Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

Status of benzimidazole resistance in intestinal nematode populations of livestock in Brazil: a systematic review

BMC Veterinary ResearchBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201713:358

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1282-2

Received: 9 May 2017

Accepted: 17 November 2017

Published: 25 November 2017

Abstract

Background

Benzimidazoles (BZ) are a class of drugs widely used in veterinary and human medicine, creating a great selection pressure and the emergence of BZ resistance. We conducted a systematic review to assess the status of resistance and/or effectiveness reduction of BZ drugs in animal nematodes in Brazil, and make information accessible to the scientific community, as many studies are published in Portuguese. PubMed, SciELO Brasil, LILACS/Bireme, GNTD database, and Google Scholar were searched with no language restrictions.

Results

A total of 40 studies met our eligibility criteria (from the year 1989 forward). Sheep was the host most frequently analysed, and albendazole was the most frequently drug studied. The majority of studies (75.7%) showed that BZ drugs are insufficiently active (FECRT <80%) against nematode parasites of livestock. The mean FECRT for fenbendazole, thiabendazole, albendazole, mebendazole, oxfendazole, and ricobendazole were 71.8%, 71.8%, 58.6%, 53.9%, 46.9%, and 41.5%, respectively. It was observed through linear regression that FECRT is significantly reduced over time between 2007 and 2014 (R = −0.653 p = 0.021) for the treatment of cattle with BZ, suggesting progressive loss of effectiveness and increased resistance for these hosts.

Conclusions

The scenario of BZ resistance in nematode populations in Brazil is not favourable. Given the high cost of drug discovery and development, it is urgent to implement control measures and to monitor the effectiveness/resistance to nematodes in livestock in Brazil.

Keywords

BenzimidazoleAnthelmintic resistanceNematodesLivestockBrazil

Background

Livestock production is undermined by intestinal parasitic diseases [1]. The high prevalence of parasitic infections and the difficulty of carrying out effective control of these parasites in livestock can cause huge economic losses in production [2]. In addition to the damage caused by high mortality rates, intestinal parasites impact growth performance, reduce milk production and lead to low fertility [3]. The most important genera affecting livestock in Brazil include Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus, Oesophagostomum, and Cooperia [3]. The cost of veterinary products is approximately 15 billion US dollars annually worldwide, and 27% of this cost is represented by parasiticides. In Brazil, parasiticide purchases constitute 42% of the total volume of veterinary sales, representing 700 million US dollars annually [3]. Brazilian cattle herds reached 211,764 million animals in 2013, comprising the world’s largest commercial herd. Brazilian sheep and goat herds comprised 17,291 million and eight million animals, respectively [4].

Benzimidazoles (BZ) are a class of drugs with activities against fungi, protozoa, and helminths [5, 6] and are widely used in veterinary and human medicine. The introduction of thiabendazole (THI) in the 1960s - the prototype of the first generation of benzimidazoles - provided a breakthrough in the treatment of diseases, allowing for the development of several other members of this class [5]. The primary mode of action of these drugs involves their interaction with the cytoskeletal protein β-tubulin, which together with α-tubulin constitutes the main component of microtubules [7]. The BZ drugs have many benefits, including the following: i) selectivity and relatively low mammalian toxicity; ii) broad spectrum of activity; iii) high efficacy; iv) ease of administration; and v) low cost [5, 79]. For this reason, BZ drugs are widely used in livestock and are currently being employed in human MDA strategies. The success of anthelmintic treatment in the management and control of parasitic infections in livestock in the years following the development of BZ led to frequent and indiscriminate use of these drugs, thereby creating a great selection pressure in multiple species of nematodes [10]. This has the potential to select for parasite genotypes that are resistant to anthelmintics [11]. Drug resistance in any organism is defined by a change in the drug’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and site of action) [5] that allows some individuals in a population to tolerate doses of a given compound that would not normally be tolerated.

In this systematic review, we assess the status of resistance and/or effectiveness reduction of benzimidazole drugs in livestock nematodes in Brazil to review the history of BZ resistance in the country, generate data to enable monitoring and verification of the spread of BZ resistance, and make information accessible to the scientific community, as many studies are published in Portuguese.

Methods

Data sources and inclusion/exclusion criteria

Surveys assessing BZ resistance pertaining to animal intestinal nematodes in Brazil were extracted from five electronic databases: PubMed/NCBI (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health/National Center for Biotechnology Information Search database), SciELO Brasil (Scientific Electronic Library Online), LILACS-Bireme (Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde – BIREME/PAHO/WHO), GNTD database (Global Neglected Tropical Diseases database), and Google Scholar. The search was performed on November 21st, 22nd, and 28th, 2015, using the terms: “resistance”, AND “benzimidazole”, OR “albendazole”, OR “mebendazole”, AND “Brazil”. No language restrictions were made. Duplicate papers were removed. The PRISMA guideline/checklist was used to construct the systematic review [12].

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: i) evaluated the BZ resistance/efficacy in nematode parasites in livestock hosts; ii) studied natural infections; iii) showed BZ resistance/efficacy of at least one BZ anthelmintic; iv) used at least one technique to detect BZ resistance/effectiveness; and v) were published in scientific journals with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). Congress abstracts, theses, and dissertations were not included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: i) articles that explored the BZ resistance only associated with other drug classes (e.g., BZ + macrocyclic lactones and other associations); ii) studies evaluating BZ resistance on fungi or other microorganisms; and iii) works demonstrating only experimental infections or in vitro tests.

“Grey literature” was accessed to enrich the text but was not included in the systematic review.

Data extraction, analysis, and quality assessment

Once selected, the following data were extracted from each paper and entered into a Microsoft Office Excel database: author names, journal, publication year, language, state and city in which the study was performed, host types, number of hosts, BZ drugs, parasitological techniques, counts of eggs per gram (epg) of faeces, parasites genus/species found, control group, if animal was dewormed and for how long, BZ resistance-related single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found, efficacy, cure rate, and reinfection rate. The studies were categorized into five quality levels (1 to 5; data not shown) based on the detail of the herds, number of animals evaluated, drugs evaluated, number and quality of the parasitological techniques used, and FECRT calculation.

Faecal egg count reduction test analysis

An assessment of treatment efficacy was performed by analysing the Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test (FECRT syn. Egg reduction rate/ERR) results. When the studies did not present FECRT results, the values were calculated based on the eggs per gram of faeces before and after treatment, according to [13]. For the interpretation of the FECRT results in livestock, the following criteria were used: FECRT > 98%, highly effective; FECRT 90–98%, effective; FECRT 80–89%, moderately effective; and FECRT < 80%, insufficiently active [14].

The SPSS® Statistic Software v.20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA) was used to simple linear regression analysis, with a statistical significance of 5% (p = 0.05). We employed the general software Diva-GIS v.7.5.0.0 for map construction (downloaded free from the website: http://www.diva-gis.org).

Results

The search resulted in the gathering of 9176 files (articles or other texts). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 scientific articles were selected (Table 1). Most of the studies were published in Portuguese (23/40, 57.5%), and 17 (42.5%) studies were published in English. This review includes articles conducted from the year 1989 forward.
Table 1

List of studies assessing benzimidazole resistance in livestock hosts in Brazil, from 1989 to 2015

Author a year [reference number]

Journal

State

BZ drug

Host

Diagnostic Approach

Nematode genus

Parasitological technique

Molecular technique

(SNP detection)

McMaster epg

Culture

Ahid et al. 2007 [43]

AL

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides

Acta Veterinaria Brasilica

Amarante et al. 1992 [44]

SP

OXF

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus

Brazilian Journal of Veterinary

Araujo et al. 2008 [45]

RN

RIC

Equine

Y

N

N

NA

Acta Veterinaria Brasilica

Borges et al. 2010 [46]

PR

OXF

Equine

Y

Y

N

Cyathostominae

Ciência Animal Brasileira

Borges et al. 2015 [15]

BA

ALB

Goat

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Brasil et al. 2012 [47]

MG

ALB

Cattle

Y

Y

Y

Haemonchus

International Journal for Parasitology

SP

Goat

SC

Sheep

Bruhn et al. 2012 [48]

MG

ALB

Cattle

Y

N

N

NA

Acta Tecnológica

Cezar et al. 2010 [16]

RS

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia

Veterinary Parasitology

Coelho et al. 2010 [17]

RN

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus

Ciência Animal Brasileira

Cunha Filho et al. 1998 [49]

PR

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia, Bunostomum

Semina Ciências Agrárias

da Cruz et al. 2010 [18]

RJ

ALB

Sheep

Y

N

N

NA

Veterinary Parasitology

das Neves et al. 2014 [30]

SP

ALB

Cattle

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia

Veterinary Parasitology

de Souza et al. 2012 [50]

MG

ALB

Ostrich

Y

Y

N

Libyostrongylus

Veterinary Parasitology

dos Santos et al. 2014 [51]

CE

OXF

Sheep

Y

Y

Y

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Veterinary Parasitology

Duarte et al. 2012 [52]

MG

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Echevarria et al. 1996 [53]

RS

ALB

Sheep

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia

Veterinary Parasitology

Farias et al. 1997 [54]

SP

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia

Veterinary Parasitology

MEB

OXF

Hammerschmidt et al. 2012 [20]

SC

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science

Klauck et al. 2014 [55]

SC

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichostrongylus, Cooperia, Teladorsagia

Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Lima et al. 2010 [56]

PE

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Ciência Animal Brasileira

Sheep

Lima et al. 2010 [57]

PE

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Melo et al. 1998 [58]

CE

OXF

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Cooperia, Trichuris

Ciência Animal

Melo et al. 2003 [59]

CE

OXF

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Ciência Rural

 

Sheep

Niciura et al. 2012 [60]

SP

ALB

Sheep

N

N

Y

Haemonchus

Veterinary Parasitology

Nunes et al. 2013 [61]

MG

ALB

Cattle

Y

N

Y

Haemonchus

Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria

SP

Goat

Sheep

Pereira et al. 2008 [62]

RN

ALB

Goat

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Acta Veterinaria Brasilica

Sheep

Ramos et al. 2002 [63]

SC

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia

Ciência Rural

Rodrigues et al. 2007 [64]

PB

ALB

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus

Pesquisa Veterinaria Brasileira

Santos et al. 2014 [65]

RS

OXF

Cattle

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Ostertagia, Cooperia, Bunostomum

Revista Portuguesa de Ciências Veterinarias

Sczesny-Moraoes et al. 2010 [66]

MS

ALB

Sheep

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Cooperia

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Soutelo et al. 2007 [67]

SP

ALB

Cattle

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia

Veterinary Parasitology

Soutelo et al. 2010 [68]

SP

ALB

Cattle

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia

Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária

Souza et al. 2008 [69]

SC

ALB

Cattle

Y

Y

N

Cooperia

Ciência Rural

Souza et al. 2013 [70]

PB

ALB

Goat

Y

N

N

NA

Agropecuária Científica do Semiárido

Thomas-Soccol et al. 1996 [21]

PR

ALB

Sheep

Y

N

N

NA

Veterinary Record

Thomas-Soccol et al. 2004 [22]

PR

OXF

Sheep

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum, Ostertagia, Cooperia

Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology

Veríssimo et al. 2012 [71]

SP

ALB

Sheep

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum, Cooperia

Veterinary Parasitology

Vieira and Cavalcante 1999 [72]

CE

OXF

Goat

Y

Y

N

Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum

Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira

Vieira et al. 1989 [73]

CE

ALB

Goat

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Trichonstrongylus, Oesophagostomum

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira

FEN

OXF

THI

Vieira et al. 1989 [74]

CE

ALB

Goat

NI

Y

N

Haemonchus, Strongyloides

Boletim de Pesquisa Embrapa

FEN

Sheep

OXF

THI

Total = 40

       

alisted alphabetically. ALB albendazole, FEN fenbendazole, MEB mebendazole, OXF oxfendazole, RIC ricobendazole, THI thiabendazole. Epg eggs per gram of faeces, AL Alagoas, BA Bahia, CE Ceará, MG Minas Gerais, MS Mato Grosso do Sul, PB Paraíba, PE Pernambuco, PR Paraná, RJ Rio de Janeiro, RN Rio Grande do Norte, RS Rio Grande do Sul, SC Santa Catarina, SP São Paulo. Y Yes, N No, NI Not informed, NA Not applied

Data from 13 Brazilian states were analysed in the studies (Fig. 1). The largest number of studies was performed in Northeast (14/40, 32.6%), followed by Southeast (32.5%), South (30.0%), and Centre West (2.5%). The states most frequently analysed were the following: São Paulo (9/40, 22.5%), Ceará (15.0%), and Minas Gerais and Santa Catarina (12.5%) (Table 1).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Mean FECRT in livestock of the Brazilian states. Area of the circle is proportional to number of animals

In livestock, sheep were the host most frequently analysed (23/40, 57.5%) (Table 2), followed by goats (37.5%), cattle (17.5%), and others (equines and ostrich, 7.5% each). The BZ drugs tested in livestock were ALB (31/40, 72.1%), oxfendazole (OXF) (27.5%), fenbendazole (FEN) (4.7%), THI (4.7%), and MEB (2.3%), and ricobendazole (RIC) (2.3%).
Table 2

BZ effectiveness parameters in livestock nematodes in Brazil

Drug

Parameters

Host

Overall livestocka

Cattle

Goat

Sheep

BZb

N studies (%)

7 (17.5)

15 (37.5)

23 (57.5)

40

N hosts

3417

1697

11,342

16,531

FECRT (%)

Minimum

7.3

20.8

0

0

Maximum

95.9

90.0

90.0

100

Mean

75.3

64.8

47.0

55.0

ALB

N studies (%)

7 (22.6)

11 (35.5)

16 (51.6)

31

N hosts

3417

604

8878

12,915

FECRT (%)

Minimum

7.3

29.5

0

0

Maximum

95.7

90.0

90.0

100

Mean

75.4

68.1

55.1

58.6

OXF

N studies (%)

0

4 (36.4)

7 (63.6)

11

N hosts

 

1118

2464

3614

FECRT (%)

Minimum

 

20.8

0

0

Maximum

 

73.5

64.9

92.4

Mean

 

56.6

29.7

46.9

aincluding cattle, goat, sheep, and others (equine and ostrich). bincluding ALB, FEN, MEB, OXF, RIC, and THI

The majority of studies (75.7%) showed that BZ drugs are insufficiently active (FECRT <80%) against nematode parasites of livestock (Fig. 1). The mean FECRT for BZ drugs was 55.0% (Table 2); the mean FECRTs for FEN and THI was of 71.8%, the mean for ALB was 58.6%, the mean for MEB was 53.9%, the mean for OXF was 46.9%, and the mean for RIC was 41.5%. Five studies showed FECRTs lower than 1%. It is noteworthy that the most studied animal – sheep – showed the lowest mean FECRT for BZ drugs (mean FECRT = 47.0%) (Table 2). Only one study (2.5%) demonstrated that ALB is highly effective (FECRT > 98%) in ostrich against the nematode genus Libyostrongylus.

Among the techniques used to perform the eggs counts, the Gordon and Whitlock technique associated with the McMaster chamber was the most frequently used (75.0% of studies). The egg hatch test, as well as the FLOTAC technique, was used in only one study. Coproculture was performed in 33/40 (82.5%) of the studies to identify the nematode genus through morphological analyses of the larvae. Through coproculture, the following parasite genera were identified (Table 1): Haemonchus (32.2%), Trichostrongylus (21.7%), Oesophagostomum (16.1%), Cooperia (9.6%), Strongyloides (8.8%), Ostertagia (5.6%), and others (Strongylus, Bunostomum, Teladorsagia, Trichuris, Libyostrongylus, 5.6%). Sheep exhibited a greater diversity of parasites compared to other animal hosts (Fig. 2a), with the following genera identified: Cooperia, Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum, Ostertagia, Strongyloides, and Trichostrongylus. In Fig. 2b, it noted the number of studies that identified the parasite species and the studied drug. However, it was not possible to establish a relationship between a specific parasite genera and BZ effectiveness. Four studies (9.3%) used molecular techniques to evaluate potential BZ resistance. The characteristic mutation at codon F200Y of the beta-tubulin gene was the most frequently observed mutation (100%) in Haemonchus parasites, yet the F167Y mutation in the same gene was found in only two studies (50%).
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Number of studies that reported (a) the parasite species by host and (b) the most commonly used drug by parasite species, in Brazil, from 1989 to 2015

It was observed through linear regression that FECRT is significantly reduced over time between 2007 and 2014 (R = −0.653 p = 0.021) for the treatment of cattle with BZ, suggesting progressive loss of effectiveness and increased resistance for these hosts (Fig. 3).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Simple linear regression analysis (lines) of Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test (FECRT) by time (years) reported in livestock in Brazil, from 1989 to 2015, stratified by host. Cattle R = −0.653 p = 0.021; goat R = −0.154 p = 0.633; and sheep R = 0.029 p = 0.820)

Discussion

This study presents a systematic review on a subject still under-explored in Brazil: BZ resistance in nematode parasites.

We observed that BZ resistance was widely disseminated in animal hosts in Brazil and demonstrated that BZ had lower effectiveness in sheep. BZ resistance in livestock has been widely distributed throughout the world since the development of the drugs in the early 1960s [7]. The extensive use of BZ led to an immense selection pressure on parasite populations, particularly in the gastrointestinal parasites of ruminants, most notably sheep [7]. Grazing animals defecate where they feed, and even after treatment, reinfection is common, leading to an overuse of BZs. In this context, anthelmintic drugs are often used as a single tool for nematode control, extensively and indiscriminately. Many farms provide various annual doses of BZ drugs to animals, allowing for a considerable selective pressure on parasitic nematodes, and the spread of resistance.

Many livestock studies report an inefficient management system, as well as, a lack of knowledge about the correct use and dosage of drugs and not respecting the interval time between dosage administrations [1518]. This has a great impact on treatment efficacy. In Brazil, the SICOPA (S istema I ntegrado de Co ntrole Pa rasitário) [19] consists of a set of strategies for the treatment of the flock to preserve the drug susceptibility characteristics and considers the epidemiological characteristics of the country [20]. However, the monitoring of drug efficacy is rarely used or even non-existent on some farms in Brazil [19]. Therefore, some measures must be implemented in farms in order to reduce the selective pressure and the spread of resistance to anthelmintics: i) establish the parasitological diagnosis; ii) determine the FECRT routinely, as well as the susceptibility of the host population (naïve, preparturition, post parturition); iii) weigh the animals to avoid underdosage; iv) anthelmintic drug rotation (annually); and v) anthelmintic treatments not administered at intervals shorter than 28 days [1923].

Brazil is a major producer of animals and meat for exportation to the world market, approximately 230 million animals are produced annually [4]. Nonetheless, only 13 of the 27 Brazilian states were analysed for BZ resistance. Cattle production is well distributed in the country, especially in the states of the Midwest (33.6% of total production in the country) - specifically the states of Mato Grosso (13.4%) and Goiás (10.2%) - and the North Region is the second largest producer of cattle (21.2%) [4]. However, no work has been published reporting the effectiveness of BZ in these regions. Only one study was conducted in Mato Grosso do Sul (Midwest Region) and analysed sheep nematodes. The states of the Northeast and South Regions are the largest producers of sheep (56.5% and 30% of total production of the country, respectively), and the states of the Northeast are the main producers of goats, with 91.4% of the total production [4]. In these regions there was research available on BZ resistance of STHs in herds, both in sheep and goats. Nevertheless, the data shows us that there is a gap in knowledge - both in diagnosis and research - about the reality of resistance in livestock in the country.

The origin of BZ resistance in livestock has been speculated about. The animal migration and gene flow among nematodes [24], as well as spontaneous mutations [25] and the presence of rare alleles in the population [26], could be responsible for the spread of resistance among animal nematodes. Currently, there is concern about the possibility of the emergence of resistance to the drugs used in soil transmitted helminthes (STH) control; however, the large-scale mass drug administration strategy is generally the cornerstone of most STH control programmes [27, 28]. Until now, the degree of influence that resistance in livestock can have on the development and spread of resistance in human nematodes is unknown, particularly in nematodes with zoonotic potential, such as Ascaris suum and Trichostrongylus.

The egg count using the McMaster chamber, and several variations on the original technique, is the most frequently used technique to conduct the FECRT. The FECRT is an in vitro test that provides an estimate of anthelmintic efficacy by comparing worm egg counts from animals before and after treatment [13]. The McMaster technique is widely used in veterinary parasitology and has been recommended by the WHO for evaluation of the EPG count in humans [29]. The FLOTAC technique was used in only one study [30]. FLOTAC and Mini-FLOTAC techniques [31, 32] present potential for the qualitative and quantitative copromicroscopic diagnosis of parasites in a practical and simple way, and should be considered.

In 17.5% of the studies (7/40), the faecal culture technique was not carried out to identify the nematode genus that had infected the animals. This is a matter of great importance in assessing the BZ resistance in animal nematodes, because the diagnosis based on egg observation does not indicate the parasite genus involved, and in mixed infections, only one species may be resistant to the BZ drug [33]. In addition, only one study conducted an in vitro test – the egg hatch test - to detect the nematode species involved in BZ resistance. The egg hatch test can be used for detection of BZ resistance by assessing the drug’s ability to inhibit embryonation of the parasite [13, 34].

The molecular signature of BZ resistance in nematodes is the presence of SNPs in the β-tubulin isotype 1 gene in nematodes, located at codons F167Y (TTC/Phe → TAC/Tyr), E198A (GAG/Glu → GCG/Ala) and F200Y (TTC/Phe → TAC/Tyr) [6, 35, 36]. Despite the fact that these genetic markers of BZ resistance are known, few studies (4/43, 9.3%) used molecular techniques for the evaluation of resistance of nematodes in Brazil. Of these studies, all Haemonchus nematodes demonstrated the mutation F200Y. Additionally, the codon F167Y was found in Haemonchus parasites in two studies. These findings in Brazil are in agreement with previous studies, which demonstrated that the F200Y mutation is the most frequently found mutation associated with BZ resistance in nematodes, and has been described in various nematode parasites: Haemonchus [36], Ostertagia [37], Cooperia [38], Ancylostoma caninum [39], human hookworms and T. trichiura [10, 40]. Moreover, Haemonchus contortus has been determined to be responsible for the rapid development of BZ resistance in nematodes of small ruminants, probably due to its high genetic diversity and consequent greater availability for new mutations [41, 42].

Conclusions

The scenario of BZ resistance in nematode populations of domestic animals in Brazil is not favourable. Given the high cost of drug discovery and development, it is urgent to implement control measures and to monitor the effectiveness/resistance to nematodes in livestock in Brazil. Considering the BZ-R scenario observed in this study, a greater investment in animal management and adequate control of the use of anthelmintic drugs should be performed in the country.

Abbreviations

AL: 

Alagoas

ALB: 

albendazole

BA: 

Bahia

BZ: 

benzimidazole

CE: 

Ceará

epg: 

Eggs per gram of faeces

FECRT: 

Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test

FEN: 

fenbendazole

MEB: 

mebendazol

MG: 

Minas Gerais

MS: 

Mato Grosso do Sul

OXF: 

oxfendazole

PB: 

Paraíba

PE: 

Pernambuco

PR: 

Paraná

RIC: 

ricobendazole

RJ: 

Rio de Janeiro

RN: 

Rio Grande do Norte

RS: 

Rio Grande do Sul

SC: 

Santa Catarina

SNPs: 

Single nucleotide polymorphisms

SP: 

São Paulo

THI: 

Thiabendazole

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank American Journal Experts (AJE) for English language editing.

Funding

FACC has a productivity research grant of CNPq, Brazil.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article (and its additional files).

Authors’ contributions

LHJ and FACC conceived and designed the study. LHJ conducted the systematic literature search and data extraction. LHJ and FACC analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. Both authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Sistemática Molecular, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(2)
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Teresina, Brazil

References

  1. Rist CL, Garchitorena A, Ngonghala CN, Gillespie TR, Bonds MH. The burden of livestock parasites on the poor. Trends Parasitol. 2015;31:527–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fortes FS, Molento MB. Resistência anti-helmíntica em nematoides gastrintestinais de pequenos ruminantes: avanços e limitações para seu diagnóstico. Pesq Vet Bras. 2013;33:1391–402.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Vieira LS. Endoparasitoses gastrintestinais em caprinos e ovinos. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária: Sobral; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. IBGE. Produção da Pecuária Municipal 2013. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. Lacey E. Mode of action of Benzimidazoles. Parasitol Today. 1990;6:112–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Silvestre A, Cabaret J. Mutation in position 167 of isotype 1 beta-tubulin gene of Trichostrongylid nematodes: role in benzimidazole resistance? Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2002;120:297–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lacey E, Gill JH. Biochemistry of benzimidazole resistance. Acta Trop. 1994;56:245–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett A, Guyatt H. Reducing intestinal nematode infection: efficacy of albendazole and mebendazole. Parasitol Today. 2000;16:71–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Prichard RK. Mechanisms of anthelmintic resistance: implications for the future of parasite control. Proc. 15th Congr. Bras.Parasit. Vet. Brazil. 2008;21:62–8.Google Scholar
  10. Diawara A, Halpenny CM, Churcher TS, Mwandawiro C, Kihara J, Kaplan RM, et al. Association between response to albendazole treatment and β-tubulin genotype frequencies in soil-transmitted helminths. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7:e2247.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Vercruysse J, Albonico M, Behnke JM, Kotze AC, Prichard RK, McCarthy JS, et al. Is anthelmintic resistance a concern for the control of human soil-transmitted helminths? Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2011;1:14–27.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Coles GC, Bauer C, Borgsteede FH, Geerts S, Klei TR, Taylor MA, et al. World Association for the Advancement of veterinary parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol. 1992;44:35–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. GMC/Mercosul. Resolução 76/1996 – Regulamento Técnico para Registro de Produtos Antiparasitários de Uso Veterinário. Brasília: Grupo Mercado Comum; 1996.Google Scholar
  15. Borges SL, Oliveira AA, Mendonça LR, Lambert SM, Viana JM, Nishi SM, et al. Resistência anti-helmíntica em rebanhos caprinos nos biomas Caatinga e Mata Atlântica. Pesq Vet Bras. 2015;35:643–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Cezar AS, Toscan G, Camillo G, Sangioni LA, Ribas HO, Vogel FS. Multiple resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes to nine different drugs in a sheep flock in southern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2010;173:157–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Coelho WAC, Ahid SMM, Vieira LS, Fonseca ZAAS, Silva IP. Resistência anti-helmíntica em caprinos no município de Mossoró. RN Ci Anim Bras. 2010;11:589–99.Google Scholar
  18. da Cruz DG, da Rocha LO, Arruda SS, Palieraqui JG, Cordeiro RC, Santos E Jr, et al. Anthelmintic efficacy and management practices in sheep farms from the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2010;170:340–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Molento MB. Resistência de helmintos em ovinos e caprinos. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2004;13(Suppl 1):82–7.Google Scholar
  20. Hammerschmidt J, Bier D, Fortes FS, Warzensaky P, Bainy AM, Macedo AAS, et al. Avaliação do sistema integrado de controle parasitário em uma criação semi-intensiva de caprinos na região de Santa Catarina. Arq Bras Med. Vet Zootec. 2012;64:927–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomas-Soccol VT, Sotomaior C, Souza FP, Castro EA, Pessôa Silva MC, Milczewski V. Occurrence of resistance to anthelmintics in sheep in Paraná state, Brazil. Vet Rec. 1996;139:421–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomaz-Soccol V, Souza FP, Sotomaior C, Castro EA, Milczewski V, Mocelin G, et al. Resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes to Anthelmintics in sheep (Ovis aries). Braz Arch Biold Technol. 2004;47:41–7.Google Scholar
  23. Leathwick DM, Ganesh S, Waghorn TS. Evidence for reversion towards anthelmintic susceptibility in Teladorsagia circumcincta in response to resistance management programmes. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2015;5:9–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Silvestre A, Humbert JF. Diversity of benzimidazole-resistance alleles in populations of small ruminant parasites. Int J Parasitol. 2002;32:921–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Humbert JF, Cabaret J, Elard L, Leignel V, Silvestre A. Molecular approaches to studying benzimidazole resistance in trichostrongylid nematode parasites of small ruminants. Vet Parasitol. 2001;101:405–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Roos MH, Boersema JH, Borgsteede FH, Cornelissen J, Taylor M, Ruitenberg EJ. Molecular analysis of selection for benzimidazole resistance in the sheep parasite Haemonchus contortus. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1990;43:77–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rashwan N, Bourguinat C, Keller K, Gunawardena NK, de Silva N, Prichard R. Isothermal diagnostic assays for monitoring single nucleotide polymorphisms in Necator Americanus associated with Benzimidazole drug resistance. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10:e0005113.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Krücken J, Fraundorfer K, Mugisha JC, Ramünke S, Sifft KC, Geus D, et al. Reduced efficacy of albendazole against Ascaris lumbricoides in Rwandan schoolchildren. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2017;7(3):262–71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO. Assessing the epidemiology of soil-transmitted helminths during a transmission assessment survey in the global programme for the elimination of lymphatic filariasis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.Google Scholar
  30. das Neves JH, Carvalho N, Rinaldi L, Cringoli G, Amarante AF. Diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance in cattle in Brazil: a comparison of different methodologies. Vet Parasitol. 2014;206:216–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cringoli G, Rinaldi L, Maurelli MP, Utzinger JFLOTAC. New multivalent techniques for qualitative and quantitative copromicroscopic diagnosis of parasites in animals and humans. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:503–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Barda BD, Rinaldi L, Ianniello D, Zepherine H, Salvo F, Sadutshang T, et al. Mini-FLOTAC, an innovative direct diagnostic technique for intestinal parasitic infections: experience from the field. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(8):e2344.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Prichard RK, Hall CA, Kelly JD, Martin IC, Donald AD. The problem of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Aust Vet J. 1980;56:239–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Coles GC, Jackson F, Pomroy WE, Prichard RK, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Silvestre A, et al. The detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol. 2006;136:167–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwa MS, Veenstra JG, Roos MH. Benzimidazole resistance in Haemonchus contortus is correlated with a conserved mutation at amino acid 200 in beta-tubulin isotype 1. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1994;63:299–303.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ghisi M, Kaminsky R, Mäser P. Phenotyping and genotyping of Haemonchus contortus isolates reveals a new putative candidate mutation for benzimidazole resistance in nematodes. Vet Parasitol. 2007;144:313–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Knapp-Lawitzke F, Krücken J, Ramünke S, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Demeler J. Rapid selection for β-tubulin alleles in codon 200 conferring benzimidazole resistance in an Ostertagia ostertagi isolate on pasture. Vet Parasitol. 2015;209:84–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Demeler J, Krüger N, Krücken J, von der Heyden VC, Ramünke S, Küttler U, et al. Phylogenetic characterization of β-tubulins and development of pyrosequencing assays for benzimidazole resistance in cattle nematodes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e70212.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Furtado LF, Bello AC, Dos Santos HA, Carvalho MR, Rabelo ÉM. First identification of the F200Y SNP in the β-tubulin gene linked to benzimidazole resistance in Ancylostoma caninum. Vet Parasitol. 2014;206:313–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Diawara A, Drake LJ, Suswillo RR, Kihara J, Bundy DA, Scott ME, et al. Assays to detect beta-tubulin codon 200 polymorphism in Trichuris trichiura and Ascaris lumbricoides. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3:e397.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Melo AC, Bevilaquia CM. Genetic approach of anthelmintic resistance in Haemonchus contortus. RPCV. 2005;100:141–6.Google Scholar
  42. Redman E, Whitelaw F, Tait A, Burgess C, Bartley Y, Skuce PJ, et al. The emergence of resistance to the benzimidazole anthlemintics in parasitic nematodes of livestock is characterised by multiple independent hard and soft selective sweeps. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e0003494.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Ahid SMM, Cavalcante MDA, Bezerra ACDS, Soares HS, Pereira RHMA. Eficácia anti-helmíntica em rebanho caprino no estado de Alagoas. Brasil Acta Veter Brasilica. 2007;1:56–9.Google Scholar
  44. Amarante AFT, Barbosa MA, Oliveira MAG, Carmelo MJ, Padovani CR. Efeito da administração de oxfendazol, ivermectina e levamisol sobre os exames coproparasitológicos de ovinos. Braz J Vet. 1992;29:31–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Araujo NKS, Ahid SMM, Bezerra ACDS, Dias RGC, Ferreira HIP, Fagundes Neto JC, et al. Avaliação da eficácia dos anti-helmínticos ricobendazole e abamectina gel composto em equinos de Vaquejada. Acta Veter Brasilica. 2008;2:47–9.Google Scholar
  46. Borges FA, Nakamura AY, Almeida GD, Cadamuro VHA. Eficácia de formulações anti-hemílticas comerciais em equinos no município de Douradina. Paraná Ci Anim Bras. 2010;11:618–22.Google Scholar
  47. Brasil BS, Nunes RL, Bastianetto E, Drummond MG, Carvalho DC, Leite RC, et al. Genetic diversity patterns of Haemonchus placei and Haemonchus contortus populations isolated from domestic ruminants in Brazil. Int J Parasitol. 2012;42:469–79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Bruhn FRP, Lopes MA, Perazza CA, Demeu FA, Santos G, Franco Neto A, et al. Eficiência técnica e econômica da aplicação de diferentes anti-helmínticos em fêmeas da raça holandesa na fase de recria durante o outono-inverno de 2009. Acta Tecnológica. 2012;7:25–30.Google Scholar
  49. Cunha Filho LFC, Pereira ABL, Yamamura MH. Resistência a anti-helmínticos em ovinos da Região de Londrina, Paraná. Brasil Semina Ci Agr. 1998;19:31–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. de Souza LP, Lelis RT, Granja IR, DaMatta RA, Santos Cde P. Efficacy of albendazole and moxidectin and resistance to ivermectin against Libyostrongylus douglassii and Libyostrongylus dentatus in ostriches. Vet Parasitol. 2012;189:387–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. dos Santos JM, Monteiro JP, Ribeiro WL, Macedo IT, Camurça-Vasconcelos AL, Vieira Lda S, et al. Identification and quantification of benzimidazole resistance polymorphisms in Haemonchus contortus isolated in northeastern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2014;199:160–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Duarte ER, Silva RB, Vasconcelos VO, Nogueira FA, Oliveira NJF. Diagnóstico do controle e perfil de sensibilidade de nematódeos de ovinos ao albendazol e ao levamisol no norte de Minas Gerais. Pesq Vet Bras. 2012;32:147–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Echevarria F, Borba MF, Pinheiro AC, Waller PJ, Hansen JW. The prevalence of anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of sheep in southern Latin America: Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 1996;62:199–206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Farias MT, Bordin EL, Forbes AB, Newcomb KA. Survey on resistance to anthelmintics in sheep stud farms of southern Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 1997;72:209–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Klauck V, Pazinato R, Lopes LS, Cucco DC, Lima HL, Volpato A, et al. Trichostrongylus and Haemonchus anthelmintic resistance in naturally infected sheep from southern Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2014;86:777–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Lima MM, Farias MPO, Romeiro ET, Ferreira DRA, Alves LC, Faustino MAG. Eficácia da moxidectina, ivermectina e albendazole contra helmintos gastrintestinais em propriedades de criação caprina e ovina no estado de Pernambuco. Ci Anim Bras. 2010;11:94–100.Google Scholar
  57. Lima WC, Athayde ACR, Medeiros GR, Lima DASD, Borburema JB, Santos EM, et al. Nematoides resistentes a alguns anti-helmínticos em rebanhos caprinos no Cariri Paraibano. Pesq Vet Bras. 2010;30:1003–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Melo CFL, Bevilaquia CML, Selaive AV, Girão MD. Resistência a anti-helmínticos em nematoides gastrintestinais de ovinos e caprinos, no município de Pentecoste, estado do Ceará. Ciência. Animal. 1998;8:7–11.Google Scholar
  59. Melo ACFL, Reis IF, Bevilaquia CML, Vieira LS, Echevarria FAM, Melo LM. Nematódeos resistentes a anti-helmíntico em rebanhos de ovinos e caprinos do estado do Ceará, Brasil. Ciência Rural. 2003;33:339–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Niciura SC, Veríssimo CJ, Gromboni JG, Rocha MI, de Mello SS, Barbosa CM, et al. F200Y polymorphism in the β-tubulin gene in field isolates of Haemonchus contortus and risk factors of sheep flock management practices related to anthelmintic resistance. Vet Parasitol. 2012;190:608–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Nunes RL, Santos LL, Bastianetto E, Oliveira DAA, Brasil BSAF. Frequency of benzimidazole resistance in Haemonchus contortus populations isolated from buffalo, goat and sheep herds. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2013;22:548–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Pereira RHMA, Ahid SMM, Bezerra ACDS, Soares HS, Fonseca ZAAS. Diagnóstico da resistência dos nematoides gastrintestinais a anti-helmínticos em rebanhos caprino e ovino do RN. Acta Veter Brasilica. 2008;2:16–9.Google Scholar
  63. Ramos CI, Bellato V, Ávila VS, Coutinho GC, Souza AP. Resistência de parasitos gastrintestinais de ovinos a alguns anti-helmínticos no estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Ciência Rural. 2002;32:473–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Rodrigues AB, Athayde ACR, Rodrigues OG, Silva WW, Faria EB. Sensibilidade dos nematóides gastrintestinais de caprinos a anti-helmínticos na mesorregião do Sertão Paraibano. Pesq Vet Bras. 2007;27:162–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Santos FCC, Buzatti A, Scheuermann MM, Roll VFB, Vogel FSF. Resistência múltipla á anti-helmínticos num rebanho ovino no sul do Brasil. RPCV. 2014;109:33–7.Google Scholar
  66. Sczesny-Moraes EA, Bianchin I, Silva F, Catto JB, Honer MR, Paiva F. Resistência anti-helmíntica de nematoides gastrintestinais em ovinos, Mato Grosso do Sul. Pesq Vet Bras. 2010;30:229–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Soutello RG, Seno MC, Amarante AF. Anthelmintic resistance in cattle nematodes in northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2007;148:360–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Soutello RVG, Coelho WMD, Oliveira FP, Fonzar JF, Luquetti BC, Souza RFP, et al. Evaluation of reduction in egg shedding of gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle following administration of anthelmintics. Rev Bras Parasitol Vet. 2010;19:183–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Souza AP, Ramos CI, Bellatol V, Sartor AA, Schelbauer CA. Resistência de helmintos gastrintestinais de bovinos a anti-helmínticos no Planalto Catarinense. Ciência Rural. 2008;38:1363–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Souza ALSO, Athayde ACR, Olinto FA. Sensibilidade dos nematoides gastrintestinais de caprinos leiteiros à anti-helmínticos no município de Sumé, Paraíba. Brasil ACSA. 2013;9:33–6.Google Scholar
  71. Veríssimo CJ, Niciura SC, Alberti AL, Rodrigues CF, Barbosa CM, Chiebao DP, et al. Multidrug and multispecies resistance in sheep flocks from São Paulo state, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2012;187:209–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Vieira LS, Cavalcante ACR. Resistência anti-helmíntica em rebanhos caprinos no Estado do Ceará. Pesq Vet Bras. 1999;19:99–103.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Vieira LS, Gonçalves PC, Costa CAF, Berne MEA. Redução e esterilização de ovos de nematódeos gastrintestinais em caprinos medicados com anti-helmínticos benzimidazóis. Pesq Agropec Bras. 1989;24:1255–65.Google Scholar
  74. Vieira LS, Berne MEA, Cavalcante ACR, Menezes RCAA. Redução do número de ovos por grama de fezes (opg) em caprinos e ovinos medicados com anti-helmíntico. Bol Pes Embrapa. 1989;11:5–14.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement