These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative therapeutic efficacies of oral and in-water administered levamisole, piperazine and fenbendazole against experimental Ascaridia galli infection in chickens.
    Author: Feyera T, Ruhnke I, Sharpe B, Elliott T, Shifaw A, Walkden-Brown SW.
    Journal: Vet Parasitol; 2021 Oct; 298():109514. PubMed ID: 34271320.
    Abstract:
    Evidence on the current efficacy status of anthelmintics used in the Australian poultry sector is lacking. A controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of three commonly used anthelmintics, namely levamisole (LEV), piperazine (PIP) and fenbendazole (FBZ) plus levamisole-piperazine combination (LEV-PIP) against a field strain of A. galli recovered following flock treatment with LEV. A total of 108 A. galli infected cockerels were randomized into nine experimental groups of 12 cockerels each (eight treatments and one untreated control) with each treatment administered by two routes (oral drench or in drinking water). Chickens received label-recommended doses of LEV (28 mg/kg) and PIP (100 mg/kg) while LEV-PIP involved both compounds co-administered at their full individual dose rates. FBZ was tested at two dose rates; 10 mg/kg as a single oral drench or 5 mg/kg in drinking water over 5 days. Anthelmintic efficacies were assessed by worm count reduction (WCR%) and excreta egg count reduction (EECR%) estimated by two methods. Ten days post treatment, the untreated control birds harboured significantly higher worm counts (P < 0.0001) than those in all treatment groups irrespective of the mode drug of application. Oral drenching caused a greater reduction in worm and egg counts (P < 0.05) than medication in drinking water. Based on geometric worm counts the percentage efficacies for the oral drench were 99.1, 96.3, 97.2 and 100 % respectively for LEV, PIP, FBZ and LEV-PIP, and for administration in water 96.4, 93.7, 88.7 and 97.7 % respectively. Efficacies based on EECR% were consistent with WCR% with strong positive linear association between efficacy values. In conclusion, our results demonstrate no evidence of loss of susceptiblity of the test A. galli isolate to both LEV and PIP contrary to our hypothesis. Additional efficacy studies are needed using A. galli isolates sourced from different poultry flocks across Australia.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]