers K. Chronic Progressive Lymphedema in Belgian Draft Horses: Understanding and Managing a Challenging Disease. Veterinary Sciences 2023;10(5):p. 347.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci10050347pmc: PMC10222719pubmed: 37235431google scholar: lookup
  13. Bäumer W, Baynes R. Surface Distribution of Pyrethroids Following Topical Application to Veterinary Species: Implications for Lateral Transport. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2021;44(1):1–10.
    doi: 10.1111/jvp.12907pmc: PMC7821121pubmed: 32910498google scholar: lookup
  14. Kondratjeva J, Combarros D, Pressanti C, Cadiergues M C. What Is the Most Effective Treatment in Horses With Chorioptic Mange?. Equine Veterinary Education 2023;35(3):163–168.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.13637google scholar: lookup
  15. Littlewood J. Control of Ectoparasites in Horses. In Practice 1999;21(8):418–424.
    doi: 10.1136/inpract.21.8.418google scholar: lookup
  16. Brys M, Claerebout E, Chiers K. Alleviating Lesions of Chronic Progressive Lymphedema in Belgian Draft Horses by Successfully Treating Chorioptes bovis Infestation With Moxidectin 0.5% Pour-On. Veterinary Parasitology 2023;324.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.110074pubmed: 37979391google scholar: lookup
  17. Lyons E T, Tolliver S C. Macrocyclic Lactones for Parasite Control in Equids. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology 2012;13(6):1070–1077.
    doi: 10.2174/138920112800399310pubmed: 22039797google scholar: lookup
  18. Curtis C F. Pilot Study to Investigate the Efficacy of a 1 Per Cent Selenium Sulphide Shampoo in the Treatment of Equine Chorioptic Mange. Veterinary Record 1999;144(24):674–675.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.144.24.674pubmed: 10404608google scholar: lookup
  19. Littlewood J. Chorioptic Mange: Successful Treatment of a Case With Fipronil. Equine Veterinary Education 2000;12(3):144–146.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3292.2000.tb00031.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  20. Paterson S, Coumbe K. An Open Study to Evaluate Topical Treatment of Equine Chorioptic Mange With Shampooing and Lime Sulphur Solution. Veterinary Dermatology 2009;20(5–6):623–629.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2009.00855.xpubmed: 20178503google scholar: lookup
  21. Rosenkrantz W S. Systemic/Topical Therapy. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 1995;11(1):127–146.
    doi: 10.1016/S0749-0739(17)30337-1pubmed: 7634162google scholar: lookup
  22. Curnow B. Diagnosis and Management of the Itchy Horse. In Practice 2020;42(1):47–55.
    doi: 10.1136/inp.l6929google scholar: lookup
  23. Paterson S. Treatment of Skin Disease in the Horse. In Practice 2003;25(3):146–150.
    doi: 10.1136/inpract.25.3.146google scholar: lookup
  24. . The IRAC Mode of Action Classification. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) 2024.
  25. Kaplan R M. Anthelmintic Resistance in Nematodes of Horses. Veterinary Research 2002;33(5):491–507.
    doi: 10.1051/vetres:2002035pubmed: 12387486google scholar: lookup
  26. Mackenzie S L, Hall G, Schaerf T M, Andrew N R. Impacts of Macrocyclic Lactones on Larval Survival, Growth and Development of Three Dung Beetle Species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Austral Entomology 2022;61(1):104–112.
    doi: 10.1111/aen.12580google scholar: lookup
  27. . EMA/400057/2019. European Medicines Agency (EMA) 2019.
  28. Sweatman G K. Life History, Non-Specificity, and Revision of the Genus Chorioptes, a Parasitic Mite of Herbivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1957;35(6):641–689.
    doi: 10.1139/z57-058google scholar: lookup
  29. Holdsworth P, Rehbein S, Jonsson N N, Peter R, Vercruysse J, Fourie J. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) Second Edition: Guideline for Evaluating the Efficacy of Parasiticides Against Ectoparasites of Ruminants. Veterinary Parasitology 2022;302.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2021.109613pubmed: 35094879google scholar: lookup
  30. . Guidelines on Specific Efficacy Requirements for Ectoparasiticides in Cattle. Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) 2021.
  31. Yu A A. Equine Pastern Dermatitis. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice 2013;29(3):577–588.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2013.09.003pubmed: 24267676google scholar: lookup
  32. Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan M M, Grinwis G C M. Basics of Equine Dermatology. Equine Veterinary Education 2016;28(9):520–529.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12444google scholar: lookup
  33. Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan M M, Grinwis G C M. Clinical Pathology in Equine Dermatology. Equine Veterinary Education 2018;30(7):377–385.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12598google scholar: lookup
  34. Gerber V, Kaiser-Thom S, Oesch S. Equine Pastern Dermatitis: A Narrative Review on Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, Risk Factors, Prevention, and Therapeutic Approaches. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 2023;261(S1):S58–S65.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.22.12.0569pubmed: 36917616google scholar: lookup
  35. . Parasiticide Screening, Volume 2. Vanimisetti H B, Mahabir S P Elsevier; 2019. Statistical Considerations of Parasiticide Screening Tests and Confirmation Trials; pp. 345–378.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816577-5.00009-0google scholar: lookup
  36. Abbott W S. A Method of Computing the Effectiveness of an Insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 1925;18(2):265–267.
    doi: 10.1093/jee/18.2.265agoogle scholar: lookup
  37. Vercruysse J, Rehbein S, Holdsworth P A, Letonja T, Peter R J. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) Guidelines for Evaluating the Efficacy of Acaricides Against (Mange and Itch) Mites on Ruminants. Veterinary Parasitology 2006;136(1):55–66.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.11.009pubmed: 16406329google scholar: lookup
  38. Papadopoulos E, Rowlinson M, Bartram D, Carpenter S, Mellor P, Wall R. Treatment of Horses With Cypermethrin Against the Biting Flies Culicoides nubeculosus, Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus. Veterinary Parasitology 2010;169(1–2):165–171.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.12.023pubmed: 20074858google scholar: lookup
  39. Karasek I, Butler C, Baynes R, Werners A. A Review on the Treatment and Control of Ectoparasite Infestations in Equids. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2020;43(5):421–428.
    doi: 10.1111/jvp.12874pubmed: 32488977google scholar: lookup
  40. Nielsen M K, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Kuzmina T A. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP): Third Edition of Guideline for Evaluating the Efficacy of Equine Anthelmintics. Veterinary Parasitology 2022;303.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109676pubmed: 35164972google scholar: lookup
  41. . AAEP External Parasite and Vector Control Guidelines. AAEP 2016.
  42. . A Guide to the Treatment and Control of Equine Gastrointestinal Parasite Infections. ESCCAP 2018.
  43. Ferraro G L. Pastern Dermatitis in Shires and Clydesdales. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 2001;21(11):524–527.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(01)70153-0google scholar: lookup
  44. Sleutjens J. Successful Treatment of Sarcoptes scabiei in a 33-Year-Old Pony With Underlying Pituitary Pars Intermedia Dysfunction. Equine Veterinary Education 2015;27(1):22–25.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12255google scholar: lookup
  45. Rendle D I, Cottle H J, Love S, Hughes K J. Comparative Study of Doramectin and Fipronil in the Treatment of Equine Chorioptic Mange. Veterinary Record 2007;161(10):335–338.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.161.10.335pubmed: 17827472google scholar: lookup
  46. Ural K, Ulutas B, Kar S. Eprinomectin Treatment of Psoroptic Mange in Hunter/Jumper and Dressage Horses: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Veterinary Parasitology 2008;156(3–4):353–357.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.06.018pubmed: 18667276google scholar: lookup
  47. Chen Z, van Mol W, Vanhecke M, Duchateau L, Claerebout E. Acaricidal Activity of Plant-Derived Essential Oil Components Against Psoroptes ovis In Vitro and In Vivo. Parasites & Vectors 2019;12(1):p. 425.
    doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3654-xpmc: PMC6714348pubmed: 31464634google scholar: lookup
  48. . Abstracts. Veterinary Dermatology 2024;35(S1):6–69.
    doi: 10.1111/vde.13259google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,221 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.