Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29973276›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2018

Anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of alpacas (Vicugna pacos) in Australia.

Mohammed H Rashid, Jane L Vaughan, Mark A Stevenson, Angus J D Campbell, Ian Beveridge, Abdul Jabbar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Alpaca (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammed H RashidDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia.
Jane L VaughanCria Genesis, PO Box 406, Ocean Grove, Victoria, 3226, Australia.
Mark A StevensonDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia.
Angus J D CampbellDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia.
Ian BeveridgeDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia.
Abdul JabbarDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, The University of Melbourne, Werribee, Victoria, 3030, Australia. jabbara@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8888-0046
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Agrifutures Australia PRJ-009985Agrifutures Australia PRJ-010002Melbourne Research, University of Melbourne Australian Postgraduate Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, MultipleAnimalsAnthelminticsAustraliaCamelids, New WorldCommunicable Disease ControlFarmsFecesFemaleGastrointestinal TractIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMaleNematodaNematode InfectionsParasite Egg CountPolymerase Chain ReactionAnthelminticsAlpacasAnthelminticAustraliaNematodesResistance

Identifiers

PMID29973276
PMCPMC6031175
OpenAlexW2810089464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.