Cited by 849Helminth infection and controlVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaMollusks and Parasites Studies

An inconvenient truth: Global worming and anthelmintic resistance

Kaplan, Ray M., Vidyashankar, Anand N.·2012·Veterinary Parasitology

Abstract

Over the past 10-15 years, we have witnessed a rapid increase in both the prevalence and magnitude of anthelmintic resistance, and this increase appears to be a worldwide phenomenon. Reports of anthelmintic resistance to multiple drugs in individual parasite species, and in multiple parasite species across virtually all livestock hosts, are increasingly common. In addition, since the introduction of ivermectin in 1981, no novel anthelmintic classes were developed and introduced for use in livestock until recently with the launch of monepantel in New Zealand. Thus, livestock producers are often left with few options for effective treatment against many important parasite species. While new anthelmintic classes with novel mechanisms of action could potentially solve this problem, new drugs are extremely expensive to develop, and can be expected to be more expensive than older drugs. Thus, it seems clear that the "Global Worming" approach that has taken hold over the past 40-50 years must change, and livestock producers must develop a new vision for parasite control and sustainability of production. Furthermore, parasitologists must improve methods for study design and data analysis that are used for diagnosing anthelmintic resistance, especially for the fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Currently, standards for diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance using FECRT exist only for sheep. Lack of standards in horses and cattle and arbitrarily defined cutoffs for defining resistance, combined with inadequate analysis of the data, mean that errors in assigning resistance status are common. Similarly, the lack of standards makes it difficult to compare data among different studies. This problem needs to be addressed, because as new drugs are introduced now and in the future, the lack of alternative treatments will make early and accurate diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance increasingly important.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.11.048

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaplan, R. M., & Vidyashankar, A. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
Kaplan, Ray M.
Venue
Veterinary Parasitology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
186
Issue
1-2
Pages
70-78
ISSN
0304-4017 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041327979
Cited by
849
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 10
FWCI
37.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Veterinary Parasitology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Mollusks and Parasites Studies
Keywords
anthelmintic resistance, livestock parasites, faecal egg count reduction test, monepantel, ivermectin, parasite control, horses, cattle, sheep
MeSH terms
Animals, Anthelmintics, Cattle, Drug Resistance, Feces, Female, Goats, Horses, Nematoda, Nematode Infections, New Zealand, Parasite Egg Count, Sheep, Sheep Diseases, Prevalence, Global Warming, Livestock

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review