Dataset Information

Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Equine gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) have been the subject of intermittent studies in Australia over the past few decades. However, comprehensive information on the epidemiology of equine GINs, the efficacy of available anthelmintic drugs and the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance (AR) in Australasia is lacking. Herein, we have systematically reviewed existing knowledge on the horse GINs recorded in Australia, and main aspects of their pathogeneses, epidemiology, diagnoses, treatment and control.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched for publications on GINs of Australian horses that met our inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Subsets of publications were subjected to review epidemiology, diagnoses, pathogeneses, treatment and control of GINs of horses from Australia.

Results

A total of 51 articles published between 1950 to 2018 were included. The main GINs reported in Australian horses were cyathostomins (at least 28 species), Draschia megastoma, Habronema muscae, H. majus, Oxyuris equi, Parascaris equorum, Strongyloides westeri and Trichostrongylus axei across different climatic regions of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. Nematodes are diagnosed based on the traditional McMaster egg counting technique, though molecular markers to characterise common GINs of equines were characterised in 1990s. The use of anthelmintic drugs remains the most widely-used strategy for controlling equine GIN parasites in Australia; however, the threshold of faecal egg count that should trigger treatment in horses, remains controversial. Furthermore, anthelmintic resistance within GIN population of horses is becoming a common problem in Australia.

Conclusions

Although GINs infecting Australian horses have been the subject of occasional studies over the past few decades, the effective control of GIN infections is hampered by a generalised lack of knowledge in various disciplines of equine parasitology. Therefore, coordinated and focused research is required to fill our knowledge gaps in these areas to maximise equine health and minimise economic losses associated with the parasitic infections in Australia.

SUBMITTER: Saeed MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6489199 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia.

Saeed Muhammad A MA Beveridge Ian I Abbas Ghazanfar G Beasley Anne A Bauquier Jenni J Wilkes Edwina E Jacobson Caroline C Hughes Kris J KJ El-Hage Charles C O'Handley Ryan R Hurley John J Cudmore Lucy L Carrigan Peter P Walter Lisa L Tennent-Brown Brett B Nielsen Martin K MK Jabbar Abdul A

Parasites & vectors 20190429 1

<h4>Background</h4>Equine gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) have been the subject of intermittent studies in Australia over the past few decades. However, comprehensive information on the epidemiology of equine GINs, the efficacy of available anthelmintic drugs and the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance (AR) in Australasia is lacking. Herein, we have systematically reviewed existing knowledge on the horse GINs recorded in Australia, and main aspects of their pathogeneses, epidemiology, diagno ...[more]

PMID: 31036059

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) can cause significant economic losses in alpacas due to lowered production of fibre and meat. Although no anthelmintics are registered for use in alpacas, various classes of anthelmintics are frequently used to control parasitic gastroenteritis in alpacas in Australia and other countries. Very little is known about the current worm control practices as well as the efficacy of anthelmintics used against common GINs of alpacas. This study aimed to assess the existing worm control practices used by Australian alpaca farmers and to quantify the efficacy of commonly used anthelmintics against GINs of alpacas.MethodsAn online questionnaire survey was conducted to assess current worm control practices on 97 Australian alpaca farms, with an emphasis on the use of anthelmintics. Of this group of 97 alpaca farms, 20 were selected to assess the efficacy of eight anthelmintics and/or their combinations (closantel, fenbendazole ivermectin, monepantel, moxidectin and a combination of levamisole, closantel, albendazole, abamectin) using the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). A multiplexed-tandem PCR (MT-PCR) was used to identify the prevalent nematode genera/species.ResultsThe response rate for the questionnaire was 94% (91/97). Almost half of the respondents kept alpacas with sheep and cattle, and 26% of respondents allowed alpacas to co-graze with these ruminants. Although only 63% respondents perceived worms to be an important health concern for alpacas, the majority of respondents (89%) used anthelmintics to control GINs of alpacas. The commonly used anthelmintics were macrocyclic lactones, monepantel, benzimidazoles, levamisole, closantel and their combinations, and they were typically administered at the dose rate recommended for sheep. The FECRT results showed that a combination of levamisole, closantel, albendazole and abamectin was the most effective dewormer followed by single drugs, including monepantel, moxidectin, closantel, fenbendazole and ivermectin. Haemonchus spp. were the most commonly resistant nematodes followed by Trichostrongylus spp., Camelostrongylus mentulatus, Ostertagia ostertagi and Cooperia spp.ConclusionsThis is the first study aimed at assessing worm control practices and efficacy of commonly used anthelmintics in alpacas in Australia. Our findings document the extent of anthelmintics resistance on Australian alpaca farms and identify those anthelmintics that are still effective against GINs of alpacas.

Project description:BackgroundThe inclusion of pharmacists into general practices in Australia has expanded in recent years. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature of qualitative and quantitative studies, and identify the knowledge gaps, related to pharmacists working in general practice in Australia.MethodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of databases to January 2021. The search was focused on studies investigating general practice pharmacists in Australia. The quality of each study was appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The narrative synthesis approach was utilised to describe data due to the heterogeneity among study designs and measures.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in this review. General practice pharmacists engaged in various non-dispensing patient care services, with medication management reviews being the primary activity reported. General practice pharmacists' characteristics and an environment with a willingness of collaboration were the notable influencing factors for successfully including pharmacists in general practices. Factors that posed a challenge to the adoption of general practice pharmacists were lack of funding and other resources, poorly defined roles, and absence of mentoring/training.ConclusionThis review has summarised the characteristics, activities, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of including pharmacists in general practices in Australia. General practice pharmacists are well accepted by stakeholders, and they can engage in a range of patient-centred activities to benefit patients. There is a need for more robust research to explore the patient and economic outcomes related to clinical activities that a pharmacist can perform in general practice, as a foundation to developing an appropriate and sustainable funding model. The findings of this review will be beneficial for pharmacists, researchers, policymakers, and readers who wish to implement the role of general practice pharmacists in the future.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets