Analyze Diet
Veterinary research communications2003; 27(4); 281-288; doi: 10.1023/a:1024079907895

Comparison of in vitro methods and faecal egg count reduction test for the detection of benzimidazole resistance in small strongyles of horses.

Abstract: The objective of the study was to compare the in vitro egg hatch test (EHT), larval development test (LDT) and in vivo faecal egg count reduction test (FECR test) for the detection of benzimidazole resistance in equine strongyles. The presence of resistant or susceptible strongyle populations was determined in 25 stud farms using the in vivo FECR test and in vitro EHT. On the basis of the FECR values, resistance to fenbendazole was detected on 15 of the 25 farms (60%). The ED50 value (anthelmintic concentration producing 50% inhibition of hatching) for suspected resistant populations varied from 0.110 to 0.222 microg/ml thiabendazole (TBZ). Final LD50 values (anthelmintic concentration inhibiting development of 50% of eggs into L3 infective larvae) above 0.029 microg/ml TBZ in the in vitro larval development test on samples from 11 stud farms revealed the presence of populations of small strongyles suspected of being benzimidazole-resistant.
Publication Date: 2003-07-23 PubMed ID: 12872828DOI: 10.1023/a:1024079907895Google 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.
  • Clinical Trial
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

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 aimed at comparing different tests methods to detect the resistance of small strongyles, a type of horse parasite, to benzimidazole, an anthelmintic or worm treatment drug. The results indicated a considerable resistance to the drug fenbendazole in multiple horse stud farms, with variations in degrees of resistance seen in in vitro tests.

Background of the Study

  • The main focus of this study was to compare three different methods for detecting benzimidazole resistance in small strongyles typically found in horses.
  • These three methods are the in vitro egg hatch test (EHT), in vitro larval development test (LDT), and in vivo faecal egg count reduction test (FECR test).
  • The researchers aimed to determine the presence of resistant or susceptible populations of small strongyles in 25 horse stud farms.

Study Findings and Interpretation

  • The presence of resistant strongyle populations was determined using both the in vivo FECR test and in vitro EHT.
  • Based on the FECR test results, fenbendazole resistance was detected in 15 out of the 25 horse stud farms, totaling to approximately 60% of the farms studied.
  • The measure of resistance, represented by the ED50 value (referring to the concentration of anthelmintic required to inhibit 50% of egg hatching), varied significantly between suspected resistant populations. This varied from 0.110 to 0.222 micrograms per milliliter of thiabendazole (TBZ), another form of benzimidazole.
  • An extended study using the in vitro LDT detected small strongyles populations suspected of benzimidazole resistance in 11 stud farms. These resistant populations emerged at LD50 values greater than 0.029 micrograms per milliliter of TBZ. The LD50 value here refers to the concentration of the drug needed to inhibit the development of 50% of eggs into L3 infective larvae.

Implications and Conclusion

  • This study illustrates the significance of utilizing different test methods in evaluating the resistance of small strongyles to benzimidazole.
  • The evidence of fenbendazole resistance in a substantial proportion of the stud farms investigated suggests a need for alternative methods of parasite control.
  • The variation in the level of resistance detected by the different tests (EHT, LDT, and FECR test) provides insight into the complexity of anthelmintic resistance in small strongyles and the need to constantly monitor and adapt control strategies accordingly.

Cite This Article

APA
Königová A, Várady M, Corba J. (2003). Comparison of in vitro methods and faecal egg count reduction test for the detection of benzimidazole resistance in small strongyles of horses. Vet Res Commun, 27(4), 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024079907895

Publication

ISSN: 0165-7380
NlmUniqueID: 8100520
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 27
Issue: 4
Pages: 281-288

Researcher Affiliations

Königová, A
  • Parasitological Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Hlinkova 3, 040 01 Kosice, Slovak Republic. konig@saske.sk
Várady, M
    Corba, J

      MeSH Terms

      • Animals
      • Anthelmintics / pharmacology
      • Anthelmintics / therapeutic use
      • Drug Resistance
      • Feces / parasitology
      • Female
      • Horses / parasitology
      • Male
      • Parasite Egg Count
      • Strongyle Infections, Equine / drug therapy
      • Strongyle Infections, Equine / parasitology
      • Strongyloidea / drug effects
      • Thiabendazole / pharmacology
      • Thiabendazole / therapeutic use

      References

      This article includes 19 references
      1. Res Vet Sci. 1977 May;22(3):386-7
        pubmed: 560037
      2. Int J Parasitol. 1985 Dec;15(6):669-76
        pubmed: 4093238
      3. Res Vet Sci. 1986 Jan;40(1):4-7
        pubmed: 3704322
      4. Vet Rec. 1989 Aug 12;125(7):143-7
        pubmed: 2678722
      5. Vet Parasitol. 1989 Jun;31(3-4):253-7
        pubmed: 2763445
      6. Int J Parasitol. 1996 Jul;26(7):733-40
        pubmed: 8894764
      7. Vet Rec. 1992 May 16;130(20):442-6
        pubmed: 1621342
      8. Vet Rec. 1989 Aug 12;125(7):153-4
        pubmed: 2800272
      9. Vet Parasitol. 1986 Aug;21(3):189-203
        pubmed: 3529602
      10. Vet Parasitol. 1996 Oct 15;65(1-2):117-25
        pubmed: 8916406
      11. Adv Parasitol. 1995;35:1-84
        pubmed: 7709851
      12. Vet Parasitol. 1994 Mar;52(1-2):169-71
        pubmed: 8030184
      13. Res Vet Sci. 1990 Sep;49(2):198-202
        pubmed: 2236917
      14. Vet Parasitol. 1992 Sep;44(1-2):35-44
        pubmed: 1441190
      15. Vet Parasitol. 1999 Aug 16;85(1):49-59
        pubmed: 10447192
      16. Aust Vet J. 1981 Apr;57(4):163-71
        pubmed: 7271605
      17. Vet Parasitol. 2000 Dec 20;94(1-2):67-74
        pubmed: 11078945
      18. Acta Vet Scand. 1995;36(1):135-43
        pubmed: 7572451
      19. Res Vet Sci. 1988 Jul;45(1):50-3
        pubmed: 3222553