FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Pathogens / Evaluation of Fecal Egg Count Tests for Effective Control of...
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2023; 12(11); 1283; doi: 10.3390/pathogens12111283

Evaluation of Fecal Egg Count Tests for Effective Control of Equine Intestinal Strongyles.

Abstract: The American Association of Equine Practitioners strongly advocates evidence-based intestinal strongyle control in horses. It recommends targeted treatment of all heavy egg shedders (>500 eggs per gram (EPG) of feces), while the low shedders (0-200 EPG) are left untreated. As 50-75% of adult horses in a herd are low shedders, preventing them from unnecessary anthelmintic exposure is critical for tackling resistance. There are various fecal egg count (FEC) techniques with many modifications and variations in use, but none is identified as a gold standard. The hypothesis of the study was that the diagnostic performance of 12 commonly used quantitation methodologies (three techniques with four variants) differs. In this regard, method comparison studies were performed using polystyrene beads as proxy for intestinal strongyle eggs. Mini-FLOTAC-based variants had the lowest coefficient of variation (CV%) in bead recovery, whereas McMaster variants had the highest. All four variants of Mini-FLOTAC and the NaNO 1.33 specific gravity variant of modified Wisconsin followed a linear fit with R > 0.95. In contrast, the bead standard replicates for modified McMaster variants dispersed from the regression curve, causing a lower R. The Mini-FLOTAC method seems less influenced by the choice of floatation solution and has better repeatability parameters and linearity for bead standard recovery. For FEC tests with high R (>0.95) but that underestimated the true bead count, a correction factor (CF) was determined to estimate the true count. Finally, the validity of CF was analyzed for 5 tests with R > 0.95 to accurately quantify intestinal strongyle eggs from 40 different horses. Overall, this study identified FEC methodologies with the highest diagnostic performance. The limitations in standardizing routine FEC tests are highlighted, and the importance of equalization of FEC results is emphasized for promoting uniformity in the implementation of parasite control guidelines.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-10-26 PubMed ID: 38003748PubMed Central: PMC10674696DOI: 10.3390/pathogens12111283Google 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.

The research paper discusses a study on the efficacy of various methods used for fecal egg count (FEC) tests in managing intestinal strongyles in horses. The paper emphasizes the importance of identifying diagnostic tests with high performance for managing resistance to anthelmintic treatment and promoting consistency in implementing parasite control guidelines.

Study Objective

  • The paper’s main aim is to evaluate the performance of twelve commonly used fecal egg count (FEC) methodologies (three techniques with four variants) for managing intestinal strongyles in horses.

Methodology

  • Method comparison studies were performed using polystyrene beads as a surrogate for actual intestinal strongyle eggs.
  • Various methodologies were compared, including the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster methods, both with four variants each.
  • The research analyzed both the repeatability parameters and linearity of the bead standard recovery for each method.

Results

  • The Mini-FLOTAC-based variants exhibited the lowest coefficient of variation in bead recovery, signifying high precision of the method.
  • McMaster-based methodologies exhibited the highest coefficient of variation, indicating less precision.
  • All Mini-FLOTAC variants and the NaNO 1.33 specific gravity variant of the modified Wisconsin technique showed strong linear fit with R values exceeding 0.95. This indicates a high predictive accuracy in measuring strongyle eggs.
  • For methods that had a high R value but underestimated the true bead count, a correction factor (CF) was determined to estimate the true count.
  • The validity of the CF was analyzed using five tests with R values over 0.95 on intestinal strongyle eggs from 40 different horses.
  • The study identifies methods with the highest diagnostic abilities, highlights the limitations of standardizing routine FEC tests, and underscores the significance of FEC results’ equalization.

Importance of the Study

  • The research findings aim to support veterinarians in selecting the most efficacious FEC test methodologies. This contributes to the development of evidence-based approaches for managing intestinal strongyles in horses.
  • It also sheds light on the need for promoting uniformity in the implementation of parasite control guidelines, especially in the context of managing resistance to anthelmintic treatment.

Cite This Article

APA
Lejeune M, Mann S, White H, Maguire D, Hazard J, Young R, Stone C, Antczak D, Bowman D. (2023). Evaluation of Fecal Egg Count Tests for Effective Control of Equine Intestinal Strongyles. Pathogens, 12(11), 1283. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12111283

Publication

Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-0817
NlmUniqueID: 101596317
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 11
PII: 1283

Researcher Affiliations

Lejeune, Manigandan
  • Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, 240 Farrier Rd., Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Mann, Sabine
  • Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
White, Holly
  • Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, 240 Farrier Rd., Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Maguire, Danielle
  • Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, 240 Farrier Rd., Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Hazard, Jaime
  • Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, 240 Farrier Rd., Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Young, Rebecca
  • Animal Health Diagnostic Center, Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, 240 Farrier Rd., Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Stone, Charles
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Antczak, Doug
  • Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Bowman, Dwight
  • Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.

Grant Funding

  • Oklahoma State University Foundation #321805; OSP 91096 / National Center for Veterinary Parasitology (NCVP) - research grant program 2019 (Oklahoma State University Foundation)

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 31 references
  1. Matthews JB. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes.. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2014;4:310–315.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2014.10.003pmc: PMC4266799pubmed: 25516842google scholar: lookup
  2. Nielsen MK. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes: Current status and emerging trends.. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2022;20:76–88.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2022.10.005pmc: PMC9630620pubmed: 36342004google scholar: lookup
  3. Bodecek S, Jahn P, Dobesova O, Vavrouchova E. Equine cyathostomosis: Case reports.. Vet. Med. 2010;55:187–193.
    doi: 10.17221/88/2010-VETMEDgoogle scholar: lookup
  4. Corning S. Equine cyathostomins: A review of biology, clinical significance and therapy.. Parasites Vectors 2009;6:S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S1pmc: PMC2751837pubmed: 19778462google scholar: lookup
  5. Milillo P, Boeckh A, Cobb R, Otaranto D, Lia RP, Perrucci S, Regalbono AFD, Beraldo P, Samson-Himmelstjerna GV, Demeler J. Faecal Cyathostomin Egg Count distribution and efficacy of anthelmintics against cyathostomins in Italy: A matter of geography?. Parasites Vectors 2009;7:S4.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S4pmc: PMC2751840pubmed: 19778465google scholar: lookup
  6. Lyons ET, Tolliver SC, Drudge JH. Historical perspective of cyathostomes: Prevalence, treatment and control programs.. Vet. Parasitol. 1999;85:97–112.
    doi: 10.1016/S0304-4017(99)00091-6pubmed: 10485357google scholar: lookup
  7. Reinemeyer CR. Controlling Strongyle Parasites of Horses: A Mandate for Change. Proceedings of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) Conference; Las Vegas, NV, USA. 9 December 2009; pp. 352–360.
  8. . Internal Parasite Control Guidelines—Reviewed and Updated 2019. [(accessed on 5 July 2023)]. Available online: https://aaep.org/document/internal-parasite-control-guidelines.
  9. Stratford CH, McGorum BC, Pickles KJ, Matthews JB. An update on cyathostomins: Anthelmintic resistance and diagnostic tools.. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 2011;39:133–139.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00397.xpubmed: 21790768google scholar: lookup
  10. Relf VE, Morgan ER, Hodgkinson JE, Matthews JB. Helminth egg excretion with regard to age, gender and management practices on UK Thoroughbred studs.. Parasitology 2013;140:641–652.
    doi: 10.1017/S0031182012001941pubmed: 23351718google scholar: lookup
  11. Van Wyk JA. Refugia—Overlooked as perhaps the most potent factor concerning the development of anthelmintic resistance.. Onderstepoort J. Vet. 2001;68:55–67.
    pubmed: 11403431
  12. Lester HE, Bartley DJ, Morgan ER, Hodgkinson JE, Stratford CH, Matthews JB. A cost comparison of faecal egg count- directed anthelmintic delivery versus interval programme treatments in horses.. Vet. Rec. 2013;173:371.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.101804pubmed: 24068698google scholar: lookup
  13. Lester HE, Matthews JB. Faecal worm egg count analysis for targeting anthelmintic treatment in horses: Points to consider.. Equine Vet. J. 2014;46:139–145.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12199pubmed: 24131301google scholar: lookup
  14. Lucio-Forster A, Lejeune M. Diagnostic Parasitology.. In: Bowman D., editor. Georgis’ Parasitology for Veterinarians. 11th ed. Elsevier; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2021. pp. 349–454.
  15. Barda BD, Rinaldi L, Ianniello D, Zepherine H, Salvo F, Sadutshang T, Cringoli G, Clementi M, Albonico M. Mini-FLOTAC, an Innovative Direct Diagnostic Technique for Intestinal Parasitic Infections: Experience from the Field.. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013;7:e2344.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002344pmc: PMC3731229pubmed: 23936577google scholar: lookup
  16. Lyons ET, Tolliver SC, Kuzmina TA. Investigation of strongyle EPG values in horse mares relative to known age, number positive and level of egg shedding in field studies on 26 farms in Central Kentucky (2010–2011). Parasitol. Res. 2012;110:2237–2245.
    doi: 10.1007/s00436-011-2755-zpubmed: 22167377google scholar: lookup
  17. Ghafar A, Abbas G, King J, Jacobson C, Hughes KJ, El-Hage C, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes EJA, Hurley J. Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review.. CRPVBD 2021;1:100046.
    doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046pmc: PMC8906068pubmed: 35284858google scholar: lookup
  18. Egwang TG, Slocombe JOD. Evaluation of the Cornell-Wisconsin Centrifugal Flotation Technique for Recovering Trichostrongylid Eggs from Bovine Feces.. Can. J. Comp. Med. 1982;46:133–137.
    pmc: PMC1320267pubmed: 7093809
  19. Turkson PK, Ahafia KK. A comparison of modified McMaster and Brumpt‘s methods in assessment of nematode egg output in an N‘dama cattle herd.. Acta Trop. 1994;57:341–344.
    doi: 10.1016/0001-706X(94)90081-7pubmed: 7810391google scholar: lookup
  20. Levecke B, Behnke JM, Ajjampur SSR, Albonico M, Ame SM, Charlier J, Geiger SM, Hoa NTV, Ngassam RIK, Kotze AC. A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Fecal Egg Counts of the McMaster Egg Counting and Kato-Katz Thick Smear Methods for Soil-Transmitted Helminths.. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2011;5:e1201.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001201pmc: PMC3114752pubmed: 21695104google scholar: lookup
  21. Kochanowski M, Dabrowska J, Karamon J, Cencek T, Osinski Z. Analysis of the accuracy and precision of the McMaster method in detection of the eggs of Toxocara and Trichuris species in dog faeces.. Folia Parasitol. 2013;60:264–272.
    doi: 10.14411/fp.2013.030pubmed: 23951934google scholar: lookup
  22. David ED, Lindquist WD. Determination of the specific gravity of certain helminth eggs using sucrose density gradient centrifugation.. J. Parasitol. 1982;68:916–919.
    doi: 10.2307/3281005pubmed: 6890102google scholar: lookup
  23. Linnet K. Necessary Sample Size for Method Comparison Studies Based on Regression Analysis.. Clin. Chem. 1999;45:882–894.
    doi: 10.1093/clinchem/45.6.882pubmed: 10351998google scholar: lookup
  24. Zajac AM, Conboy GA, Little SE, Reichard MV. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology.. 9th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2021. pp. 1–11.
  25. Cringoli G, Maurelli MP, Levecke B, Bosco A, Vercruysse J, Utzinger J, Rinaldi L. The Mini-FLOTAC technique for the diagnosis of helminth and protozoan infections in humans and animals.. Nat. Protoc. 2017;12:1723–1732.
    doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.067pubmed: 28771238google scholar: lookup
  26. Napravnikova J, Petrtyl M, Stupka R, Vadlejch J. Reliability of three common fecal egg counting techniques for detecting strongylid and ascarid infections in horses.. Vet. Parasitol. 2019;272:53–57.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.07.001pubmed: 31395205google scholar: lookup
  27. Noel ML, Scare JA, Bellaw JL, Nielsen MK. Accuracy and precision of Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques for determining equine strongyle egg counts.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;48:182–187.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.09.006google scholar: lookup
  28. Britt AD, Kaplan RM, Paras KL, Turner KK, Abrams AW, Duberstein KJ. A comparison of McMasters versus mini-FLOTAC techniques in quantifying small strongyles in equine fecal egg assessments.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:97.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.143google scholar: lookup
  29. Silva P, Luz A, Rolim A, Carvalho R, Gomes L, Neto I, Rinaldi L, van Zijll Langhout M, Madeira De Carvalho L. Comparison study between four coprological methods and two flotation solutions in Sorraia horse (Equus ferus caballus)—preliminary results. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Life Sciences for Sustainable Development, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine; Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 26–28 September 2019.
  30. Bosco A, Maurelli MP, Ianniello D, Morgoglione ME, Amadesi A, Coles GC, Cringoli G, Rinaldi L. The recovery of added nematode eggs from horse and sheep faeces by three methods.. BMC Vet. Res. 2018;14:7.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1326-7pmc: PMC5756441pubmed: 29304858google scholar: lookup
  31. Went HA, Scare JA, Steuer AE, Nielsen MK. Effects of homogenizing methods on accuracy and precision of equine strongylid egg counts.. Vet. Parasitol. 2018;261:91–95.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.09.001pubmed: 30253857google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.