Longitudinal study for anthelmintic efficacy against intestinal helminths in naturally exposed Lithuanian village dogs: critical analysis of feasibility and limitations
The efficacy of anthelmintic treatment at 1, 3, and 6 month intervals was evaluated in a prospective controlled field study with naturally exposed Lithuanian village dogs by monthly coproscopy during 1 year. A placebo-treated control group (C) (n = 202) and groups treated with two broad-spectrum anthelmintics, febantel/pyrantel-embonate/praziquantel (Drontal® Plus, Bayer) (D1, D3, D6; n = 113–117) and emodepside/praziquantel (Profender®, Bayer) (P1, P3, P6; n = 114–119), were included. At the beginning of the study, eggs of Toxocara canis (4.02%) and T. cati (0.44%) identified morphometrically and/or molecularly and eggs of taeniid- (0.78%) and Capillaria-like eggs (5.03%) were present in the feces without significant differences in prevalence between groups. Significant decreases in excretion of T. canis eggs was found 1 month after the treatment with Drontal® Plus in February (D1) and with Profender® in October (P1), November (P1), December (P3), February (P1), and March (P1, P3), as compared to controls in the same months. The incidence of egg excretion per dog at least once a year was significantly lower in group P1 for T. canis (4.24%; p < 0.01) and in groups D1, P1 for taeniid eggs (0%; p < 0.01 and p < 0.001), when compared to controls (16.96 and 6.70%, respectively). A critical analyses of factors possibly responsible for intestinal passage of canine helminth eggs revealed that chained dogs excreted T. canis eggs more frequently 1 month after treatment compared to dogs in pens, particularly from November to March (p = 0.01). The incidence of single detection of T. cati eggs was significantly increased in chained dogs (12.46%) as compared to fenced dogs (1.08%; p = 0.0001).
KeywordsToxocara Anthelminthic treatment Field studies Coprophagia
We acknowledge Edita Tamošiūnienė, Vilija Laurinavičiūtė, Giedrė Valauskaitė, Artūras Poderis, Indrė Ramanauskaitė, and Francesca Gori for valuable technical assistance during the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Roland Schaper is an employee of Bayer Animal Health GmbH. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All applicable international and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The study was conducted in compliance with Lithuanian animal welfare regulations (No. B1-866, 2012; No. XI-2271, 2012).
- Altreuther G, Schimmel A, Schroeder I, Bach T, Charles S, Kok JD, Kraemes F, Wolken S, Young D, Krieges JK (2009) Efficacy of emodepside plus praziquantel tablets (Profender® tablets for dogs) against mature and immature infections with Toxocara canis and Toxascaris leonina in dogs. Parasitol Res 105:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beveridge I, Rickard MD, Gregory GG, Munday BL (1975) Studies on Anoplotenia dayuri Beddard, 1911 (Cestoda: Taeniidae) a parasite of the Tasmanian devil: observations on the egg and metacestode. Int J Parasitol 5:251–267Google Scholar
- CAPC (Companion Animal Parasite Council) (2016) CAPC Recommendations. Intestinal Parasites (https://www.capcvet.org). Accessed 10/10/2017
- Deplazes P, Eckert J, Mathis A, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Zahner H (2016) Parasitology in veterinary medicine. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Epe C, Schnieder T, Stoye M (1996) Opportunities and limitations of chemotherapeutic control of vertical infections of Toxocara canis and Ancylostoma caninum in the dog. Prakt Tierarzt 6:483–490Google Scholar
- ESCCAP (European Scientific Council Companion Animal Parasites) (2017). Guideline No. 1. Worm Control in Dogs and Cats (http://www.esccap.org/#1), 3rd edn. Accessed 17/09/2017
- Fahrion AS, Schnyder M, Wichert B, Deplazes P (2011) Toxocara eggs shed by dogs and cats and their molecular and morphometric species-specific identification: is the finding of T. cati eggs shed by dogs of epidemiological relevance? Vet Parasitol 177:186–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hopkins TJ, Gyr P, Hedemann PM (1988) Nematocidal and cestocidal efficacy of a tablet formulation containing febantel, pyrantel emponate and praziquantel in dogs. Vet Med Rev 59:71–75Google Scholar
- Pezzullo JC (2009) StatPages.net. http://statpages.org/confint.html.
- Schimmel A, Altreuther G, Schroeder I, Charles S, Cruthers L, Ketzis J, Kok DJ, Kraemer F, McCall JW, Krieger KJ (2009a) Efficacy of emodepside plus praziquantel tablets (Profender® tablets for dogs) against mature and immature adult Ancylostoma caninum and Uncinaria stenocephala infections in dogs. Parasitol Res 1051:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Traversa D, Cesare AD, Giulio ED, Castagna G, Schaper R, Braun G, Lohr B, Pampurini F, Milillo P, Strube K (2012) Efficacy and safety of imidacloprid 10%/moxidectin 1% spot-on formulation in the treatment of feline infection by Capillaria aerophila. Parasitol Res 111:1793–1798CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Van der Borg JAM, Graat EAM (2006) Pilot study to identify risk factors for coprophagic behaviour in dogs. In: De Meester R, Moons C, Mulkens F (eds). Proceedings of the VDWE International Congress on Companion Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging vzwGoogle Scholar